Author: Powell, Joey, B. Graduate Degree/ Major: M.S. Ed in School Psychology. Submission Term/Year: Fall, Number of Pages: 39

Transcription

1 1 Author: Powell, Joey, B. Title: Cyberbullying The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial completion of the requirements for the Graduate Degree/ Major: M.S. Ed in School Psychology Research Adviser: Barbara Flom, Ph.D. Submission Term/Year: Fall, 2011 Number of Pages: 39 Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition -~ I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website I2SI I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. STUDENT'S NAME: Joey STUDENT'S SIGNATURE: ADVISER'S NAME: Barbara Florr} ADVISER'S SIGNATURE: DATE: jc;l f:j 1 J I J This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) I. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME: SIGNATURE: 2. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME: SIGNATURE: 3. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME: SIGNATURE: DATE: DATE: DATE: This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School. (Director, Office of Graduate Studies) (Date)

2 2 Powell, Joey B. Cyberbullying Abstract This paper is designed to address the effects of cyberbullying, the role of the schools in preventing and responding to cybebullying, and the role of the school psychologist in cyberbullying prevention. The various negative effects that cyberbullying causes children are discussed including their social, emotional, and physical well-being. The role of the school in preventing cyberbullying is discussed including specific case studies that help inform schools of their authority when handling situations of cyberbullying. The role the school psychologist is cyberbullying prevention is also discussed. Articles were reviewed that discussed methods in which the school psychologist could be a leader and advocate for their school in cyberbullying prevention.

3 3 Table of Contents... Page Abstract...2 Chapter I: Introduction...5 Statement of the Problem...7 Purpose of the Study...7 Research Questions...7 Definition of Terms...8 Assumptions and Limitations...8 Chapter II: Literature Review...10 Effects of Cyberbullying...10 Gender Differences...13 Race Differences...14 Grade Differences...14 Schools and Cyberbullying...14 Case Law...15 Prevention and Response...19 Role of the School Psychologist...25 Chapter III: Summary, Critical Analysis, & Recommendations...29 Summary and Key Points...29 Critical Analysis...31 Recommendations for Research...33 Recommendations for Educators and School Psychologists...34

4 References

5 5 Chapter I: Introduction In recent years technological advances have dramatically increased. The popularity of cell phones and websites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Youtube has skyrocketed in the past decade. These advances have allowed people to be constantly connected to other people no matter what the situation or how many miles separate them. For most people this is a luxury. For children being bullied, the ability of being constantly connected with everybody is their nightmare. Cyberbullying is a relatively new form of bullying that is affecting the youth of today, and the emotional trauma can be severe for those who are targeted. When Megan Meiers turned fourteen, her parents hesitantly allowed her to create a Myspace page (Collins, 2008, January). Later that month she received a friend request from a boy named Josh Evans (Collins, 2008, January). Josh was not a real person, he was a fake (Collins, 2008, January). The profile was created by one of the neighbors who lived down the street and used the picture of a good looking young boy to intrigue Megan s interest. At the beginning, the report said that Lori Drew initiated and monitored the account for Josh. She later said that she only agreed to the idea and her daughter and a girl named Ashley Grills initiated the account (Collins, 2008, January). Insults were thrown back and forth between Megan and Josh. The final message Megan received from Josh said, You re a shitty person, and the world would be a better place without you in it. Shortly afterward, Megan hung herself with a belt in her room (Collins, 2008, January). Another young girl who fell victim to cyberbullying started with a video of herself that she posted on YouTube. Jessi s attempt to get her tormenters to leave her alone via the YouTube video made things worse, and hostility escalated. YouTube videos were made in response

6 6 mocking her video. The girl said she never meant for this to go this far and she had just used her webcam to vent her frustrations. After this situation transpired, she started going to counseling (Black, 2010). These are just two of thousands of children that have been cyberbullied at some point on their life. Patchin and Hinduja (2011) have conducted seven research projects since 2002 that included over 12,000 students from over 80 different schools. Their research shows that a meaningful proportion of adolescents have been cyberbullied or have cyberbullied others at some time in their life (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Patchin and Hinduja (2011) reviewed 35 papers from peer-reviewed journals and found that victimization rates ranged from 5.5% to 72%, with an average of 24.4%. The most recent research by Patchin and Hinduja, which was collected in the Spring of 2010, found that about 21% of youth and been a target of cyberbullying. This means that about one of every five kids you know have been cyberbullied (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). This research study (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011) listed different types of cyberbullying and asked the students to mark which types they have encountered in the past days. The most common type was someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online, with 14% of students reporting that experience. The least common type of cyberbullying reported was someone posted a mean or hurtful video of me online with 3% of students indicating that experience. About 13% of students reported that someone spread rumors about them online and 7% reported they had been threatened online (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). The number of students who admit they have cyberbullied others at some point in their life in somewhat lower, but comparable to percentage of students who have reported being cyberbullied. In 27 peer-reviewed journals that indicated cyberbullying offending rates, %

