Hubbry Logo
CyberbullyingCyberbullyingMain
Open search
Cyberbullying
Community hub
Cyberbullying
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying
from Wikipedia

Cyberbullying (cyberharassment or online bullying) is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic means. Since the 2000s, it has become increasingly common, especially among teenagers and adolescents, due to young people's increased use of social media.[1] Related issues include online harassment and trolling. In 2015, according to cyberbullying statistics from the i-Safe Foundation, over half of adolescents and teens had been bullied online, and about the same number had engaged in cyberbullying.[2] Both the bully and the victim are negatively affected, and the intensity, duration, and frequency of bullying are three aspects that increase the negative effects on both of them.[3]

Tactics

[edit]

Harmful bullying behavior can include posting rumors, threats, sexual remarks, a victim's personal information, or hate speech.[4] Bullying or harassment can be identified by repeated behavior and an intent to harm.[5] Tactics can also include creating or posting on fake profiles to create anonymity to spread harmful messages.[6]

Overview

[edit]

Cyberbullying is in many cases an extension of already existing traditional bullying.[7][8] Students who are bullied via the Internet have, in most cases, also been bullied in other more traditional ways before (e.g., physically or verbally). There are few students who are bullied exclusively over the Internet; these cyber victims are often physically stronger students, which causes bullies to prefer online confrontations over face-to-face contact at school.[7]

Awareness in the United States has risen in the 2010s, due in part to high-profile cases.[9][10] Several US states and other countries have passed laws to combat cyberbullying.[11] Some are designed to specifically target teen cyberbullying, while others extend from the scope of physical harassment. In cases of adult cyberharassment, these reports are usually filed beginning with local police.[12] The laws differ by area or state.

Research has demonstrated a number of serious consequences of cyberbullying victimisation.[13] Specific statistics on the negative effects of cyberbullying differ by country and other demographics. Some researchers point out there could be some way to use modern computer techniques to determine and stopping cyberbullying.[14]

Other research has suggested an uptick in cyberbullying during the COVID-19 pandemic when many youth and adults were quarantined at home and, as a consequence, online more often than before the pandemic. For example, a study of adults published in the Journal of Social Psychology identified statistically significant increases in pro-cyberbullying attitudes as well as in cyberbullying offending behavior.[15] However, another study involving over 6,500 Canadian youth in grades 4–12 did not find higher rates of cyberbullying involvement. The authors speculated that this might be a result of closer monitoring and involvement of online activities by parents while their children were at home.[16]

Internet trolling is a common form of bullying that takes place in an online community (such as online gaming or social media) in order to elicit a reaction or disruption, or simply just for someone's own personal amusement.[17][18] Cyberstalking is another form of bullying or harassment that uses electronic communications to stalk a victim; this may pose a credible threat to the victim.[19]

Not all negative interaction online or on social media can be attributed to cyberbullying. Research suggests that there are also interactions online that result in peer pressure, which can have a negative, positive, or neutral impact on those involved.[20][21][22]

Definitions

[edit]

A frequently used definition of cyberbullying is "an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is carried out by a group or an individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself."[23] It is to be distinguished from normal conflicts between people of comparable power or status that often also occur online.[24]

There are many variations of the definition, such as the National Crime Prevention Council's more specific definition: "the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."[10] Cyberbullying is often similar to traditional bullying, with some notable distinctions. Victims of cyberbullying may not know the identity of their bully, or why the bully is targeting them, based on the online nature of the interaction.[25] The harassment can have wide-reaching effects on the victim, as the content used to harass the victim can be spread and shared easily among many people and often remains accessible long after the initial incident.[26]

The terms "cyberharassment" and "cyberbullying" are sometimes used synonymously, though some people use the latter to refer specifically to harassment among minors or in a school setting.[19]

Cyberstalking

[edit]

Cyberstalking is a form of online harassment in which the perpetrator uses electronic communications to stalk a victim. This is considered more dangerous than other forms of cyberbullying because it generally involves a credible threat to the victim's safety. Cyberstalkers may send repeated messages intended to threaten or harass, and they may encourage others to do the same, either explicitly or by impersonating their victim and asking others to contact them.[19]

This can be a combination of most of the other methods in order to stalk someone using electronic means. This can include finding the victims location, harassing them with spam, or using sextortion. An example of this situation occurring is when Paris Deshaunte Evitt, a 30-year old from Tulsa cyberstalked one of his former partners. A news article on it states, "Between October 2018 and continuing until October 2020, Evitt used email, Facebook, and text messages to control and threaten the victim. However, his abuse of the victim had started years before. Between 2012 and 2019, Evitt was convicted on 5 different occasions for physically abusing the victim including strangulation, assault, and interfering with reporting. Evitt was also on state supervision at the time of the current offenses."[27]"(The unidentified victim) explained that Evitt had destroyed her sense of security and became emotional when she discussed Evitt's statement that he would rather see her dead than happy. She also stated, 'the longer he is away from my children and I, the more time we have to try and heal and move on with our lives, if that is even possible.'"[27]

Trolling

[edit]

Internet trolls[28] intentionally try to provoke or offend others in order to elicit a reaction.[17] Trolls and cyberbullies do not always have the same goals: while some trolls engage in cyberbullying, others may be engaged in comparatively harmless mischief. A troll may be disruptive either for their own amusement or because they are genuinely a combative person.[29] Trolling can include insults, false news, or, terrorist threats.

Hate raids

[edit]

On Twitch and other livestreaming services, hate raids are situations where a stream is "raided" by many viewers who flood the chat with harassment and other hateful messages. This prevents the streamer from executing their stream. These viewers are typically automated bots, making it difficult to moderate and block.[30][31]

Spam

[edit]

Spamming is the act of creating multiple accounts and sending messages to a target en masse. A common situation where spam can occur is after a breakup. If one partner is obsessive, they may send their ex messages on multiple platforms. This often happens despite being blocked by the recipient. The article What Can Police Do About Harassing Texts? states, "Keep in mind that harassment of any kind is illegal and includes in person, over the phone, via text messages, through social media, or any other method. Some laws are in place about cyberbullying that are designed to protect the public from this happening."[32]

Impersonation

[edit]

Impersonation is the act of pretending be another person. If the offender pretends to be the victim, they may say or do things to hurt the victim's reputation. This can include hacking into a Twitter account and spreading disinformation. One famous example is when Sony Music's Twitter account was hacked and posted the following statement: "Britney Spears is dead by accident! we will tell you more soon. #RIPBRITNEY."[33] Spears was, in fact, alive and well.

Doxxing

[edit]

Doxxing is the act of disclosing a victim's personal data, such as their home address, phone number, and full name. Doxxing can happen when fans in fandoms with large fanbases often go too far when protecting their idols and enter the realm of cyberbullying. Extreme fans of the K-pop music genre sometimes dox fans of rival music groups. This specifically was shown in an incident where fans of the group Blackpink doxxed the owner of a Twice fan account, sending him to a hospital. This is allegedly because a Twice member disrespected a Blackpink member.[34]

Sexual harassment

[edit]

Online sexual harassment is considered a form of cyberbullying. Sextortion, a form of sexual harassment, is the act of coercing a person into sharing intimate images before threatening to release them unless money is paid.[35] It is a specific type of blackmail. The line between sexual harassment and cyberbullying is blurred.[36]

Some people will blackmail their classmates for nudes, threatening to release embarrassing information. They also use revenge porn and release nudes to get payback. This was the case when a 16-year-old student of W.F. West High School in Chehalis exploited more than 100 victims, many of which were his classmates. He owned over 900 photos and videos of victims.[37]

Methods used

[edit]

Research has identified basic guidelines to help recognize and deal with what is regarded as abuse of electronic communications.[38]

  • Cyberbullying involves repeated behavior with intent to harm.
  • Cyberbullying is perpetrated through harassment, cyberstalking, denigration (sending or posting cruel rumors and falsehoods to damage reputation and friendships), impersonation, and exclusion (intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group)[5]

Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send emails or text messages harassing someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. It may also include public actions such as repeated threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e. hate speech) or defamatory false accusations, ganging up on a victim by making the person the subject of ridicule in online forums, hacking into or vandalizing sites about a person, and posting false statements as fact aimed a discrediting or humiliating a targeted person.[39] Cyberbullying could be limited to posting rumors about a person on the internet with the intention of bringing about hatred in others' minds or convincing others to dislike or participate in online denigration of a target. It may go to the extent of personally identifying victims of crime and publishing materials defaming or humiliating them.[4]

Cyberbullies may disclose victims' personal data (e.g. real name, home address, or workplace/schools) on websites or forums—called doxing, or may use impersonation, creating fake accounts, comments or sites posing as their target for the purpose of publishing material in their name that defames, discredits or ridicules them.[40] This can leave the cyberbully anonymous, which can make it difficult for them to be caught or punished for their behavior, although not all cyberbullies maintain their anonymity. Users of semi-anonymous chat websites are at high risk for cyberbullying, as it is also easy in this outlet for a cyberbully to remain anonymous.[41] Text or instant messages and emails between friends can also constitute cyberbullying if what is said is hurtful.

