Cyberbullying Surveys Analysis - Dissertation Example

? Introduction Bullying has been one of parents’ and educators’ major concerns with children. It is heartbreaking to realize that someone has been threatening, or worse, creating damage to children either physically, emotionally or psychologically. School grounds have often been the setting for such vicious events among children and adolescents, but now, due to developments in technology, such as the use of mobile phones or making connections via the internet, it is much easier for someone to get targeted by bullies. This is known as cyberbullying, which is considered a form of aggression directed towards someone over “cyberspace” by texting on mobile phones, posting damaging messages in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. or other technological means. Almeida et al. (2012) reported from the first survey on cyberbulling they carried out in 2008 that 11% of students enrolled in the seventh to ninth grade in junior high school reported incidents of cyberbullying through mobile phones and 10% via the internet. The second survey launched the following year included older students in the tenth to twelfth grade. Older students spent more time on the internet than younger students and were more involved in cyberbullying activities through social networking sites. These doubled in frequency between junior high and secondary school including cyberbullying via mobile phones. Students who reported having had experiences in both traditional bullying and cyberbullying was at an alarming rate of 32%. The students also reported that there is a 47% overlap of bullying in both traditional and cyberbullying as against 13% of students who experienced cyberbullying without previous experiences in any form of bullying. From Kowalski & Liber’s (2007) study on cyberbullying among middle school students in the United States, they found that 11% of their 3,767 participants were victims of cyberbullying, 7% were both cyberbullies and cybervictims and 4% were cyberbullies at least once in the recent months prior to their participation in the study. Cyberbullying has been known to cause extensive and potentially severe consequences such as school refusal, depression and even suicide (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Cyberbullying Olweus (1993) has defined bullying as the intentional, negative actions of a person over an extended period of time which involves repeated attacks on another individual who is unable to defend him/herself. The attacks may be direct (physical or verbal harassment) or indirect (social exclusion, gossip, withdrawal of friendship, etc.). With cyberbullying, the same features may be presented but the difference is that it is committed through the use of modern communication technologies, mostly with messaging software and social networking services (Williams & Guerra, 2007). Smith et al. (2008) define cyberbullying as ‘an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ (p. 376). Forms of cyberbullying include online harassment, intimidation, spreading malicious information about the cybervictim and blackmail (Barlinska et al., 2013). The prevalence of cyberbullying may be due to the anonymity it involves on the part of the perpetrator. Cyberbullies may simply create an anonymous email account or use an unnamed mobile phone card without being traced to him or her (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Because of this, they feel a stronger feeling of power and freedom from punishment than traditional bullies. In addition, cyberbullying can occur anywhere and at any time because with the current communication technologies, cybervictims cannot hide, since the technology just springs up the bullying messages to them anytime. Cyberbulllies benefit from a possible wider audience of his bullying activity while enjoying a greater invisibility as compared to traditional bullies (Willard, 2006). Online anonymity may give cyberbullies more courage to inflict pain on their victims because a sense of responsibility is perceived to be minimized (McKenna, 2008). This leads to disinhibition which may be characterized by the loss of self-control and the absence of restraints in social behavior typical of direct interaction (Joinson, 1998; Suler, 2004). During online interaction, access of the bully to pertinent information about the responses of the victim provided by facial expressions, eye contact or physical distance may be lacking. Such non-verbal cues may spell the difference in modifying behaviors of the cyberbully and others who witness the cyberbullying situation (Suler, 2004). This has been termed as the ‘cockpit effect’ (Heirman & Walrave, 2008) wherein the limited feedback on the impact of the cyberbullying produces leaves bystanders unaware of the actual harm caused to the victim (Kraft, 2011). However, empathy for the victim may be triggered in the bystander in trying to place themselves in his position especially if the cyberbully has gone into disinhibition (Suler, 2004). Bystanders can intervene by posting an opposing message in behalf of the victim. If the bystander possesses information regarding the cyberbully, he can report the cyberbully to persons of authority such as the victim’s parents or school heads (Sulkowski, 2011). These are the bystander’s attempts to stop cyberbullying behavior. Empathy The factor of empathy plays a huge role in reducing or stopping bullying behavior. It is the shared emotional response between two individuals (Feshbach & Roe, 1968). Eisenberg & Strayer (1987) define empathy as ‘an emotional response that stems from another’s emotional state or condition’ which ‘is congruent with the other’s emotional state or situation’, (p. 5). Feshbach’s (1982) integrative cognitive-affective model of empathy involved three components, namely: the individual’s cognitive ability to discriminate affective cues in others; mature cognitive skill in assuming the perspective and role of others; and the affective ability to experience the emotions of others. Davis (1994) describes dispositional empathy as a multidimensional construct having cognitive and affective/emotional components. The cognitive component is the perspective taking (PT) component that makes one identify and understand other people’s perspective while the affective component is the emphatic concern (EC) that makes one experience concern or sympathy towards others. Each component may be