7 7 of teens reported cyberbullying others. The average rate of these studies was 18%. The most recent research by Patchin and Hinduja reported that 16.8% of youth admitted to cyberbullying others (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). This means that a little bit less than one out of every five adolescents has cyberbullied someone else in some point of their life. According to Patchin and Hinduja (2011) these rates are consistent with the other research available on this topic. In Patchin and Hinduja s own research (2011) they asked youth if they had engaged in any of the types of cyberbullying. The authors found that 11% reported they had engaged in one or more of those behaviors, two or more times in the past 30 days. The study reported that about 9% of youth admitted to posting mean or hurtful comments about someone online, and 5% had threatened someone online in the past 30 days (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Statement of Problem Cyberbullying is a relatively new form of bullying that is taking place due to the expansion and popularity of technology and social networks. Because technology and social media websites allow people to be constantly connected, the amount of time over the course of the day an individual could be potentially bullied dramatically increases. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this comprehensive literature review and analysis is to examine and critique the body of evidence about cyberbullying preventative measures. The review was conducted in the Fall of This critical analysis was conducted to provide parents and school faculty information about cyberbullying, determine what preventative techniques are effective in reducing cyberbullying, and investigate what the school psychologist s role is in cyberbullying prevention. Research Questions

8 8 This study addressed three research questions: 1. What does research say are the effects of cyberbullying? 2. What does research say about the school s role in preventing or responding to cyberbullying? 3. What is the school psychologists role in cyberbullying prevention? Definition of Terms Some important terms need to be defined for a better understanding of the study: Cyberbullying: The willfull and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Physical Bullying: Demonstrations of aggression by pushing, kicking, hitting, gesturing, or otherwise invading the physical space of another person in an unwelcome manner tampering with or destruction of another person s property (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Relational Bullying: Demonstrations of aggression through exclusion, rejection, and isolation to damage a person s position and relationship with a social group (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Verbal Bullying: Demonstrations of aggression through insults, teasing, cursing, threatening, or otherwise expressing unkind words toward another person (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Assumptions and Limitations of the Study It is assumed that since cyberbullying is a new form of bullying, the literature base will be limited. It is also assumed that since there is not a good understanding of cyberbullying yet, most educators may not know effective prevention techniques. Some limitations of this literature review are that cyberbullying is a new form of bullying, so the amount of research on the topic

9 9 may be limited. Some books and peer reviewed, research based articles will be used, but not all of them will be research based or peer reviewed. These sources will be indicated and should be viewed with caution.

10 10 Chapter II: Literature Review This literature review will discuss the effects of cyberbullying, the school s role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The review will also discuss the school psychologist s role in cyberbullying prevention. Effects of Cyberbullying 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 17 year old boy from New Jersey about his experience of being cyberbullied. Cyberbullying can have a serious impact on a child. Children who have experienced cyberbullying are sometimes embarrassed or afraid to go to school. Research has shown that there is a link between cyberbullying and low self-esteem, family problems, academic problems, school violence, and delinquent behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Hinduja and Patchin have shown that cyberbullying causes children to struggle more with emotional, psychological, and behavioral problems than children who have not been cyberbullied. Cyberbullying has also been shown to cause children to have more suicidal thoughts than students who have not been cyberbullied, and sadly some of these students who do have suicidal thoughts end up taking their own life (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Another student was quoted as saying, It makes me hurt both physically and mentally. It scares me and takes away all of my confidence. It makes me feel sick and worthless (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011, p.48) Hinduja and Patchin, two leading researchers in the field of cyberbullying, have observed the effects of cyberbullying on teens. They have reported that the targets of bullying typically feel depressed, sad, angry, and frustrated (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011).