Cyberbullying by email from a fictional friend@hotmail.com

The recent rise of smartphones and mobile apps have yielded a more accessible form of cyberbullying. It is expected that cyberbullying via these platforms will occur more often than through more stationary internet platforms because of constant access to the internet. In addition, the combination of cameras and Internet access and the instant availability of these modern smartphone technologies yield specific types of cyberbullying not found in other platforms. It is likely that those cyberbullied via mobile devices will experience a wider range of cyberbullying methods than those who are exclusively bullied elsewhere.[42]

Some teens argue that some events categorized as cyberbullying are simply drama. Danah Boyd writes, "teens regularly used that word [drama] to describe various forms of interpersonal conflict that ranged from insignificant joking around to serious jealousy-driven relational aggression. Whereas adults might have labeled many of these practices as bullying, teens saw them as drama."[43]

In social media

[edit]

Cyberbullying can take place on social media sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. "By 2008, 93% of young people between the ages of 12 and 17 were online. In fact, youth spend more time with media than any single other activity besides sleeping."[44] The last decade has witnessed a surge of cyberbullying, which is categorized as bullying that occurs through the use of electronic communication technologies, such as e-mail, instant messaging, social media, online gaming, or through digital messages or images sent to a cellular phone.[45]

Cyberbullying has been shown to be more distressing and have more serious implications than conventional bullying, and it is gaining considerable social and public policy attention and requires more attention from researchers and stakeholders. Despite rapidly growing body of research on cyberbullying over the past few decades, little research has considered and distinguished the roles of cyberbullying and risk/protective factors associated with it.[46]

There are many risks attached to social media sites, and cyberbullying is one of the larger risks.[47] One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year,[when?] while 90 percent of social-media–using teens who have witnessed online cruelty say they have ignored mean behavior on social media, and 35 percent have done so frequently. Ninety-five percent of social-media–using teens who have witnessed cruel behavior on social networking sites say they have seen others ignoring the mean behavior, and 55 percent have witnessed this frequently.[48] Terms like "Facebook depression" have been coined specifically in regard to the result of extended social media use, with cyberbullying playing a large part in this.[49][50]

Submit the Documentary: The Virtual Reality of Cyberbullying. An award-winning documentary about the effects of cyberbullying that is shown in schools across the globe.

Cyberbullying has become more prevalent in recent years due to the technology to which children have widespread access. The most common apps that teenagers use to cyberbully are Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat.[47] Cyberbullying has become harder to stop because parents and teachers are unaware of when and where it is happening.[47] A 2006 study found that 45% of teens and 30% of adolescents were cyberbullied while at school. This was linked to the reason students had access to their online devices such as cell phones or computers.[51] Teens will say awful things to one another online and what they do not realize is that once it is said and published online it will not go away. Home used to be a safe place for teens, but now a child is still within reach of becoming a victim of cyberbullying – whether it is through YouTube, Ask.fm, or a text message.[38][47] Wherever you face, it is easy to come across Cyberbullying making it almost impossible to escape.

According to a 2013 Pew Research study, eight out of ten teens who use social media now share more information about themselves than they have in the past. This includes their location, images, and contact information.[52] In order to protect children, it is important that personal information such as age, birthday, school/church, phone number, etc. be kept confidential.[53]

Cyberbullying can also take place through the use of websites belonging to certain groups to effectively request the targeting of another individual or group. An example of this is the bullying of climate scientists and activists.[54][55][56]

In gaming

[edit]
Harassment in gaming culture can occur in online gaming.

Of those who reported having experienced online harassment in a Pew Research poll, 16% said the most recent incident had occurred in an online game.[18] A study from National Sun Yat-sen University observed that children who enjoyed violent video games were significantly more likely to both experience and perpetrate cyberbullying.[57]

Another study that discusses the direct correlation between exposure to violent video games and cyber bullying also took into account personal factors such as "duration of playing online games, alcohol consumption in the last 3 months, parents drunk in the last 3 months, anger, hostility, ADHD, and a sense of belonging"[58] as potential contributing factors of cyberbullying.

Gaming was a more common venue for men in which to experience harassment, whereas women's harassment tended to occur more via social media.[59] Most respondents considered gaming culture to be equally welcoming to both genders, though 44% thought it favored men.[60] Sexual harassment in gaming generally involves slurs directed towards women, sex role stereotyping, and overaggressive language.[61] Keza MacDonald writes in The Guardian that sexism exists in gaming culture, but is not mainstream within it.[62] U.S. President Barack Obama made reference to the harassment of women gamers during his remarks in honor of Women's History Month.[63]

Competitive gaming scenes have been less welcoming of women than has broader gaming culture.[64] In an internet-streamed fighting game competition, one female gamer forfeited a match after the coach of her team, Aris Bakhtanians, stated, "The sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community."[65] The comments were widely condemned by gamers, with comments in support of sexual harassment "drowned out by a vocal majority of people expressing outrage, disappointment and sympathy."[62] The incident built momentum for action to counter sexual harassment in gaming.[65]

Some game developers have been subjected to harassment and death threats by players upset by changes to a game or by a developer's online policies.[66] Harassment also occurs in reaction to critics such as Jack Thompson or Anita Sarkeesian, whom some fans see as threats to the medium.[67][68] Various people have been harassed in connection with the Gamergate controversy.[69] Harassment related to gaming is not of a notably different severity or tenor compared to online harassment motivated by other subcultures or advocacy issues.[68] Other developers have been harassed simply due to misogyny or anti-LGBTQ+ stances. A notable case was the death of "Near", the developer of Higan, a console emulator, who took their own life after becoming the subject to ridicule from members of the online Kiwi Farms board following their announcement of being nonbinary.[70]

Sabotage among rival crowdfunding campaigns is a recurring problem for projects related to gaming.[71]

Some instances of swatting in games such as Call of Duty and League of Legends have resulted in law enforcement SWAT units called on individuals' homes as a prank. On December 28, 2017, Wichita, Kansas, police officers killed Andrew Finch at his Kansas home in a reported swatting prank.[72]

In search engines

[edit]

Information cascades happen when users start passing along information they assume to be true, but cannot know to be true, based on information on what other users are doing. This can be accelerated by search engines' ranking technologies and their tendency to return results relevant to a user's previous interests. This type of information spreading is hard to stop. Information cascades over social media and the Internet may also be harmless, and may contain truthful information.[73]

Bullies use Google bombs (a term applicable to any search engine)[74] to increase the prominence of favored posts sorted by the most popular searches, done by linking to those posts from as many other web pages as possible. Examples include the campaign for the neologism "santorum" organized by the LGBT lobby. Google bombs can manipulate the Internet's search engines regardless of how authentic the pages are, but there is a way to counteract this type of manipulation as well.[73]

In dating apps

[edit]

Dating app users who are victims of cyberbullying encounter a range of harmful behaviors, including catfishing, the uninvited sharing of personal images, and offensive remarks.[75] These activities not only violate personal boundaries but also have a detrimental impact on the victims' mental health.

Research by the Pew Research Center highlights how common this issue is, finding that almost 60% of female users between the ages of 18 and 34 have received unsolicited sexual messages or photographs on dating apps.[76] Moreover, it was found that 36% of American users of dating apps have been the victim of online abuse. Dating app users are more likely to experience hate speech and cyberbullying because of this rate, which is almost twice as high as the whole American population.[77][better source needed] In addition to sexual harassment, other forms of cyberbullying and hate speech are among the most frequent forms of harassment that users of these sites report experiencing.

The fundamental safety and trust that underlie online dating sites' functionality are compromised by these upsetting encounters. Victims may experience significant effects, including elevated stress and anxiety levels and, in certain cases, chronic psychological trauma.[78][79]

Online shaming

[edit]
Online shaming is a form of public shaming in which targets are publicly humiliated on the internet, via social media platforms (e.g. Twitter or Facebook), or more localized media (e.g. email groups). As online shaming frequently involves exposing private information on the Internet, the ethics of public humiliation has been a source of debate over Internet privacy and media ethics. Online shaming takes many forms, including call-outs, cancellation (cancel culture), doxing, negative reviews, and revenge porn.

Famous cyberbullying cases

[edit]

There are many famous cases of cyberbullying online (e.g. Daisy Coleman[80]).

Although most people may not realize it, some of these internet "memes" actually show cyberbullying in action.

Star Wars Kid

[edit]

Uploaded in 2003, the star of the video, Ghyslain Raza (a 9th grader at the time) is shown messing around and waving around a golf ball retriever as if it is a real Jedi lightsaber. He was helping his friend parody the movie Star Wars. The video was uploaded to YouTube several months later by Raza's classmates without his knowledge or permission. The video blew up and became one of the first viral internet memes. The video accumulated 900 million views.

Despite trying to protect his privacy, Raza was mocked both online and in real life. He was body shamed, doxxed, and told to commit suicide, among other things. Students at school leaped onto tables to mock him, and his video was parodied on multiple shows including South Park. Raza had to move schools multiple times, and became homeschooled. He was harassed for years over a video he did not upload. Today, he is working on a documentary talking about his internet fame and the harassment that came along with it. He wants to focus on internet privacy and consent.[81]

Law enforcement

[edit]

A majority of countries have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within stalking or harassment laws, including the UK, Canada, Australia, India, Ireland, the Philippines, and most U.S. states.[11][82][83] Most law enforcement agencies have cyber-crime units, and Internet stalking is often treated with more seriousness than reports of physical stalking.[84] Help and resources can be searched by state or area.

Schools

[edit]

The safety of online privacy issues in schools is increasingly becoming a focus of state legislative action. There was an increase in cyberbullying enacted legislation between 2006 and 2010.[85] Initiatives and curriculum requirements also exist in the UK (the Ofsted eSafety guidance) and Australia (Overarching Learning Outcome 13).

