Defining and Measuring Cyberbullying Within the Larger Context of Bullying Victimization

Abstract

Methods Two split-form surveys were conducted online among 6–17 year olds (n=1,200 each) to inform recommendations for cyberbullying measurement. Results Measures that use the word ‘bully’ result in prevalence rates similar to each other whether or not a definition is included, whereas measures not using the word ‘bully’ are similar to each other whether or not a definition is included. A behavioral list of bullying experiences without either a definition or the word ‘bully’ results in higher prevalence rates and likely measures experiences that are beyond the definition of ‘bullying’. Follow-up questions querying differential power, repetition, and bullying over time were used to examine misclassification. The measure using a definition but not the word ‘bully’ appeared to have the highest rate of false positives and, therefore, the highest rate of misclassification. Across two studies, an average of 25% reported being bullied at least monthly in person compared with an average of 10% bullied online, 7% via telephone (cell or landline), and 8% via text messaging. Conclusions Measures of bullying among English-speaking samples in the US should include the word ‘bully’ when possible. The definition may be a useful tool for researchers, but results suggest that it does not necessarily yield a more rigorous measure of bullying victimization. Directly measuring aspects of bullying (i.e., differential power, repetition, over time) reduces misclassification. To prevent double counting across categories, we conceptualize cyberbullying as bullying communicated through the online mode; type (e.g., verbal, relational), and environment (e.g., school, home) are additional domains of bullying.

Mapping Developmental Precursors of Cyber-Aggression: Trajectories of Risk Predict Perpetration and Victimization

“…There is general consensus that, like face-to-face aggression, online aggression can result in negative consequences for victims and perpetrators, although variation in definitions and measures results in a wide range for prevalence estimates of online aggressive behavior (Levy, Cortesi, Crowley, Beaton, Casey, & Nolan, 2012;Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). For instance, there is considerable discourse regarding the use and operationalziation of terms such as online aggression, internet harassment, online bullying, electronic bullying and cyberbullying (Langos, 2012;Menesini et al, 2012;Pyzalski, 2012;Ybarra, Boyd et al, 2012). In particular, the traditional bullying construct has not been readily translatable to the cyber realm (Dooley, imbalance may not apply to cyberbullying (Dooley et al, 2009;Runions, Shapka, Dooley, & Modecki , 2012;Ybarra, Mitchell et al, 2012) .…”

The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization and perpetration in adolescence.

“…As discussed by others (e.g., Furlong et al, 2010;Solberg & Olweus, 2003;Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012) further considerations in instrument choice are whether self-report or report from another informant will be used; a definition of bullying will be provided and/or the term bullied used. In addition, choices around question wording, such as a suitable referent time period and appropriate response options, are pertinent.…”

“…It also enables the researcher to illustrate the three characteristics of bullying (i.e., intention, repetition, power imbalance), and distinguish bullying from aggression between equals and playful teasing (Ortega et al, 2001;Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Ybarra and colleagues (Ybarra et al, 2012) recently assessed the impact of the use of the term and provision of a written bullying definition. They recommended the inclusion of the word bully in question wording for English-speaking samples in the USA, as this had resulted in the lowest rate of misclassification of students.…”

Well-Being in an Arctic City. Designing a Longitudinal Study on Student Relationships and Perceived Quality of Life

“…Research (Frisén et al 2008;Rønning et al 2009;Smith 2002;Ybarra et al 2012) has uncovered uncertainty about the definition of bullying and there is a disagreement between parents, teachers and children about its prevalence, and thus it's prevention. With the introduction of cyber bullying, Slonje and Smith (2008) argue for a debate on the criteria for something to be called bullying.…”