11 11 A study done by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that since 1999, the amount of use of technology has risen dramatically for children. They reported that 93% of children between the ages of 8 to 18 have computers in their house, 66% of them cell phones, and 76% own some type of other multimedia device, like an ipod (Holladay, 2011). These numbers have heightened the risk that a student will be bullied because students have constant access to each other. The internet has also made bullying possible from different cities, states, or countries. When children are hundreds or thousands of miles away from their target, they do not consider how their comments may affect someone (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Psychosocial effects of cyberbullying are not the only way a child may be affected. Another area that should be addressed when thinking about the effects of cyberbullying is physical health and academic performance of students (Bhat, 2008). Nishina, Juvonen, and Witkow (2005), found that victims of bullying internalized their feelings of depression, anxiety, and loneliness, and they tended to become disengaged from school, which made their academic performance suffer. Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007) reported that students who were cyberbullied were more likely to have two or three more detentions or skip school. It was also reported that students who were cyberbullied are eight times more likely than other students to carry a weapon to school. In 2008, Mason reported that victims of cyberbullying had suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and chronic illness. Many of the people who had experienced cyberbullying felt depressed, which could last into adulthood. When the victim was persistently bullied during the school year, the victim could experience long term effects. Former victims of bullying have been reported to be more depressed, with a lower, poorer self-esteem. Bullying was found to have a

12 12 significant impact on students, which left a lot of pain and hurt affecting them for years after the experience (Mason, 2008). Hinduja and Patchin also found a relationship between cyberbullying and suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). They found that those who experience cyberbullying, either as victim or offender, are significantly more likely to report they have had suicidal thought or attempts. Victims of cyberbullying were almost twice as likely as non-victims to have attempted suicide. Hinduja and Patchin explain this by the struggles these students have socially and academically and their low self-confidence or clinical depression caused by being a victim of cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Cyberbullying can affect a child s social, emotional, and psychological well-being, but another study showed that cyberbullying can also affect the development of the brain (Teicher et. al., 2010). One aspect of the human brain is that it continues to develop after birth. When the environment around an individual is hostile or socially unhealthy, the development of the brain can be negatively affected. Teicher and other colleagues from Harvard Medical School reported that taunting and verbal abuse from middle school peers left a structural imprint on the brain that was similar to a scar (Teicher et. al., 2010). Teicher et. al., (2010) included individuals aged with no history of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or parental physical abuse who were asked to rate how often they were exposed to verbal abuse when they were children. Those who reported experiencing verbal abuse had underdeveloped corpus callosa, the region of connection between the right and left sides of the brain. This could lead to shifts in mood and problems with social intelligence. The study reported that the group of people who experienced some type of verbal abuse had higher levels of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and drug abuse (Teicher et. al., 2010).

13 13 Victims of cyberbullying are not the only ones affected. Those who engage in cyberbullying themselves can experience long term effects related to their bullying behavior. Many of those who have been involved in antisocial behavior later in their life were bullies at one time in their school (Mason, 2008). Gender differences. Several studies have attempted to determine if there are any gender differences within cyberbullying (Lenhart, 2007; Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006). Most of the research in this area has shown that girls are just as likely as, or more likely than boys to be involved with cyberbullying. From 13 different published papers that report differences in cyberbullying victimization by gender, eight of them found that girls are more frequently the victims, three reported that boys were more frequently the victim, and two of them showed no difference. From these studies 21.8% of the girls and 19.5% of boys reported being a victim of cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Typically, when regarding bullying on the playground, boys have been more consistently involved. Boys tend to display their bullying through physical aggression. Some studies have shown that girls tend to be more involved with indirect or relational bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Many different studies have reported on gender differences, but with different results. In 2006, Smith et al. found that girls were significantly more likely to be cyberbullied, especially by text messages and phone calls (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Another study by Li (2006) found no gender differences for being the victim of cyberbullying, but cyberbullying others was twice as high in boys than girls. Two years earlier, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found no significant gender differences of internet aggressors or victims. Patchin and Hinduja (2011) offer a couple of explanations of why they think some studies have shown girls to be more involved with cyberbullying. Their first explanation is that girls