In 2012, a group of teenagers in a design class New Haven, Connecticut, developed an application to help fight bullying, "Back Off Bully" (BOB). This is an anonymous resource for computer, smart phone or iPad, designed so when someone witnesses or is the victim of bullying, they can immediately report the incident. The app asks questions about time, location and how the bullying is happening, as well as provides positive action and empowerment regarding the incident. The reported information goes to a database, where it may be studied by administrators. Common threads are spotted so others can intervene and break the bully's pattern.[86] "Back Off Bully" is being considered as standard operating procedure at schools across Connecticut, while recent studies carried out among 66 high school teachers have concluded that prevention programs have proved ineffective to date.[87]

Teachers can also be cyberbullied by pupils,[88][89] as well as by parents and other school staff.[89]

Protection

[edit]

There are laws that only address online harassment of children or focus on child predators, as well as laws that protect adult cyberstalking victims, or victims of any age. Currently, there are 45 cyberstalking (and related) laws on the books. While some sites specialize in laws that protect victims age 18 and under, Working to Halt Online Abuse is a help resource containing a list of current and pending cyberstalking-related United States federal and state laws.[90] It also lists those states that do not yet have laws, and related laws from other countries. The Global Cyber Law Database (GCLD) aims to become the most comprehensive and authoritative source of cyber laws for all countries.[91]

Several states, including Florida, California,[92] and Missouri have passed laws against cyberbullying. California prohibits the use of an electronic device to cause someone to fear for their life.[93] In Florida, the "Jeffrey Johnson Stand Up for All Students Act" prohibits any type of bullying including cyberbullying. In Missouri, anyone who violently threatens someone over social media can be convicted with a Class A misdemeanor, but if the victim is seventeen years or younger, they can be convicted with a Class D felony.[94]

Demographics

[edit]

Two studies from 2014 found that 80% of body-shaming tweets are sent by women, who also account for 50% of misogynistic tweets.[95][96]

Age

[edit]

Children report negative online behaviors occurring from the second grade. According to research, boys initiate negative online activity earlier than girls. However, by middle school, girls are more likely to engage in cyberbullying than boys.[97] Whether the bully is male or female, the purpose of childhood bullying is to intentionally embarrass, harass, intimidate, or make threats online.

Studies on the psycho-social effects of cyberspace have begun to monitor the effects cyberbullying may have on the victims. Consequences of cyberbullying are multi-faceted, and affect both online and offline behavior. Research on adolescents reported that changes in the victims' behavior as a result of cyberbullying could potentially be positive. Victims "created a cognitive pattern of bullies, which consequently helped them to recognize aggressive people."[98]

However, the Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace abstract reports critical impacts in almost all of the respondents, taking the form of lower self-esteem, loneliness, disillusionment, and distrust of people. The more extreme effects included self-harm. Children have killed each other and committed suicide after cyberbullying incidents.[99] Some cases of digital self-harm have been reported in which an individual engages in cyberbullying against themselves, or purposefully and knowingly exposes themselves to cyberbullying.[100][101]

Adults

[edit]

Cyberstalking may be an extension of physical stalking and may have criminal consequences. A target's understanding of why cyberstalking is happening is helpful to remedy and take protective action. Among factors that motivate stalkers are envy, pathological obsession (professional or sexual), unemployment or failure with own job or life, or the desire to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior. The stalker may be delusional and believe they "know" the target. The stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify their status, or may believe they can get away with these actions due to online anonymity.[102]

The US federal cyberstalking law is designed to prosecute people for using electronic means to repeatedly harass or threaten someone online. There are resources dedicated to helping adult victims deal with cyberbullies legally and effectively. One of the steps recommended is to record everything and contact police.[103][12] In Mexico, Olimpia Coral Melo,  promoted the creation of a law against digital harassment that took her name, the Olimpia Law.[104]

Gender

[edit]

Research conducted to try to determine differences in cyberbullying patterns comparing male to female and ages of each are relatively inconclusive. There are some factors that lean towards males being more involved in cyberbullying behaviors due to males tending to have more aggressive behaviors than females.[105] This is not proven, but speculated based on literature reviews of research indicating that significant data is self-reported. Comparatively, the review of articles indicates that age differences have some indicators of cyberbullying; increasing age indicates increasing bullying behaviors. Gender differences have mixed results, but one finding indicated that younger females (10 or 11) and older males (13+) tend to engage in cyber bullying behaviors.[106]

Cyberbullies mostly have at least one common trait.[107] Cyberbullies generally get angry and discouraged easily and usually have strong personalities.[107] They connect with others belligerently and do not care for the feelings of their victims.[107] Both males and females engage in cyberbullying.[107] Females are involved in cyberbullying just as much as males,[107] and females are sometimes even found more involved in cyberbullying than males are.[107] The reason behind this is because of the way they respond;[107] men will usually respond with physical retaliation, while women will use "indirect forms such as gossiping."[107] As cyberbullying is a more indirect form, women are more likely to be involved.[107]

Also, women tend to have less face-to-face confrontations than men, and since cyberbullying occurs online, this allows women to have a greater chance to be attacked.[107] According to a 2017 Pew Research study on online harassment, 14% of Americans have been harassed because of their political views. Such harassment affects men and women differently; men are approximately twice as likely as women to have experienced online harassment because of their political views.[108] However, women politicians are disproportionately more likely to be sexually harassed online. Women lawmakers are three times more likely than their male counterparts to receive sexually abusive comments, including threats of rape, beatings, death, or abduction.[109]

Research

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

The nationwide Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Survey (Cross et al., 2009)[110] assessed cyberbullying experiences among 7,418 students. The results indicated that rates of cyberbullying increased with age, with 4.9% of students in Year 4 reporting cyberbullying compared to 7.9% in year nine. Cross et al., (2009) reported that rates of bullying and harassing others were lower, but also increased with age. Only 1.2% of Year 4 students reported cyberbullying others compared to 5.6% of Year 9 students.

China

[edit]

In mainland China, cyberbullying has yet to receive adequate scholarly attention. A study investigating the risk factors of cyberbullying sampled 1,438 high school students from central China. Data showed that 34.84% had participated in bullying and 56.88% had been bullied online.[111]

A study on cyberbullying in Hong Kong[112] chose 48 out of 7,654 students from elementary school to high school who were classified as potential aggressors related to cyberbullying. 31 out of 48 students declared they barely participated in cyber-attacks. It is common among high school students (28 out of 36 students) to participate in social media platforms; 58% admitted to changing a nickname for others, 56.3% to humiliation, 54.2% to making fun of someone, and 54.2% to spreading rumors. The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups interviewed 1,820 teenagers, 17.5% of whom indicated having experienced cyberbullying. This included insults, abuse, and the publishing of personal private pictures on social media without permission.[111]

European Union

[edit]

In a study published in 2011, across 25 EU member states studied, an average 6% of children (9–16 years old) had been bullied and only 3% of them confessed to having been a bully.[113] However, in an earlier publication by Hasenbrink et al. (2009), reporting on the results from a meta analysis from European Union countries, the authors estimated (via median results) that approximately 18% of European young people had been "bullied/harassed/stalked" via the internet and mobile phones.[114] Cyberharassment rates for young people across the EU member states ranged from 10% to 52%.

Finland

[edit]

Sourander et al. (2010) conducted a population-based cross-sectional study that took place in Finland. The authors of this study took the self-reports of 2,215 Finish adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16 about cyberbullying and cybervictimization during the previous six months. It was found that, amongst the total sample, 4.8% were victims only, 7.4% were cyberbullies only, and 5.4% were cyberbully-victims.

The authors of this study were able to conclude that cyberbullying, as well as cybervictimization, is associated not only with psychiatric issues, but with psychosomatic issues as well. Many adolescents in the study reported headaches or difficulty sleeping. The authors believe that their results indicate a greater need for new ideas on how to prevent cyberbullying and what to do when it occurs. It is clearly a worldwide problem that needs to be taken seriously.[115]

Ireland

[edit]

The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) pilot survey was carried out in eight post-primary schools across Ireland, including 318 students aged 15–18. 59% were boys and 41% were girls. Participation in this survey was voluntary for students, and consent had to be obtained from parents, students and the school itself. This survey was anonymous and confidential, and it took 40 minutes to complete. It asked questions on traditional forms of bullying, as well as cyberbullying, risk behaviors and self-reported health and life satisfaction.

66% of the students said that they had never been bullied, 14% had been victims of traditional forms of bullying, 10% had been victims of cyberbullying, and the remaining 10% had been victims of both traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying. Boys mostly said they were victims of traditional forms of bullying, and girls mostly were victims of both traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying. 20% of the students in this survey said that they had been cyberbullied, showing that cyberbullying is on the rise.[116]

Arrow DIT claims that 23% of 9–16 year olds in Ireland have been bullied online or offline, compared to 19% in Europe.[117] Although online bullying in Ireland stands at 4% according to Arrow DIT, this is lower than the European average, which stands at 6%, and half that of the UK where 8% reported being cyberbullied.[117] Traditional forms of bullying in Ireland occur more often than in Europe.