present without the other. Aggression & Empathy Miller and Eisenberg (1988) have extensively studied the relation between empathy and aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence. They found that emphatic responsiveness tames down individuals’ aggressive tendencies, and highly empathic people get to moderate their behaviors. Normally, people are able to emotionally anticipate the negative consequences if they allow their aggression to take over them (Hoffman, 2000). The cognitive component of empathy allows an individual to understand the position of others, such as the disposition of the victim in a bullying scenario. This lessens the likelihood of aggression in them (Feshbach, 1978). The affective component of empathy makes an aggressor feel the victim’s pain, so it inhibits his own aggressive behavior to avoid the emotional stress it causes and reduces the suffering of the victim (Batson et al., 1989; Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998). Hence, both cognitive and affective components of empathy mitigate aggression and violence. Studies on people committing violent offences show that they have lower empathy than those who did not, but it was only for affective empathy (Marcus & Gray, 1988). This is consistent with Sutton et al’s (1999) conclusion that people who commit violent offenses are unable to feel the emotions their victims are feeling but are able to understand such emotions. This reflects a similarity to the description of psychopaths, who are more likely to display violence (Harpur et al., 1988) and are manipulative of their victims because they understand how they feel and design means to further spread violence, but they lack emotional depth and empathy for their victims (Hart, Cox & Hare, 1995; Tangney & Steuwig, 2004). Similarly, Jolliffe & Farrington (2004) confirmed the positive relationship between antisocial behaviors and low levels of empathy. This is more evident in adolescents and young adults. Bullying and Empathy With regards to bullying, traditional stereotypes of bullies characterize them as having good levels of social intelligence and can understand other people’s mental states (Andreou, 2004, 2006; Sutton and Keogh, 2000). However, they lack emphatic skills or the ability to understand the emotional consequences of their behaviors on others and experience the same feelings with them (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001; Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998). Some studies suggest that if a victim displays distress, it only reinforces the bullies’ behavior (Davis, 1994). This means that bullies understand other’s emotions but do not share them (Sutton et al., 1999). However, if bystanders have high empathy, they can be instrumental in stopping the bullying activity by intervening. Although it is possible for an individual to have high cognitive empathy but low affective empathy, it does not discount the fact that both forms of empathy are important to have as part of his social skills (Ang & Goh, 2010). With this information, this study is interested in building up both cognitive and affective empathy in all students because it key to intervention of bullying behaviors and has great potential in stopping bullies from engaging in such behaviors. The Role of Bystanders in Bullying Craig & Pepler (1995) contend that in 85% of cases, a bullying episode involves a third party apart from the bully and the victim. Bystanders play a significant role in bullying. They may fuel the fire started by the perpetrator through verbal support, choose to stay silent, not take any side or put a stop to it. In 25% of cases, they intervene to defend the victim (O’connell, Pepler & Craig, 1999). Another important statistic regarding bystander intervention in bullying is that in almost 60% of the time, bullying stops in 10 seconds when a bystander intervenes (Craig & Pepler, 1995). Intervention may come in the way of actively defending the victim or reporting the bully to a person of authority so he will be dealt with. Barnett et al. (1981) showed that empathy may be triggered by witnessing someone else’s prosocial behaviors toward another individual needing help. Such empathy triggered in them is transferred to the person needing help and they are motivated to likewise extend help. This implies that highly empathic individuals are more helpful than their less empathic peers. In terms of bullying situations, students who stand up for the victim have been identified to be competent in social cognition, moral cognition and have high levels of empathic responsiveness (Camodeca and Goossens, 2005; Gini, 2006; Davis, 1994; Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998; Hoffman, 2001). Ahmed (2008) suggests that intervening as a bystander in a bullying situation requires social competence in dealing with a stressful event and knowing what to do. It is a responsible behavior motivated to protect the victim and maintain safety and respect in their common environment. Although the bystander may be moved by empathy with how the victim feels, Ahmed (2008) argues that it takes more than empathy to combat bullying because he will likewise be vulnerable to the attacks of the bully. Active involvement by coming forward and intervening to stop those engaged in bullying entails courage in the bystander who should be well equipped with the a commitment to “a ‘safe school’ culture; a sense of responsibility beyond oneself; the capacity to regulate one’s own behavior and the capacity to regulate effectively others’ behavior in a challenging situation” (Ahmed, 2008, p. 205). A bystander’s negative behavior such as the act of forwarding a damaging message about a victim may very well turn him into a perpetrator (Spears, Slee, Owens & Johnson, 2008). Bystanders may not perceive themselves as actual participants, however, they do contribute to the harassment of the victim (Kraft, 2011). They may hide under the blanket of online anonymity, and this is responsible in making adolescents susceptible to participation in the cyberbullying perpetration (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). However, empathy is still effective in mitigating negative bystander behavior. If the bystander can relate to the position of the victim, feel the pain inflicted on the victim by being helplessly maligned online (high affective empathy), it is more likely that he will intervene in stopping the bully from