14 14 have had more experience with relational and other indirect, non-physical, forms of aggression, and technology allows bullies to more frequently be able act out in these ways anonymously. Their second explanation is girls typical do not use physical force, but instead talk behind someone s back or try to disrupt social relationships and technology can be utilized for this purpose (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Race differences. Research done by Patchin and Hinduja (2011) found that there was no significant difference in experiences with cyberbullying in terms of race (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Patchin and Hinduja (2011) reported that their findings were consistent with previous research regarding cyberbullying and race. They found that all races included in the study (White/Caucasian, Hispanic, Black/African American, and Asian) were victims of cyberbullying at equivalent rates. They suggested that a reason for this is in the world of cyberspace, race plays less of a role in bullying because the actions are committed online and not face-to-face (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Grade differences. Some research shows that the age where cyberbullying is most prevalent is during middle school years and it diminished during high school (Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2009; Williams & Guerra, 2007). In research by Patchin and Hinduja (2011), the authors found that the rate of cyberbullying initially spiked during middle school, which was then followed by a steady increase later into high school. The grades that reported the highest levels of cyberbullying were eleventh and twelfth grades, which was 10-12% in the previous 30 days (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Schools and Cyberbullying The school s response to cyberbullying is dependent upon the specific state laws that have been passed about the topic of cyberbullying. One of the most difficult issues with

15 15 cyberbullying is staying up-to-date with the changing and evolving state and local laws in regard to cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has become one of the most significant new issues for school administrators to deal with, and the varying state laws in regard to cyberbullying does not give clear guidance or support for law enforcement in schools. As of March 1 st, 2011, 45 states had laws regarding bullying, and 31 of those states included some mentioning of electronic forms of harassment. Most of these laws direct schools districts to have a bullying or harassment policy in place. Only a few of the states actually discuss the content of the policy (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). The state of Wisconsin has a bullying law and separate statues that regulate electronic forms of communication. In Wisconsin it is a misdemeanor to make threats to inflict injury or personal harm through the use or or other electronic device. In most other states, bullying an individual is not a crime, but is still not allowed in schools and requires the district to set up notification, investigation, training, and assessment procedures (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Case law. Current case law allows school administrators to discipline students for their behavior involving cyberbullying as long as they have a clear policy prohibiting and defining the behavior. This is true even if the cyberbullying behavior happens off-campus as long as it can be shown that the behaviors substantially disrupted the victim s learning environment at the school. With the vast differences in state laws, it is important for school law enforcement and other school faculty to be well aware of what state laws and school policy allow them to do in situations that involve cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Patchin and Hinduja (2011) also pointed out that some types of online harassment have fallen under previous statutes. They reported that there have been times where officers have charged students with disorderly conduct in situations where the behavior of the student has

16 16 clearly disrupted the educational purposes of the school. With this being a possibility, law enforcement officials should consult and work with the local district attorney to have a clear understanding of what current statutes may apply to be situation (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). The case laws that have been associated with cyberbullying in recent years do not give clear guidance on the authority of the school in regard to a student s free speech and how it can apply to cyberbullying, but understanding those cases and their outcomes could be beneficial for a school district when implementing cyberbullying policies for their school. Federal courts have typically ruled that the school has the right to respond to off-school issues, such as student speech, if that speech has been thought to cause an obvious disruption at school or interfere with the rights of the student to be and feel secure (Willard, 2008). This issue came from the federal case Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). After this court case, people started to call issues like this the Tinker standard. The types of situations that have met the Tinker standard involve violent verbal or physical situations, an environment that did not allow a student to participate in school activities, and interference with the learning process. When considering hostile environments, schools have been able to restrict students from wearing shirts or other clothing that has something printed on it that could start a fight or create a hostile environment (Willard, 2008). In another court case, Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the court said that there are limits to a student s speech rights. The case was about a sexually explicit speech that was given at a school event in front of about 600 high school students. The court said that schools have an interest in protecting minors from being exposed to offensive language. These vulgar speeches were said to undermine the school s basic educational mission. The court mentioned other forms of unprotected speech which include fighting words, incitement of violence, and true