A 2018 study by Dublin City University (DCU)'s National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre (ABC) found that almost 10% of post-primary teachers were victims of cyberbullying, and 15% knew of a colleague who had experienced it in the previous 12 months.[89] 59% of the bullying was by pupils, mainly on social media, with the rest perpetrated by parents and other school staff.[89] Various effects on bullied teachers included increased stress and anxiety, "negative impacts on their working environment, and a reluctance to report the issue and seek help from management".[89]

Japan

[edit]

According to recent[when?] research, in Japan, 17 percent (compared with a 25-country average of 37 percent) of youth between the ages of 8 and 17 have been victims of online bullying. The number shows that online bullying is a serious concern in Japan. Teenagers who spend more than 10 hours a week on the Internet are more likely to become the targets of online bullying, though only 28 percent of the survey participants understood what cyberbullying is. However, they do know the severity of the issue; 63 percent of the surveyed students worried about being targeted as victims of cyberbullying.[118]

Since teenagers find themselves congregating socially on the internet via social media, they become easy targets for cyberbullying. Cyberbullying may occur via email, text, chat rooms, and social media websites. Some cyberbullies set up websites or blogs to post the target's images, publicize their personal information, gossip about the target, express why they hate the target, request people to agree with the bully's view, and send links to the target to make sure they are watching the activity.[119]

Much cyberbullying is an act of relational aggression, which involves alienating the victim from peers through gossip or ostracism.[120] This kind of attack can be easily launched via texting or other online activities. One 19-year-old Japanese student was targeted by classmates who posted his photo online, insulted him constantly, and asked him to die. Because of the constant harassment, he did attempt suicide twice. Even when he quit school, the attacks did not stop.[121]

Cyberbullying can cause serious psychological impact to the victims. They often feel anxious, nervous, tired, and depressed. Other examples of negative psychological trauma include losing confidence as a result of being socially isolated from their schoolmates or friends. Psychological problems can also show up in the form of headaches, skin problems, abdominal pain, sleep problems, bed-wetting, and crying. It may also lead victims to commit suicide to end the bullying.[122]

United States

[edit]
Percentage of victims of cyberbullying by year across the United States[123]

2000

[edit]

A 2000 survey by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that 6% of the young people who completed the survey had experienced some form of harassment, including threats and negative rumors, and 2% had suffered distressing harassment.[124]

2004

[edit]

The 2004 I-Safe.org survey of 1,500 students between grades 4 and 8 found:[125]

  • 42% of children had been bullied online. One in four had experienced it more than once.
  • 35% had been threatened online. Nearly one in five had experienced it more than once.
  • 21% had received mean or threatening e-mails or other messages.
  • 58% admitted that someone had said hurtful things to them online. More than four out of ten said this had happened more than once.
  • 58% had not told their parents or an adult about something hurtful that had happened to them online.

2005

[edit]

The Youth Internet Safety Survey–2, conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire in 2005, found that 9% of the young people in the survey had experienced some form of harassment.[126] The survey was a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,500 youth 10–17 years old. One-third reported feeling distressed by the incident, with distress being more likely for younger respondents and those who were the victims of aggressive harassment (including being telephoned, sent gifts, or visited at home by the harasser).[127] Compared to youth not harassed online, victims are more likely to have social problems. On the other hand, youth who harass others are more likely to have problems with rule breaking and aggression.[128]

Hinduja and Patchin completed a study in the summer of 2005 of approximately 1,500 Internet-using adolescents and found that over one-third of youth reported being victimized online, and over 16% of respondents admitted to cyberbullying others.[129] While most of the instances of cyberbullying involved relatively minor behavior (41% were disrespected, 19% were called names), over 12% were physically threatened and about 5% were scared for their safety. Notably, fewer than 15% of victims told an adult about the incident.[13] Additional research by Hinduja and Patchin in 2007[130] found that youth who report being victims of cyberbullying also experience stress or strain that is related to offline problem behaviors such as running away from home, cheating on a test, skipping school, or using alcohol or marijuana. The authors acknowledge that both of these studies provide only preliminary information about the nature and consequences of online bullying, due to the methodological challenges associated with an online survey.

According to a 2005 survey by the National Children's Home charity and Tesco Mobile,[131] of 770 youth between the ages of 11 and 19, 20% of respondents revealed that they had been bullied via electronic means. Almost three-quarters (73%) stated that they knew the bully, while 26% stated that the offender was a stranger. 10% of responders indicated that another person had taken a picture and/or video of them via a cellular phone camera, consequently making them feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or threatened. Many youths are not comfortable telling an authority figure about their cyberbullying victimization for fear their access to technology will be taken from them; while 24% and 14% told a parent or teacher respectively, 28% did not tell anyone, and 41% told a friend.[131]

2006

[edit]

According to the 2006 Harris Interactive Cyberbullying Research Report, commissioned by the National Crime Prevention Council, cyberbullying is a problem that "affects almost half of all American teens".[132]

2007

[edit]
Distribution of cyberbullying venues[133] used by young people in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control[134]

Studies published in 2007 in the Journal of Adolescent Health indicated young people reporting being victims of electronic aggression in a range of 9%[135] to 35%.[134][136]

In 2007, Debbie Heimowitz, a Stanford University master's student, created Adina's Deck, a film based on Stanford-accredited research. She worked in focus groups for ten weeks in three schools to learn about the problem of cyberbullying in northern California. The findings determined that over 60% of students had been cyberbullied and were victims of cyberbullying. The film is now being used in classrooms nationwide as it was designed around learning goals pertaining to problems that students had understanding the topic. The middle school of Megan Meier is reportedly using the film as a solution to the crisis in their town.

2008

[edit]

In 2008, researchers Sameer Hinduja (Florida Atlantic University) and Justin Patchin (University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire) published a book on cyberbullying that summarized the current state of cyberbullying research (Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying).[137] Their research documented that cyberbullying instances had been increasing over the preceding several years. They also reported findings from a then-recent study of cyberbullying. In a random sample of approximately 2000 middle-school students from a large school district in the southern United States, about 10% of respondents reported being cyberbullied in the previous 30 days while over 17% reported having been cyberbullied at least once in their lifetime.[137] While these rates are slightly lower than some of the findings from their previous research, Hinduja and Patchin pointed out that the earlier studies were predominantly conducted among older adolescents and Internet samples; that is, older youth use the Internet more frequently and are more likely to experience cyberbullying than younger children.[13][130][138]

2011

[edit]
Students aged 12–18 who reported being cyberbullied anywhere during the school year 2011[139]

According to the 2011 National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime Supplement (SCS), 9% of students age 12–18 admitted to having experienced cyberbullying during that school year (with a coefficient of variation between 30% and 50%).[139]

2013

[edit]

In the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 2013, the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published results of its survey as part of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) in June 2014, indicating the percentage of school children being bullied through e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, or texting ("electronically bullied") during the course of 2013.[140]

By race/ethnicity and sex
Race/ethnicity Female 95% confidence interval Male 95% confidence interval Total 95% confidence interval
White, non-Hispanic 25.2% 22.6%–28.0% 8.7% 7.5%–10.1% 16.9% 15.3%–18.7%
Black, non-Hispanic 10.5% 8.7%–12.6% 6.9% 5.2%–9.0% 8.7% 7.3%–10.4%
Hispanic 17.1% 14.5%–20.15 8.3% 6.9%–10.0% 12.8% 10.9%–14.9%
Total 21.0% 19.2%–22.9% 8.5% 7.7%–9.5% 14.8% 13.7%–15.9%
By grade and sex
Grade Female 95% confidence interval Male 95% confidence interval Total 95% confidence interval
9 22.8% 19.5%–26.6% 9.4% 7.9%–11.1% 16.1% 14.1%–18.2%
10 21.9% 18.7%–25.5% 7.2% 5.4%–9.6% 14.5% 12.6%–16.6%
11 20.6% 17.4%–24.3% 8.9% 7.3%–10.7% 14.9% 13.0%–16.9%
12 18.3% 16.3%–20.5% 8.6% 7.0%–10.5% 13.5% 12.2%–14.9%

2014

[edit]

In 2014, Mehari, Farrell, and Le published a study that focused on the literature on cyberbullying among adolescents. They found that researchers have generally assumed that cyberbullying is distinct from aggression perpetrated in person. Mehari et al. suggest that the media through which aggression is perpetrated may be best conceptualized as a new classification of aggression, rather than considering cyberbullying as a distinct counterpart to existing forms of aggression. They suggest that future research on cyberbullying be considered within the context of theoretical and empirical knowledge of aggression in adolescence.[141]

Mary Howlett-Brandon's doctoral dissertation analyzed the National Crime Victimization Survey: Student Crime Supplement, 2009, to focus on the cyberbullying victimization of Black and White students in specific conditions.[142]

2015

[edit]

WalletHub's 2015's Best & Worst States at Controlling Bullying report measured the relative levels of bullying in 42 states. According to the report, North Dakota, Illinois, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C., have the most attempted suicides by high school students. The five states with highest percentage of students being bullied on campus are Missouri, Michigan, Idaho, North Dakota, and Montana.[143]

Cyberbullying on social media has usually been student-to-student, but recently, students have been cyberbullying their teachers. High school students in Colorado created a Twitter site that bullies teachers. This ranges from obscenities to false accusations of inappropriate actions with students.[88]

Legislation

[edit]

Jurisdictions

[edit]

United States

[edit]

Legislation geared at penalizing cyberbullying has been introduced in a number of U.S. states including New York, Missouri, Rhode Island and Maryland. At least 45 states have passed laws against digital harassment.[144] Dardenne Prairie of Springfield, Missouri, passed a city ordinance making online harassment a misdemeanor. The city of St. Charles, Missouri passed a similar ordinance. Missouri is among the states where lawmakers are pursuing state legislation, with task forces expected to have cyberbullying laws drafted and implemented.[145] In June 2008, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) proposed a federal law that would criminalize acts of cyberbullying.[146]

Lawmakers are seeking to address cyberbullying with new legislation because there is currently no specific law on the books that deals with it. A fairly new federal cyberstalking law might address such acts, according to Parry Aftab, but no one has been prosecuted under it yet. The proposed federal law would make it illegal to use electronic means to "coerce, intimidate, harass or cause other substantial emotional distress."