harassing the victim further (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). On the other hand, bystanders with low empathy, when exposed to cyberbullying on a regular basis, are more likely to develop overall tolerance for it. For them, cyberbullying is not that big a deal, hence, cyberbullying may be socially acceptable to some degree. Another factor that can encourage negative bystander behavior is the experience of prior victimization. This may lower a bystander’s empathy for the victim and can be motivated to enact forms of bullying himself in order to retaliate to others, resolving his own bullying issues (Barlinska et al., 2013). Barlinska et al.’s (2013) study confirmed the role of the activation of empathy in mitigating the support of bystanders for cyberbullying. Being aware of the situation affecting the well-being of the bullying target curbs the tendency to further contribute to the bullying such as sending a defamatory message online. Chibbaro (2007) suggest that adolescents should be trained to view the situation from the victim’s perspective and to vicariously experience his emotions while being bullied whether online or in actual situations as opposed to justifying the bullying situation by blaming a victim for being bullied (such as provoking the bully or having done something negative previously). However, it is challenging to generalize the development of cognitive and affective empathy skills from an offline to an online context because online situations have inherently reduced social-contextual cues. Thus, identification of serious and real consequences of cyberbullying such as suicide of the victim should be done to send the message that if such a consequence can happen to a peer, then it could happen to anyone else, including them (Ang & Goh, 2010). School Connectedness School connectedness refers to a student’s sense of belonging to his school with an emotional attachment that motivates him to be an active agent in adhering to the standards and norms of the school (Cialdini, et al., 1997; Baumeister & Leary, 1999). Feeling connected to the school makes students achieve higher grades and more engaged in taking responsibility and feeling upset for any damage done within the school community. They are also well behaved and are not likely to be engaged in bullying and harassment (Finn & Rock, 1997; Ahmed et al., 2001; Eisenberg, et al., 2003). Conversely, if individuals do not have great connectedness to conventional worlds such as their family or school, it increases the probability of being involved in detrimental behaviors such as bullying (Karcher, 2004). Several studies support the theory that students who experience connectedness with their school remain actively engaged and enjoy school and are less likely to be engaged in negative behaviors such as bullying (Cemovich & Giordana, 1992, O’Donnell, Hawkins & Abbott, 1995). Ahmed’s (2008) findings from his study show that bystanders in bullying activities who feel connection with their schools are more likely to intervene in the bullying. A sense of responsibility and confidence is developed in the student that enables him to find courage in intervening to restore justice for the victim. It is essential for the school authorities to equip students with skills in bullying intervention because students witness bullying episodes more frequently than teachers (11% vs. 4%). Finally, it was found that bystanders who intervene are more likely to do it again in the future (Craig & Pepler, 1995) suggesting that students can actively intervene in a bullying situation without being harmed themselves. However schools should not completely leave bullying intervention to students alone because these students need to feel supported for what they do and share the school advocacy for mutual respect and human rights (Ahmed, 2008). Karcher (2004) proposed a theory of connectedness that brings about “active involvement and caring for others” (p.4). He claims that a sense of connectedness to one’s family, school or friends greatly influences an adolescent’s decision-making process. The degree of school connectedness a student has will determine his willingness (or uncooperation) to report bullying episodes he witnessed. Karcher also suggested that school connectedness can counterbalance an adolescent student’s increasing connectedness to his friends. In relation to school connectedness, Sulkowski’s (2011) study found that trust in the school support system is also positively related to bystander’s willingness to intervene and eventually report bullying or threats to safety of the school that they have knowledge of beforehand. On the other hand, students who feel disconnected to the school exhibit low trust in the school personnel and are less likely to report bullying or threats to violence. Tisak & Tisak, (1996) reported that when the aggressor is a friend of the bystander, the bystander will think of the consequences that will be brought about by his intervention rather than the welfare of his friend’s bullied victim. Levine et al. (2002) also found that the relationship of the bystander to other bystanders and the relationship of the bystander to the victim also influenced bystander decisions. Their study revealed that if the fellow bystanders were considered in-group members, then the bystander is bound to intervene knowing he will have the support of his in-group fellow bystanders. Also if the victim was viewed as an in-group member, the bystander is also likely to help. In view of the foregoing discussion, the current study is interested to explore if the factors of empathy and school connectedness are truly effective in pushing bystanders to intervene in a bullying situation. Hence, the following hypotheses are posted as follows: Hypothesis 1: It is expected that participants who are high in empathy are more likely to intervene in a bullying situation than participants who are low on empathy. Hypothesis 2: It is expected that participants who have high school connectedness are more likely to intervene in a bullying situation than participants who are low on school connectedness. References Ahmed, E. (2008) ‘Stop it, that's enough’: Bystander intervention and its relationship to school connectedness and shame management, Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Journal for Research, Policy and Care, 3:3, 203-213 Almeida, A., Correia, I., Marinho, S. and Garcia, D. (2012) Virtual but not Less Real A Study of Cyberbullying and Its Relations to Moral Disengagement and Empathy in Qing, L. Cross, D. & Smith, P.K. (eds) Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives, First Edition. Andreou E. 2004. Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and self-efficacy in Greek primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74:297–309. Andreou E. 2006. Social preference, perceived popularity and social intelligence. Relations to overt and relational aggression. School Psychology International 27:339–351. Ang, R.P. & Goh, D.H. (2010) Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: The Role of Affective and Cognitive Empathy, and Gender, Child Psychiatry Human Development 41:387–397 Batson CD, Batson JG, Griffitt CA, Barrientos S, Brandt JR, Sprengelmeyer P, Bayly MJ. 1989. Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56:922–933. Barlinska, J., Szuster, A. & Winiewski, M.J. (2013) Cyberbullying among Adolescent Bystanders: Role of the Communication Medium, Form of Violence and Empathy, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23: 37–51 Barnett, M.A., Howard, J.A., King, L.M. and Dino, G.A. (1981) Helping Behavior and the Transfer of Empathy, The Journal of Social Psychology, 115: 125-132 Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. Cemkovich, S. & Giordana, P. (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology, 31, 261 - 291. Chibbaro JS (2007) School counselors and the cyberbully: interventions and implications. Professional School Counselling, 11:65–67 Cialdini, R., Brown, S., Lewis, B., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494. Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D.J. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: An observational study. Exceptionality Education Canada, 5, 81–95. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Eisenberg N, Fabes F. 1998. Prosocial development. In: Eisenberg N, (ed). ‘‘Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume 3: Social, Emotional and Personality Development, 5th edition,’’ New York: Wiley, pp 701–778. Eisenberg N, Strayer J. 1987. ‘‘Empathy and Its Development.’’ New York: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberg, M.E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C.L. (2003). Peer harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73, 311– 316. Feshbach, N. D. (1975). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 5, 25–30. Feshbach, N. D. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social behavior in children. In Eisenberg (Ed.), The development o f prosocial behavior (pp. 315- 338). New York: Academic Press. Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six and seven-year-olds. Child Development, 39, 133-145. Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234. Gini G. 2006. Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What’s wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32:528–539. Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure of the psychopathy checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741–747. Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). The Hare PCL: Screening version. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. (2009) Bullying. Beyond the schoolyard. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoffman ML. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman ML. 2001. Toward a comprehensive empathy-based theory of prosocial moral development. In: Bohart A, Stipek D, (eds). Constructive & Destructive Behavior: Implications for Family, School, & Society, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp 61–86. Joinsen AN (1998) Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In: Gackenbach J (ed) Psychology and the Internet: intrapersonal, interpersonal and transpersonal implications. Academic Press, New York, pp 43–60 Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476. Karcher, M. J. (2004). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for developmental interventions. In E. Gerler (Ed.), Handbook of school violence. New York: Hawthorn Press. Kowalski RM, Limber SP (2007) Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health 41:S22–S30 Kraft, E. (2011). Online Bystanders: Are they the key to preventing cyberbullying Retrieved on 03 Dec 2013 from http://www.elementalethics.com/files/Ellen_Kraft_PhD.pdf Levine, M., Cassidy, C., & Brazier, G. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander nonintervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(7), 1452-1463. Marcus, R. F., & Gray, L. (1998). Close relationships of violent and nonviolent African American delinquents. Violence and Victims, 13, 31–46. Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relationship of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324–344. O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452. O’ Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995). Predicting serious delinquency and substance use among aggressive boys. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63(5), 529-537. Olweus D. 1993. Bullying at School. What We Know and What We can Do, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Raskauskas J, Stoltz AD (2007) Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology 43:564–575 Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, 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, 376–385. Sulkowski, M.L.(2011) An Investigation Of Students‘ Willingness To Report Threats Of Violence In Campus Communities, A Dissertation Presented To The Graduate School Of The University Of Florida In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy. Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenham J. 1999. Bullying and ‘‘theory of mind’’: A critique of the ‘‘social skills deficit’’ view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development 8:117–134. Tangney, J., & Stuewig, J. (2004). A moral emotion perspective on evil persons and evil deeds. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil: Understanding our capacity for kindness and cruelty (pp. 327–358). New York: Guilford Press. Tisak, M. S. & Tisak, J. (1996). My sibling’s but not my friend’s keeper: Reasoning about responses to aggressive acts. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(3), 324- 339. Willard N. (2006) Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: responding to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. Read More