17 17 threats. True threats, the category that is most closely related to cyberbullying, require that a reasonable person must view the speech as an expression of an intent to commit an act of violence (King, 2010). In 1988, the court case of Hazelwood School District v.kuhmeier found the schools have rights to censor school publications. From the decision, the school principal was allowed to stop two articles from being published in the school paper, which discussed teen pregnancy and divorce. The court s reasoning was they thought the school s actions were legal because the school had the right to not be associated with the viewpoint of the individual student who wrote the articles. The court went on to say that the school had the right to limit the style and content of the student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities (King, 2010, p.868). In 2007, the court case of Morse v. Frederick gave schools more power to punish students for speeches made at school-related activities. The case involved a high school student who put up a disruptive banner during the Olympics in Juneau, Alaska in Even though Frederick s banner was not on school property, the court said the school could punish Frederick just as if the situation happened on school grounds because the Olympic torch relay was sponsored by the school. In this decision, the court gave schools the authority to punish student actions, even if those actions occur off school grounds, as long the event is sanctioned by the school (King, 2010). The several court cases (Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood school district v. Kuhmeier, Morse v. Frederick, Doninger v. Neihoff, and Layshock v. Hermitage) discussed how much authority the school has when disciplining students for actions on school or school sanctioned events, but they do not discuss how much authority a school has when the immature actions happen online. A Second Circuit Court decision in the

18 18 Doninger v. Niehoff, 2008, case said that the Tinker standard also applies to off-campus online speech. The court deciding the case pointed to a prior finding that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring of school grounds, when this conduct would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment, at least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off -campus expression might also reach campus (Willard, 2008, p.55). Since there is no clear set of standards or guidance given by the Supreme Court about issues involving online bullying and how to handle the situation, there is some grey area about this topic resulting in contrasting rulings from the court. In the case of Layshock v. Hermitage School District, the court ruled in favor of the student and against the school for disciplining the student for creating a fake MySpace profile of the principal of the school. The court defended its stance by saying the school did not have authority to censor the internet (King, 2010). It is unclear how these conflicting court cases will be applied to the issue of cyberbullying. If a court feels that the school does not have the authority to censor and punish students for online expression, then some cyberbullying laws could then be viewed as unconstitutional. In the state of Vermont, the law states that online speech can be regulated. Delaware law says that the location and the time of access of a technology-related incident is not valid when defending actions against any disciplinary action. Indiana law, though, does not clearly state if the school has the authority to intervene with off-school online speech (King, 2010). When considering that most of the cyberbullying happens while not on school property, it seems if schools are not allowed to address issues that happen online and not on school property, then any efforts to help students being bullied online would be greatly reduced. If schools do not

19 19 have adequate authority to prevent cyberbullying, then the bullies will be able to avoid punishment for their hurtful actions (King, 2010). Prevention and response. Elliot Aronson (2000) advocated that children need to be taught the skill of getting along. He said that we don t expect children to learn algebra on their own and we should not expect anything different when it comes to getting along. Aronson advocated for schools to make human relations a part of the school curriculum. He said this would teach children to recognize and understand their emotions, develop greater empathy for others, and teach students to resolve conflicts and make friends (Aronson, 2000). According to Aronson, schools should be concerned with teaching empathy to children because children who are more empathetic tend to be more cooperative and less aggressive. Research indicates that the level of empathy shown by girls matches the level of empathy their mothers show them (Aronson, 2000). Boys tend to have low levels of empathy if their parents place a large emphasis on competition. Aronson points out that this makes sense because if children are overly-concerned with winning, it helps if they don t care about their opponents feelings (Aronson, 2000). Empathy can also be taught in the classroom. Aronson (2000) discusses a teaching technique that can be used to reduce competition in the classroom and increase cooperation. He calls it the Jigsaw method. The jigsaw method is a teaching technique that forces children to work to together in order to complete their given assignment. The students in the classroom are split into small groups. Each group member is given a specific part of the assignment to work on and then report that information back to their group. Then the children in the group are forced to listen and pay attention to all of their group members in order to learn the material and get a good grade. This is a specific part of the design because if a student in the group does not like

20 20 another student in the group and does not listen to them or heckles them during their presentation of the material then that student will not do well on the test that follows. Aronson said if each part of the assignment is essential, then each student is essential (Aronson, 2000, p.135). The jigsaw method has been shown to be a great way for children to learn material, but it also forces children to work together to complete a common goal. The students learn to listen and encourage their group members as well as be empathetic towards them in allowing them to be an important part of an academic assignment. Aronson indicated that his past research about the jigsaw method showed that students in a jigsaw classroom express less prejudice and negative stereotyping, and were more self-confident and reported they enjoyed school more than students in a traditional classroom (Aronson, 2000). The jigsaw technique is not one that is primarily used for cyberbullying, but its proven effects on teaching empathy and reducing aggression share the same outcomes school administrators are looking for when deciding which cyberbullying policies to use in their school. It is a technique that can be used to change the school climate and create a more positive and friendly atmosphere within the school setting. For a more direct approach for preventing cyberbullying, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) offered a comprehensive approach to cyberbullying prevention. The first step of the approach is to assess the level of cyberbullying that is occurring in the school. The best way to get a better understanding of the current state of the school in terms of cyberbullying is by using anonymous surveys that can be given to the students and staff. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended that this be done on a regular basis so the level of cyberbullying can be monitored routinely. Some sample questions that could be used for the survey are Does cyberbullying occur among students at this school?, How big is the problem?, Have you ever been a victim of