In August 2008, the California state legislature passed one of the first laws in the country to deal directly with cyberbullying. Assembly Bill 86 2008[147] gives school administrators the authority to discipline students for bullying, offline or online.[148] This law took effect on January 1, 2009.[149]

A law in New York's Albany County that criminalized cyberbullying was struck down as unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Marquan M.

A recent[when?] ruling first seen in the UK determined that it is possible for an Internet service provider (ISP) to be liable for the content of the sites it hosts, setting a precedent that any ISP should treat a notice of complaint seriously and investigate it immediately.[150]

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) criminalizes the making of threats via the Internet.

While some states have laws that require schools to mediate cyberbullying conflicts, several states have been sued on First Amendment grounds for doing so. By examining the decisions of three such lawsuits heard in lower courts, Alvin J. Primack and Kevin A. Johnson argued that current First Amendment doctrine, particularly the case of Morse v. Frederick (2007), may offer interpretive resources for justifying administrative reach to some online digital speech. They concluded, "[w]ithout clearer standards, school administrators are likely to feel constrained and err on the side of inaction."[151]

United Kingdom

[edit]

The United Kingdom does not have anti-bullying legislation. However, it does have the Protection From Harassment Act, an anti-stalking law.[152] U.K. courts have used this legislation in bullying cases.

In early February 2022, ministers of the UK parliament planned to add to their proposed Online Safety Bill several criminal offences against those who send death threats online or deliberately share dangerous disinformation about fake Covid cures. Other new offences, such as revenge porn, posts advertising people-smuggling, and messages encouraging people to commit suicide, would fall under the responsibilities of online platforms like Facebook and Twitter to tackle.[153]

Philippines

[edit]

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 defines cyberlibel as a punishable offence under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of 1930.[154]

European Union

[edit]

Since the 1990s, the United Kingdom and other European countries have been working to solve workplace bullying since there is no legislation regulating cyberbullying. The pervasive nature of technology has made the act of bullying online much easier.[152] A 24-hour internet connection gives bullies a neverending opportunity to find and bully victims. Employers in the European Union have more legal responsibility to their employees than do those in other countries. Since employers do not have the ability to fire or hire an employee at will like in the United States, employers in Europe are held to a high standard in how their employees are treated.

In 2007, the European Union developed the Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work, a law that prevents bullying occurring in the workplace and holds employers accountable for providing fair working conditions.[152] The law defines the responsibilities of an employer such as protecting their employees from bullies in a work environment and the psychological pain a victim faces from bullies during business hours. Lawyers pursuing cyberbullying cases use the Ordinance on Victimization at Work law, since there are not any laws specifically condemning cyberbullying.[152]

In 1993, Sweden was the first European Union country to have a law against cyberbullying. The Ordinance on Victimization at Work protected victims from "recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can result in those employees being placed outside the workplace community".[152]

In 2002, France passed the Social Modernization Law, which added consequences to the French Labor Code for cyberbullying such as holding employers accountable for their involvement in harassment.[155] The legislation defines "moral harassment" as "repeated acts leading to a deterioration of the working conditions and that are likely to harm the dignity, the physical or psychological heath of the victim or his professional career."[152]

This image portrays the support and awareness that many anti-cyberbullying campaigns have in some countries around the world.

The United States and some other countries have more extensive legislation on cyberbullying than the European Union. Cyberbullying incidents on social media are widespread and have increased drastically in number.[152] However, the process of getting a claim against a bully is not an easy one because of the victim's need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence of bullying.

As of mid-2015, countries in the European Union were in the process of creating laws specially related to cyberbullying. Since the process takes time, the government is supporting school programs to promote internet safety with the help of teachers and parents.[156] This will allow the government to take the time it needs to create the cyberbullying laws while helping safeguard students from cyberbullying as much as possible.[157]

Spain
[edit]

The prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents in Spain is low in comparison to the rest of the world, with recent studies indicating rates of 3% and global estimates indicating closer to 5%. However, Spanish adolescents who engage in cyberbullying tend to also engage in traditional forms of bullying; 30% of Spanish adolescents engaging in cyberbullying also engaged in bullying. Several key risk factors for cyberbullying in Spain include: moral disengagement, peer group, and poor anger control.[158]

These factors are present for both Spanish male and female adolescents, although boys generally exhibited greater levels of involvement. For example, boys mean score in cyberbullying behaviors was 0.15 and girls was 0.11. These findings suggest that adolescents who justify violence, feel pressure from peers, and exhibit poor emotional regulation, engage in cyberbullying.[158]

Research on preventive legislation

[edit]

Researchers suggest that programs be put in place for prevention of cyberbullying. These programs would be incorporated into school curricula and would include online safety and instruction on how to use the Internet properly.[159] This could teach the victim proper methods of potentially avoiding the cyberbully, such as blocking messages or increasing the security of their computer.[159]

Even in a perfect world, no crime can be stopped fully. That is why it is suggested that within this prevention method, effective coping strategies should be introduced and adopted.[160] People can adopt coping strategies to combat future cyberbullying. Coping strategies may include social support groups composed of victims of cyberbullying,[159] which could allow students to share their stories, and remove the feeling of being alone.

Teachers should be involved in all prevention educational models, as they are essentially the "police" of the classroom.[160] Most cyberbullying often goes unreported as the victim feels nothing can be done to help in their current situation.[159] However, if given the proper tools with preventive measures and more power in the classroom, teachers can be of assistance; if the parent, teacher, and victim can work together, solutions may be found.[159]

There have been many legislative attempts to facilitate the control of bullying and cyberbullying. Some existing legislation is incorrectly thought to be tied to bullying and cyberbullying (including terms such as "libel" and "slander").[160] The problem is that the existing legislation does not directly apply to bullying, nor define it as its own criminal behavior.[161] Anti-cyberbullying advocates have even expressed concern about the broad scope of some of the bills attempted to be passed.[162]

In the United States, attempts have been made to pass legislation against cyberbullying. Few states attempted to pass broad sanctions in an effort to prohibit cyberbullying. Problems include how to define cyberbullying and cyberstalking, and, if charges are pressed, whether this violates the bully's freedom of speech.[162] B. Walther said that "Illinois is the only state to criminalize 'electronic communication(s) sent for the purpose of harassing another person' when the activity takes place outside a public school setting." This was criticized for infringement on freedom of speech.[162]

Preventing a child from being cyberbullied is hard, but now they are working to form programs and laws to help stop the issue from getting worse than it already is. They have created movies such as Cyberbully by Charles Biname and The Duff by Ari Sandel for teenagers to watch and see how cyberbullying can affect an individual. Children that are victims of this problem feel they can not go to an adult for help because they may feel embarrassed by the situation.[163] Bullying online will not only hurt the teenager emotionally, but there is also a risk of the child hurting themselves physically as well; in 2017, suicide was the tenth leading cause of death among persons in the United States.[163]

Being able to tell if a child is being hurt from this issue can be tough, but there are certain things that a child will do that should give a red flag that they are being bullied.[164] A cyberbully could have said nasty words to that child and the victim could be looking for compliments. If the victim is always online wondering when the bully will strike next that could also be a sign. Being an active parent in their children's lives will make a difference on whether their child is experiencing online bullying or not.[165] Also bringing police involved in the case will be a problem solver too.

Harmful effects

[edit]

Research has demonstrated a number of serious consequences of cyberbullying victimization.[13][130][137][138] Victims may have lower self-esteem, increased suicidal ideation, and a variety of emotional responses, including being scared, frustrated, angry, and depressed.[137] Cyberbullying may be more harmful than traditional bullying, because there is no escaping it.[166] One of the most damaging effects is that a victim begins to avoid friends and activities, which is often the very intention of the bully.

Cyberbullying campaigns are sometimes so damaging that victims have committed suicide. There are at least four examples in the United States in which cyberbullying has been linked to the suicide of a teenager.[137] The suicide of Megan Meier is an example that led to the conviction of the adult perpetrator of the attacks. Holly Grogan committed suicide by jumping off a 30-foot bridge near Gloucester in the UK. It was reported that a number of her schoolmates had posted a number of hateful messages on her Facebook page.[167]

According to Lucie Russell, director of campaigns, policy and participation at youth mental health charity Young Minds, young people who suffer from mental disorders are vulnerable to cyberbullying as they are sometimes unable to shrug it off:

When someone says nasty things healthy people can filter that out, they're able to put a block between that and their self-esteem. But mentally unwell people don't have the strength and the self-esteem to do that, to separate it, and so it gets compiled with everything else. To them, it becomes the absolute truth – there's no filter, there's no block. That person will take that on, take it as fact.[168]

Social media has allowed bullies to disconnect from the impact they may be having on others.[169]

Intimidation, emotional damage, and suicide

[edit]

According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, "there have been several high‐profile cases involving teenagers taking their own lives in part because of being harassed and mistreated over the Internet, a phenomenon we have termed cyberbullicide – suicide indirectly or directly influenced by experiences with online aggression."

