Cyberbullying or Cyber Aggression?: A Review of Existing Definitions of Cyber-Based Peer-to-Peer Aggression

Abstract

Due to the ongoing debate regarding the definitions and measurement of cyberbullying, the present article critically appraises the existing literature and offers direction regarding the question of how best to conceptualise peer-to-peer abuse in a cyber context. Variations across definitions are problematic as it has been argued that inconsistencies with regard to definitions result in researchers examining different phenomena, whilst the absence of an agreed conceptualisation of the behaviour(s) involved hinders the development of reliable and valid measures. Existing definitions of cyberbullying often incorporate the criteria of traditional bullying such as intent to harm, repetition, and imbalance of power. However, due to the unique nature of cyber-based communication, it can be difficult to identify such criteria in relation to cyber-based abuse. Thus, for these reasons cyberbullying may not be the most appropriate term. Rather than attempting to "shoe-horn" this abusive behaviour into the preconceived conceptual framework that provides an understanding of traditional bullying, it is timely to take an alternative approach. We argue that it is now time to turn our attention to the broader issue of cyber aggression, rather than persist with the narrow focus that is cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying victimization: Do victims’ personality and risky social network behaviors contribute to the problem?

“…Findings from a global survey show similar, if not higher, results in other countries (Cyberbullying a Problem around the Globe: Poll, 2012). While many view cyberbullying as a new form of traditional bullying, there is considerable debate about whether some of the same defining criteria can be applied and how it should be measured (Betancourt, 2016;Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015;Lee, Abell, & Holmes, 2015). For example, aggressive behavior is typical of bullying but cyberbullying actions can be passive although still hurtful.…”

From risk factors to detection and intervention: a practical proposal for future work on cyberbullying

“…Existing definitions of cyberbullying, as well as the one adhered in this review by Smith et al (2008), often incorporate the criteria of traditional bullying such as repetition over time and imbalance of power (a victim who cannot easily defend him/herself). However, due to the unique nature of cyber-based communication, it is difficult to identify such criteria in the cyber abuse (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015). As a result, there is uncertainty regarding the operational definition of cyberbullying and how to effectively measure it (Corcoran et al, 2015).…”

“…However, due to the unique nature of cyber-based communication, it is difficult to identify such criteria in the cyber abuse (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015). As a result, there is uncertainty regarding the operational definition of cyberbullying and how to effectively measure it (Corcoran et al, 2015). On that note, Hosseinmardi et al (2015) argued that most works on cyberbullying as claimed by the original authors, are in fact more accurately described as research on cyberaggression, as they do not take into account the frequency of the event and the imbalance of power.…”

“…Although a central aspect of most operational definitions of traditional bullying, -power‖ is difficult to determine in the cyber context (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015). Is -power‖ the ability to remain anonymous in the cyberspace (Smith et al, 2008)?…”

The Relationship between Parental Control and High-Risk Internet Behaviours in Adolescence

“…However, careless internet use can produce certain risks, such as excessive internet use, exposure to potentially harmful content, orbeing the victim of cyber-aggression. Cyber-aggression refers to those behaviours or omissions through information and communication technologies that is intended to harm or offend (Corcoran et al 2015). These aggressions can take various forms, such as written or verbal cyber-aggression, visual cyber-aggression, online exclusion, and impersonation (Nocentini et al 2010).…”