21 21 cyberbullying, and Have you ever been afraid to come to school because of something somebody said to you online? (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p.130). The authors also stated that the term cyberbullying is clearly defined for the students so they have a good understanding of what cyberbullying behaviors look like (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). By clearly defining cyberbullying, they argued, there will be less chance of confusion by the students and the results obtained in the survey will be a more accurate reflection of the true amount of cyberbullying that going on in the school. Ideally, the entire school district would be involved so the data collected from the surveys could be broken down into specific demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and race. Then the data would be more useful because the schools could determine where the most resources are needed to deal with cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). The next step Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended is to educate students and staff about the harmful effects of cyberbullying. It is important that school administrators take the time to learn about issues regarding cyberbullying and consult with teachers and other staff on how to handle the situation. One way of going about this, according to Hinduja and Patchin (2009), could be to hold a staff meeting and bring in a specialist to speak about the topic and specific case studies as well as discuss the latest research. Then this information needs to be relayed to students. It was recommended that teachers take time to discuss cyberbullying in their classroom when they talk about the more broad issue of bullying. Engaging the students in discussions about the variety of examples of cyberbullying and real life cases can be used to teach solutions to the problem (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended that schools hold assemblies or presentations on a regular basis that provide information for the schools about safe and responsible internet

22 22 use. To aid these presentations, the National Crime Prevention Council ( has created public service announcement videos that show the real-world harm that cyberbullying can cause. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) stated that Repeatedly piquing the conscience of youth about questionable or deviant behavior seems to make them more sensitive to the issues at hand and more apt to think twice before making an unwise decision (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p.133). The next step Hinduja and Patchin (2009) acknowledged is to have clear rules regarding the use of computers and other technological services. They recommend that every school have a comprehensive Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) which is used to govern the use of technology in the school. The Computer Crime section of the U.S. Department of Justice provides a model AUP that schools can use to and adapt to their needs. The AUP policy has information about how to safely and responsibly use computers and the internet and also provides suggestions for discipline, supervision, and monitoring. If schools use the AUP, then they can have the parents and students sign the agreement at the beginning of the school year so everyone is clear about the terms of the agreement (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). With the rise in technology, many students carry around cell phones or other portable electronic devices with internet capabilities. The school should have a clear policy stating if these devices are allowed or not, according to Hinduja and Patchin (2009). Some schools decide to ban these devices all together, but this approach as received criticism from parents who want to ability to reach their children in an emergency. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended that a better approach would be having clear and specific guidelines on when these devices can be used and what will happen if they are being used inappropriately. If a cell phone or other device is confiscated due to not following the rules it is important that the school does not search the

23 23 contents on the phone or other device. This is something that would be best if the parents or other law enforcement conducted. This would limit accusations by the student of an intrusion of privacy (Hinduja & Patchin 2009). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) stated that maintaining a safe and respectful school culture is very important. In a safe and respectful school culture, teachers should show emotional support, a caring atmosphere, a strong focus on academics and learning, and promotion of a healthy selfesteem. In research conducted by Hinduja and Patchin (2009), they found that students who either were victims of cyberbullying or admitted to cyberbullying others perceived a poorer climate at their school than those who have not experienced cyberbullying. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) also recommended that strategic efforts be used to promote bonding among students (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). One of these strategies could be the jigsaw method that was discussed earlier in this section. The next step that Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended is to install monitoring and filtering software. The Children s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed in 2000 and requires public schools to install filtering software on computers to remain eligible for federal funding assistance. This software can be used to block specific websites and monitor the content of certain websites. Most schools have social networking sites blocked on their computers in the school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) also suggested that a formal anticyberbullying program be implemented. They recommend that before implementing a program, school administrators consult with researchers from a university to determine if the chosen program is worth implementing. Very little is known about what works to educate students about cyberbullying so Hinduja and Patchin (2009) suggest to try a variety of approaches, such as Olweus Prevention