Cyberbullying is an intense form of psychological abuse, whose victims are more than twice as likely to suffer from mental disorders compared to traditional bullying.[170]

The reluctance youth have in telling an authority figure about instances of cyberbullying has led to fatal outcomes. At least three children between the ages of 12 and 13 have committed suicide due to depression brought on by cyberbullying, according to reports by USA Today and the Baltimore Examiner. These include the suicide of Ryan Halligan and the suicide of Megan Meier, the latter of which resulted in United States v. Lori Drew. Teen suicides tied to cyberbullying have recently become more prevalent. Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being terrorized through mobile applications such as Ask.fm, Kik Messenger and Voxer.[171]

On youth and teenagers

[edit]

The effects of cyberbullying vary, but research illustrates that cyberbullying adversely affects youth to a higher degree than adolescents and adults. Youth are more likely to suffer since they are still growing mentally and physically.[172] Jennifer N. Caudle, a certified family physician, says, "Kids that are bullied are likely to experience anxiety, depression, loneliness, unhappiness and poor sleep".[173]

This image shows different aspects of cyberbullying that can take place on the internet which puts more emotional strain on the younger children and teenage who experience cyberbullying.

Most of the time cyberbullying goes unnoticed; the younger generation hides their bullying from anyone that can help to prevent the bullying from occurring and from getting worse. Between 20% and 40% of adolescents are victims of cyberbullying worldwide.[172][174] The youth slowly change their behaviors and actions so they become more withdrawn and quiet, but this may go unnoticed since the change is subtle.[172][174] Metin Deniz believes cyberbullying will "become a serious problem in the future with an increase in the Internet and mobile phone usage among young people".[174]

If preventive actions are not taken against cyberbullying, younger children in addition to teenagers will feel more lonely and depressed along with having significant changes in their eating and sleeping patterns as well as loss of interest in their normal activities.[175] These changes will affect their growth and development into adulthood.[172][174] Younger children and teenagers are 76.2% less likely to display suicidal behaviors and thoughts, but are still at risk depending on other factors such as mental health status, home care, and relationships with others.[174] The risk of suicide increases by 35% to 45% when victims do not have any support from anyone in their life, and cyberbullying amplifies the situation.[172]

Young people seem particularly vulnerable to the effects of cyberbullying through anonymous social media, perhaps because adolescents are attracted to these platforms as a means of seeking validation from their peers.[176] Abuse on these platforms, such as ASKfm, Yik Yak and Sarahah, can be particularly keenly felt by young people, leading to issues of loss of confidence.[177] There have been a number of suicides related to bullying on these platforms in the US[178] and Britain.[179]

Suppression of speech

[edit]

By at least 2018, some doctors have been targets of online harassment from anti-vaccine activists responding to their social media posts, including hundreds of negative false reviews on doctor ratings sites. This made some of the doctors more reluctant to share information about vaccines, but others formed groups to spread factual information about vaccine safety on social media in response.[180]

Awareness

[edit]

Campaigns

[edit]

International

[edit]

The Cybersmile Foundation is a cyberbullying charity committed to tackling all forms of online bullying, abuse, and hate campaigns. It was founded in 2010 in response to the increasing number of cyberbullying related incidents of depression, eating disorders, social isolation, self-harm and suicides devastating lives around the world. Cybersmile provides support to victims and their friends and families through social media interaction, email and helpline support. They also run an annual event, Stop Cyberbullying Day, to draw attention to the issue.

Spain

[edit]

Multiple non-profit organizations fight cyberbullying and cyberstalking. They advise victims, provide awareness campaigns, and report offenses to the police. These NGOs include the Protégeles, PantallasAmigas, Foundation Alia2, the non-profit initiative Actúa Contra el Ciberacoso, the National Communications Technology Institute (INTECO), the Agency of Internet quality, the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, the Oficina de Seguridad del Internauta, the Spanish Internet users' Association, the Internauts' Association, and the Spanish Association of Mothers and Parents Internauts. The government of Castile and León has also created a Plan de Prevención del Ciberacoso y Promoción de la Navegación Segura en Centro Escolares, and the government of the Canary Islands has created a portal on the phenomenon called Viveinternet.

United States

[edit]

In March 2007, the Advertising Council in the United States, in partnership with the National Crime Prevention Council, U.S. Department of Justice, and Crime Prevention Coalition of America, joined to announce the launch of a new public service advertising campaign designed to educate preteens and teens about how they can play a role in ending cyberbullying.

As of 2008, the Boy Scouts of America's 2008 edition of The Boy Scout Handbook addresses how to deal with online bullying. A new First Class rank requirements adds: "Describe the three things you should avoid doing related to use of the Internet. Describe a cyberbully and how you should respond to one."[181][182]

In 2008, KTTV Fox 11 News in Los Angeles put out a report about organized cyberbullying on sites like Stickam by people who call themselves "/b/rothas".[183] The site had put out a report on July 26, 2007, about a subject that partly featured cyberbullying, titled "Hackers on Steroids".[184]

On June 2, 2008, parents, teens, teachers, and Internet executives came together at Wired Safety's International Stop Cyberbullying Conference, a two-day gathering in White Plains, New York and New York City. Executives from Facebook, Verizon, MySpace, Microsoft, and many others talked with hundreds about how to better protect themselves and their personal reputations, children and businesses from online harassment. Sponsors of the conference included McAfee, AOL, Disney, Procter & Gamble, Girl Scouts of the USA, WiredTrust, Children's Safety Research and Innovation Centre, and KidZui.com. Cyberharassment versus cyberbullying was a forefront topic, where age makes a difference; abusive internet behavior by adults with the repeated clear intent to harm, ridicule or damage a person or business was classified as stalking harassment, versus bullying by teens and young adults.[185]

An organized movement to make revenge porn illegal began in August 2012: End Revenge Porn.[186] Currently revenge porn is only illegal in two states, but the demand for its criminalization is on the rise as digital technology has increased in the past few generations. The organization seeks to provide support for victims, educate the public, and gain activist support to bring new legislation before the United States Government.[186]

In 2006, PACER.org created a week-long event that was held once a year in October. Today, the campaign is a month-long event and is now known as the National Bullying Prevention Awareness Month.[187]

Canada

[edit]

Originating in Canada, Anti-Bullying Day is a day of celebration for those who choose to participate wearing a symbol of colors (pink, blue or purple) as a stance against bullying. A British Columbia teacher founded the Stop A Bully movement, which uses pink wristbands to represent the wearer's stance to stop bullying.

Pink Shirt Day was inspired by David Shepherd and Travis Price. Their high school friends organized a protest in sympathy for a Grade 9 boy who was bullied for wearing a pink shirt. Their stance from wearing pink has been a huge inspiration in the Great Vancouver Mainland. "We know that victims of bullying, witnesses of bullying and bullies themselves all experience the very real and long term negative impacts of bullying regardless of its forms – physical, verbal, written, or on-line (cyberbullying)".[citation needed]

ERASE (Expect Respect and A Safe Education) is an initiative started by the province of British Columbia to foster safe schools and prevent bullying. It builds on already-effective programs set up by the provincial government to ensure consistent policies and practices regarding the prevention of bullying.

Community support

[edit]

A number of organizations are in coalition to provide awareness, protection and recourse for this escalating problem. Some aim to inform and provide measures to avoid as well as effectively terminate cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Anti-bullying charity Act Against Bullying launched the CyberKind campaign in August 2009 to promote positive internet usage.

In 2007, YouTube introduced the first Anti-Bullying Channel for youth (BeatBullying), using the assistance of celebrities to tackle the problem.[188]

In March 2010, a 17-year-old girl named Alexis Skye Pilkington was found dead in her room by her parents. Her parents claimed that after repeated cyberbullying, she was driven to suicide. Shortly after her death, attacks resumed. Members of eBaum's World began to troll teens' memorial pages on Facebook, with the comments including expressions of pleasure over the death, with pictures of what seemed to be a banana as their profile pictures. Family and friends of the deceased teen responded by creating Facebook groups denouncing cyberbullying and trolling, with logos of bananas behind a red circle with a diagonal line through it.[189]

In response and partnership to the 2011 film Bully, a grassroots effort to stop cyberbullying called the Bully Project was created. Their goal is to start "a national movement to stop bullying that is transforming children's lives and changing a culture of bullying into one of empathy and action."[190]

International cooperation

[edit]

The UNESCO International day against violence and bullying at school including cyberbullying is celebrated every year on the first Thursday of November since 2020.[191]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Cyberbullying is the deliberate and repeated use of electronic communication technologies, such as , , or , to harass, threaten, humiliate, or intimidate another person, often exploiting and the technology's broad dissemination capabilities to amplify . It typically involves elements of intent to cause distress, repetition of aggressive acts, and an imbalance of power, distinguishing it from isolated conflicts, though definitional inconsistencies across studies complicate uniform measurement. Unlike traditional , cyberbullying extends beyond physical spaces, persisting in digital records and infiltrating victims' personal environments without respite. Prevalence rates among adolescents vary widely due to differences in self-report methodologies and cultural contexts, with meta-analyses indicating victimization experiences ranging from approximately 15% to 31% and higher in some Asian countries approaching 50%. Perpetration rates are generally lower, estimated at 3% to 20%, and both tend to peak during middle and high school years, facilitated by platforms like where interactions are public and viral. Empirical data suggest cyberbullying often co-occurs with traditional , but its standalone incidence may be inflated by broad survey definitions that include one-off incidents rather than sustained aggression. The psychological impacts include elevated risks of depressive symptoms, anxiety, , and , with longitudinal studies showing associations persisting after controlling for prior . However, causal attributions remain debated, as pre-existing vulnerabilities may predispose individuals to both victimization and adverse outcomes, and some research critiques the field for overemphasizing rare severe cases while underplaying resilience factors or the overlap with general online conflicts. Legal responses have proliferated, with many jurisdictions enacting specific statutes, though enforcement challenges arise from jurisdictional boundaries and free speech considerations.

Definitions and Scope

Core Characteristics and Distinctions

Cyberbullying is characterized by intentional, repeated aggressive behavior carried out through digital devices or platforms, such as computers, cell phones, or , with the aim of harming or distressing the victim, often involving a perceived power imbalance between perpetrator and target. This typically manifests in forms including harassment via insults or threats, dissemination of rumors, impersonation, or exclusionary tactics online. Core elements distinguishing it as a of include the electronic medium, which enables (perpetrators concealing identities), permanence (content remaining accessible indefinitely), (potential for widespread dissemination to large audiences), and persistence (24/7 unbound by physical proximity). These features amplify harm compared to non-digital interactions, as victims may experience unrelenting exposure without respite, and evidence of the acts persists as a digital record. Unlike traditional , which often requires physical or direct interpersonal contact and is confined to specific locations like schools, cyberbullying transcends spatial and temporal limits, allowing attacks to occur anytime via text, images, or videos shared across networks. Traditional forms emphasize overt physical or verbal confrontations with immediate witnesses, whereas cyberbullying leverages the internet's for indirect, relational harm—such as doxxing or viral shaming—that can evade and involve bystanders as unwitting amplifiers. While overlap exists, with many cyber-victims also facing offline , cyber incidents uniquely lack face-to-face cues, reducing perpetrator and due to perceived distance, yet heightening victim isolation through the illusion of inescapable . Empirical studies indicate cyberbullying's distinct psychological toll stems from its covert nature and evidentiary permanence, complicating resolution as deleted content may already have been archived or by others.

Specific Forms and Tactics

Harassment involves the repeated sending of aggressive, threatening, or intimidating messages via , , or social platforms, often escalating to include explicit threats of physical harm. Empirical studies identify this as a core tactic, with —such as insults, mocking, or derogatory name-calling—being the most frequently reported form among adolescents, occurring in up to 50% of cyberbullying incidents in surveyed samples. Denigration entails spreading rumors, lies, or embarrassing information about a target to damage their reputation, typically through public posts, comments, or shared content on . classifies this as adapted to digital contexts, where perpetrators exploit the viral nature of online sharing to amplify harm, with prevalence rates in school-based studies reaching 30-40% among victims reporting such exposure. Impersonation occurs when bullies create or profiles mimicking the victim to post inflammatory content, send deceptive messages, or solicit compromising information from the victim's contacts. This tactic leverages and platform vulnerabilities, as evidenced in analyses of adolescent cyberbullying where impersonation facilitated further in 10-20% of cases involving social networking sites. Outing and exclusion tactics include deliberately revealing private, sensitive information (such as or personal secrets) without consent or systematically barring individuals from online groups, chats, or games to isolate them socially. Peer-reviewed reviews note exclusion as a form of relational cyberbullying, particularly prevalent in multiplayer gaming environments, where it correlates with heightened emotional distress due to the perpetual visibility of digital social dynamics. Doxxing and involve publicizing personal details like addresses, phone numbers, or locations to invite real-world threats, often combined with persistent monitoring and unwanted digital pursuit across platforms. Government and academic sources report these as severe escalations, with doxxing linked to 15-25% of high-impact cyberbullying cases in youth surveys, enabling transitions from online to offline harm. Flaming refers to heated, provocative exchanges designed to provoke , frequently occurring in comment sections or forums, and classified in empirical typologies as direct verbal confrontation distinct from sustained . Studies differentiate these tactics by and medium, emphasizing that picture- or video-based attacks, such as non-consensual sharing of manipulated images, represent emerging forms tied to proliferation.

Historical Development

Pre-Internet Precursors and Early Digital Cases

Bullying behaviors predating the often involved indirect methods of that allowed perpetrators to maintain distance from victims, mirroring key elements of cyberbullying such as , repetition, and of harmful content to audiences. Poison pen letters, anonymous missives containing threats, rumors, or insults, served as a historical analog, frequently used to intimidate individuals or disrupt communities; notable scandals in Britain during the 20th century involved such letters terrorizing villages by accusing residents of moral failings or crimes, leading to social ostracism and psychological distress. Similarly, crank calls—persistent, harassing pranks—emerged shortly after the 's invention, with the first recorded instance occurring in 1884, when an anonymous caller falsely reported a to a , prompting a unnecessary response and highlighting the potential for misuse of emerging communication . These practices exploited the mediated nature of communication to amplify harm without physical confrontation, laying groundwork for digital equivalents by enabling bullies to target victims remotely and repeatedly. The advent of affordable personal computers in the facilitated the migration of such behaviors to digital platforms, marking the initial phase of online harassment. systems (BBS), popular from the late 1970s through the , and newsgroups introduced asynchronous messaging where users could post inflammatory content under pseudonyms, fostering early forms of trolling—deliberate provocation or abuse—that disrupted discussions and targeted individuals. Instances of flaming (heated, aggressive exchanges) and anonymous attacks in these forums prefigured cyberbullying tactics, as perpetrators leveraged the perceived of dial-up connections to harass without immediate repercussions, often escalating to personal threats or doxxing precursors like sharing private details. Documented early digital cases emerged in the late with the broader , including chat rooms and , where involved repeated insults or rumor-spreading; for example, online communities reported surges in targeted abuse as user bases grew, though specific suicides linked to these were rare until the 2000s. The term "cyberbullying" itself was not coined until 2004 by educator Bill Belsey, reflecting the phenomenon's novelty despite underlying behaviors tracing to online interactions. These precursors underscored causal continuities from analog to digital , driven by technology's enablement of scalable, low-risk rather than novel pathologies.

Expansion with Social Media and Smartphones

The proliferation of platforms in the mid-2000s coincided with a marked expansion of cyber, as these sites facilitated rapid dissemination of harmful content to wide audiences. launched in 2003, followed by in 2004 (initially for college students, opening to the public in September 2006) and in March 2006, enabling users to share posts, photos, and messages that could persist indefinitely and reach peers beyond immediate social circles. These platforms amplified traditional by allowing anonymous or pseudonymous interactions, viral sharing of derogatory material, and exclusionary tactics like blocking or group shaming, which were less feasible in earlier digital forums such as or basic chat rooms. The introduction of smartphones, exemplified by Apple's in June 2007, further accelerated this growth by providing constant mobile access to social networks, blurring boundaries between life. Prior to widespread smartphone adoption, cyberbullying was largely confined to desktop computers with limited uptime; post-2007, device portability enabled at any time, including during school hours or sleep, with features like and real-time notifications exacerbating immediacy and inescapability. Studies indicate that early cell phone ownership among heightened cyberbullying involvement risks, as it increased online exposure duration and frequency. Empirical data reflect this trajectory: a global estimated cyberbullying victimization at approximately 15%, primarily from studies predating mass penetration, while subsequent reviews covering 2015–2019 reported average victimization rates of 33% and perpetration at 25%, correlating with surged digital adoption. U.S.-specific surveys show escalation, with Cyberbullying Research Center data noting a rise from 6.2% past-year victimization in to 9% in 2011 amid rising platform use, though methodological shifts later stabilized reported figures around 20–30% by the mid-2010s as baselines adjusted for broader awareness. This uptick stems causally from expanded vectors—social media's algorithmic amplification of conflicts and smartphones' normalization of all-hours connectivity—rather than mere reporting biases, as corroborated by consistent patterns across self-report and observational studies. Platform-specific vulnerabilities emerged: (launched 2010) and (2011) saw high incidences due to visual content sharing, with later analyses linking frequent use to elevated bullying odds. Despite mitigation efforts like , the structural incentives of engagement-driven algorithms have sustained expansion, with no evidence of reversal tied to technological fixes alone.

Key Milestones and Evolving Perceptions

The term "cyberbullying" was coined around 1999, coinciding with the expansion of affordable personal computers and , which enabled early forms of online harassment through , services like AOL Instant Messenger, and anonymous chat rooms. These initial cases were sporadic and largely perceived as novel pranks or interpersonal disputes lacking the physical immediacy of traditional bullying, with limited public or legal recognition of their potential severity. A turning point arrived in October 2006 with the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in , who endured months of deceptive messaging from a fictitious profile operated by an adult neighbor, exposing vulnerabilities in emerging social networks and prompting widespread media coverage. This incident catalyzed advocacy for targeted legislation, including Missouri's 2008 amendment to its harassment statutes explicitly addressing cyberbullying, and influenced the federal Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act introduced in 2009, which sought to criminalize intentional infliction of severe emotional distress via electronic means but failed to pass due to First Amendment concerns. The mid-2000s smartphone boom, exemplified by the 2007 launch, accelerated cyberbullying's scale by merging constant mobile access with platforms like (founded 2003) and (2004), allowing harassment to extend beyond school hours into perpetual digital spaces. Subsequent tragedies, such as the September 2010 suicide of student Tyler Clementi—whose roommate livestreamed his private encounter using a —intensified scrutiny, leading to New Jersey's 2011 expansion of bias intimidation laws and renewed federal proposals, including a 2012 bill named after Clementi that also stalled amid debates over overreach. Legislative momentum built post-1999 Columbine shootings, when states began anti-bullying statutes; cyber provisions proliferated between 2006 and 2010, with 49 states enacting school-based policies by 2015, though enforcement varied and some faced judicial invalidation, as in North Carolina's 2015 statute struck down in 2016 for vagueness infringing on free speech. Public perceptions shifted from early dismissal—viewing cyberbullying as a minor, ephemeral annoyance inferior to in-person aggression—to alarm over its anonymity, archival permanence, and 24/7 accessibility, framing it as an escalating "epidemic" linked to youth suicides in media narratives around 2006–2012. Empirical data later moderated this, revealing cyberbullying's prevalence at 19–25% among U.S. students (e.g., 19.2% in 2021–2022 per federal surveys), often co-occurring with traditional bullying rather than independently more destructive, with harms contingent on factors like victim vulnerability over inherent digital potency. Mainstream and academic sources, prone to institutional biases favoring interventionist policies, occasionally overstated uniqueness and causality to mental health outcomes, yet longitudinal studies affirm elevated risks for depression and anxiety without universal lethality.