24 24 Program which is typically used for more traditional types of bullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Finally, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommended that steps are taken to educate the parents about cyberbullying. Since cyberbullying can happen in the home, it is important to have the parents involved in any preventative measures the school endorses (Beale & Hall, 2007). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) mentioned that the school could send home a letter to all the parents informing them about cyberbullying. Or the school could send home newsletters on a regular basis to inform parents on the new developments regarding cyberbullying and how kids are using and abusing technology (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Some nonprofit organizations have created curricula that are available for schools to use to educate students and staff about cyberbullying and their consequences. Although not tested rigorously through controlled studies,the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) created a nationwide initiative called Cyberbullying: Understanding and Addressing Online Cruelty. This initiative includes lesson plans for elementary, middle and secondary school levels. The ADL has responded to problems such as cyberbullying with educational programs and advocacy (The Anti-Defamation League, 2011). The Ophelia Project, another nonprofit organization, has worked with schools to create a social climate by reducing aggression among students. They also have provided workshops for schools about cyberbullying. The Ophelia Project has focused on promoting emotional wellbeing and trying to help youth establish healthy peer relationships. The Ophelia Project has designed a curriculum called CyberCool, which teaches students to identify cyberbullying, the consequences of cyberbullying, and how to develop strategies to empower bystanders (The Ophelia Project, 2007).

25 25 Beale and Hall (2007) said that parents need to be able to adequately monitor their children while at home for signs of cyberbullying. One recommendation Beale and Hall (2007) provided is to learn the acronyms that are commonly used while instant messaging. Some of these include POS (parent of shoulder), PIR (parent in room), and ILV (I love you). Parents should also be aware that the large internet providers (AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft) have parental control options that allow parents to monitor their child s internet activities (Beale & Hall, 2007). Parents also need to be aware that most children can feel embarrassed or scared to talk about being cyberbullied, according to Beale and Hall (2007). This means that parents need to ensure their children understand that if they are to be cyberbullied the parents should be informed immediately. Then the parents can discuss the issue with school officials and the dialogue of how to handle to situation can be started (Beale & Hall, 2007). Wolfsberg (2006) also recommended that students be taught to not engage the person who is doing the cyberbullying. Even though the victim may want to defend himself or herself, it is important to remember that it is not possible to have a rational discussion with a bully. Wolfsberg (2006) added that printing out the online communications is important so there can be evidence of what the bully said online. If the online bullying continues, Wolfsberg (2006) encourageed the victim to change his or her screen name and only share that information with family and close friends. (Wolfsberg, 2006). Role of the School Psychologist The role of the school psychologist can include promoting awareness of cyberbullying, sharing research about the psychological impact of cyberbullying, assessing the prevalence of cyberbullying in the school district, and developing cyberbullying prevention programs.

26 26 Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008) stated that awareness is the first step in the process of cyberbullying prevention. They recommended that school psychologists attend workshops and online trainings that are available for cyberbullying. It would also be beneficial to have inservice workshops so all school personnel can learn the basic information about cyberbullying, including current research information, the impact it has on children, and intervention programs (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). School psychologists could also be involved in is the assessment of cyberbullying, according to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008). To assess the prevalence of cyberbullying in the school district, the school psychologist could use surveys or questionnaires. Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins (2008) also recommended that the school personnel be surveyed to assess their current knowledge about cyberbullying. A survey for teachers could include information about their perception of the dangers of cyberbyllying and their knowledge about it occurring in their school (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The third step the school psychologist could be involved in is the prevention of cyberbullying, according to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008). The school psychologist could be a leader in the efforts to create an anti-cyberbullying program for their school or school district. Working with other school psychologists and other pupil services personnel in the school district about an anti-cyberbullying program would ensure the prevention program is consistent for all grade levels in the district (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The school psychologist could also actively communicate with parents about the schools prevention programs and other school policies concerning cyberbullying so the parents are wellinformed about the school s efforts in cyberullying prevention, according to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008). In working with the parents, the school psychologist could advocate

27 27 teaching internet safety at home, responsible technology use, and how cyberbullying could affect peers. The school psychologist could also recommend resources about cyberbullying to parents to help them when trying to bring up that discussion with their children (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). Finally, the school psychologist could be a leader in the planning and implementing of intervention strategies for cyberbulling, according to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008). It is important that schools be prepared for issues regarding cyberbullying so a team within the school should be created to handle situations with cyberbullying. The team should include the school psychologist, the principal, the school counselor, and the media specialist. The team should have a procedure that they follow when they are reviewing a situation involving cyberbbullying (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). One part of the procedure that should be included is helping the victim, according to Diamanduros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008). Interviewing the victim to assess their emotional state is a very important part of the process because of the potential emotional harm cyberbullying can cause. The school psychologist could assess if the victim feels safe at school, and if not, what could be done to help that student feel safe in school. Meeting with the parents of the victim would also be beneficial so the school psychologist can inform them of the incident and help the parents take the necessary steps to addressing their child s need (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). Willard (2008) said an important step for a school administrator to take when an incident of cyberbullying occurs is to download and save all the material that was posted on the internet for evidence. After the online material has been saved, the student who is the target should be questioned about messages sent and received even if the messages seem minor or irrelevant at

28 28 the time. The student who is the victim should be evaluated by the school psychologist or school counselor to determine how well the victim is functioning emotionally and to see if the cyberbullying is going to cause in inability to focus and learn (Willard, 2008). In terms of discipline policy, the punishment should be done in a way that makes the person who posted harmful material feel remorse for what he or she did. This will reduce the occurrence of retaliation for the punishment that was handed down. Willard (2008) stated that if the discipline is too harsh, the remorse a student should feel could turn into anger, which could result in more online attacks of the victim (Willard, 2008).

29 29 Chapter III: Summary, Critical Analysis, & Recommendations With the rapid advances in technology, cyberbullying has become increasingly prevalent allowing for the opportunity for constant and continual bullying through social networking websites, cell phones, and other media devices. This chapter will include a summary of the first two chapters along with implications for further research. Summary and Key Points The literature review discussed three research questions: the effects of cyberbullying, the school s role in preventing or responding to cyberbullying, and the school psychologist s role in cyberbullying prevention. In a 2008 study, Mason concluded that students who have been victims of cyberbullying can have suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and chronic illness. Hinduja and Patchin (2011) reported that there is a link between cyberbullying and low self-esteem, family problems, school violence, and delinquent behaviors. Long term effects have also been reported with instances of depression and lower self-esteem into adulthood. Ybarra et al.(2007) reported that students who have been cyberbullied were more likely to have two or three more detentions or skip school. In a study done by Smith et al. (2006), girls were reported to be cyberbullied significantly more, especially by text messages and phone calls. In another study done by Li (2006), different results were found. This study reported that there were no gender differences in being the victim of cyberbullying. Patchin and Hinduja (2011) reported that when they reviewed 13 different studies that reported gender differences, eight of them found that girls are more likely to be the victim, three reported boys were more frequently the victim, and two showed no gender differences.

30 30 When the issue of cyberbullying has been presented to the courts, typically the court has ruled in favor of the school, allowing them to respond to off-school issues, such as student speech (Willard, 2008). The rationale for the court is they feel if the speech causes a disruption at school, then the school has the right to intervene. This issue came about through the court case of Tinker v. Des Moines. This case was the start of the evolution that surrounds the role of the school when dealing with off-school issues including cyberbullying. In 2008, the court case of Doninger v. Niehoff said that online speech that occur off-school premises can be applied to the Tinker case. This means that schools can legally intervene in cases of cyberbullying, even if they happen off-school property (Willard, 2008). For the area of prevention and response to cyberbullying, changing the climate of the school is very important. Aronson (2000) discussed the jigsaw method, which has been shown to increase empathy for students and create a more positive climate within the school. Even though this is not a technique that is directly used for cyberbullying, the jigsaw method is one that could be considered because of its ability to increase empathy within the classroom. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) have presented an approach that is more directly related to cybebullying. They recommend cyberbullying is routinely monitored as well as clearly defined for all school staff. The students and staff need to be educated of the harmful effects and how to properly handle situations involving cyberbullying. There are some nonprofit organizations (ADL, and The Ophelia Project) that provide curricula that can be used to help create a social climate by reducing aggression among peers. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) also recommend that a comprehensive acceptable use policy be used along with filtering software to help block websites that could be used to facilitate the potential for cyberbullying.