Methods and Vectors

Social Media and Messaging Platforms

Social media platforms such as , , , and , along with messaging applications like and direct messaging features, serve as primary vectors for cyberbullying due to their facilitation of rapid content dissemination, persistent digital records, and varying degrees of user . These environments enable aggressors to target victims through public posts, private messages, or group chats, amplifying harm via shares, likes, and algorithmic promotion that extend reach beyond initial intent. In surveys of adolescents, accounts for approximately 43% of reported cyberbullying incidents, while text or messaging apps constitute 56%, highlighting their prevalence over other digital spaces. Common tactics on these platforms include direct via insults or threats in comments, direct messages (DMs), or stories; spreading false rumors through viral shares or reposts; impersonation by creating fake profiles to post damaging content; and exclusionary practices in group chats, such as coordinated or doxxing personal information. On and , ephemeral content like disappearing stories can encourage risky disclosures followed by screenshots for permanent shaming, while WhatsApp group dynamics often involve conformity to aggressive norms, escalating private bullying into collective attacks. Peer-reviewed analyses indicate that such methods exploit platform affordances, like unlimited audience scalability on public feeds, leading to psychological distress from perceived inescapable exposure. Prevalence data underscores platform-specific risks: among youth, reports the highest cyberbullying rates at 79%, followed by (69%) and (64%), often tied to comment sections or live features. sees about 29.8% of incidents, frequently involving photo-based , while messaging apps like contribute through 8.5% of cases, primarily in closed groups where oversight is minimal. In the U.S., 26.5% of teens experienced cyberbullying in 2023, with use correlating to higher victimization rates, particularly for frequent users reporting electronic . These figures, drawn from national surveys, reveal underreporting due to victims' fear of retaliation or platform inaction, though empirical studies confirm bidirectional links where heavy platform engagement predicts both perpetration and victimization. Platforms employ self-regulatory tools including user reporting mechanisms, automated content filters, blocking features, and AI-driven moderation to detect harassment patterns via natural language processing. However, effectiveness remains limited; only 25% of U.S. teens in 2022 viewed sites as adequately addressing cyberbullying, citing inconsistent enforcement and algorithmic biases that prioritize engagement over safety. Studies evaluating AI interventions show promise in proactive flagging but highlight gaps in contextual understanding, such as or cultural nuances, resulting in over- or under-moderation. Despite commitments to remove harmful content, reliance on reactive user reports often delays intervention, allowing initial harms to proliferate before mitigation.

Online Gaming and Virtual Communities

Cyberbullying in online gaming and virtual communities often involves repeated , targeted exclusion, and griefing behaviors that disrupt and target individual players' identities. These acts occur in multiplayer online battle arenas (MOBAs), first-person shooters (FPS), and massively multiplayer online games (MMOs), where and real-time interaction facilitate escalation from competitive banter to personal attacks. Griefing, defined as intentional of others' experiences, and doxxing—sharing private information to incite offline harm—exemplify tactics that extend beyond in-game disputes. Prevalence data indicate high exposure rates: a 2023 (ADL) survey found 76% of adult gamers aged 18-45 encountered in multiplayer games, including severe forms like threats of violence. Among youth, a 2024 study reported that 41% of teen gamers experienced , with 80% viewing it as a significant issue for their peers. Identity-based affects 31% of young gamers, rising to 47% gender-targeted abuse among adults in these environments. Virtual communities, such as those in MMOs or platforms like , amplify persistence, as avatars and guilds enable sustained campaigns against perceived rivals or minorities. Competitive dynamics in esports exacerbate toxicity, with studies linking witnessed aggression to perpetration; players with low social self-efficacy are more prone to verbal attacks during matches. Research attributes this to anonymity reducing accountability, though empirical evidence shows correlation, not universal causation, as many instances stem from frustration over losses rather than premeditated malice. Enforcement varies: games like League of Legends employ AI moderation and bans, yet recidivism persists due to alt accounts and cross-platform migration to Discord servers or forums. A 2025 systematic review highlights predictors like prior victimization increasing retaliatory bullying in MMOGs, underscoring cycles within these ecosystems. Victims in gaming communities report heightened anxiety and game abandonment, with 2024 NIH data linking cyberbullying exposure to disordered gaming patterns among 57% of affected students. Unlike text-based platforms, immersive virtual environments intensify emotional impact through voice chat and visual targeting, yet underreporting prevails due to normalization of "" as cultural norm. Platform responses, including voluntary codes in , show mixed efficacy, as self-regulation often prioritizes retention over strict prohibition.

Other Digital Environments

Cyberbullying manifests in through repeated dispatch of insulting, threatening, or derogatory messages, often leveraging the medium's direct access to personal inboxes for sustained . Such acts exploit email's pseudonymity and ease of use, allowing perpetrators to send harmful content anonymously or under false identities, including of private information to humiliate recipients. The U.S. Department of Health and identifies sending negative or false content via as a core form of cyberbullying, distinct from social platforms due to its one-to-one targeting and potential for attachment of explicit materials. Online forums, message boards, and chat rooms enable cyberbullying via public or semi-public posts that target individuals with harassment, rumors, or coordinated exclusion, amplified by features like threading and searchability that perpetuate visibility. Anonymity in these spaces correlates with increased aggressive posting, as users perceive lower accountability, leading to behaviors such as flaming or doxxing. Peer-reviewed analysis of forum dynamics reveals that anonymous roles facilitate cyberbullying by disassociating online aggression from real-world identity, heightening risks of emotional distress for victims. Examples include niche discussion boards where users orchestrate attacks, with content remaining archived indefinitely, complicating removal efforts compared to ephemeral messaging. Website comment sections and anonymous imageboards represent additional vectors, where unmoderated replies or posts devolve into bullying through attacks, campaigns, or swarming tactics. On platforms like , total anonymity fosters environments rife with targeted harassment, as users post hateful content without repercussions, contributing to broader patterns of online aggression. Research underscores that such in comment threads exacerbates impacts, with victims encountering persistent negativity in ostensibly neutral digital public squares. data specific to these environments remains limited, as studies predominantly aggregate across digital mediums, but inclusion in federal definitions highlights their role alongside more scrutinized platforms.

Prevalence and Demographics

Global and National Incidence Rates

A 2024 analysis of Health Behaviour in School-aged Children surveys across 44 European and Central Asian countries estimated that 16% of school-aged children (ages 11, 13, and 15) experienced cyber victimization, with perpetration rates averaging 12% and showing an upward trend from 9% in 2018 to 12% in 2022. Globally, a poll of over 170,000 young people aged 13-24 across 30 countries found that 35% reported experiencing online , with rates varying by region and often linked to higher engagement. Peer-reviewed meta-analyses indicate wide variation in reported cybervictimization rates, typically ranging from 10% to 52% among adolescents, attributable to differences in survey definitions (e.g., frequency thresholds like "at least once" versus "repeatedly"), timeframes (lifetime versus past 30 days), and samples. In the , the Centers for Control and Prevention's 2023 Survey reported that 16% of high school students experienced electronic bullying in the past 12 months, with higher rates among females (22%) than males (17%). A 2024 study by researchers Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, drawing from a nationally representative sample of over 5,000 U.S. middle and high school students, found 26.5% reported cyberbullying involvement (as victim, perpetrator, or both) in the past 30 days, up from 23.2% in 2021, highlighting short-term incidence spikes potentially tied to pandemic-era digital shifts. In the , the 2020 EU Kids Online survey across 19 countries averaged 14% of children aged 9-17 reporting cyberbullying "a few times" or "every week," with national variations such as 20% in and under 10% in some . National rates in show greater heterogeneity; a study of Chinese reported 66% lifetime cybervictimization, exceeding global averages but potentially inflated by broad inclusion of minor incidents like rumors or exclusion. In Taiwan, a survey by the Children Welfare Alliance found that nearly 40% of adolescents have heard of peers experiencing cyberbullying, which extends school bullying online without boundaries and causes deeper psychological trauma, especially for girls. In , systematic reviews of studies using multi-item scales estimate cybervictimization at 38-48% among adolescents, compared to 24-26% for perpetration. In Russia, prevalence among schoolchildren varies from 19% to 69% across studies, depending on definitions and measurement, with a 15% increase in cases noted in 2024. These figures underscore measurement challenges, as self-reported data from convenience samples in developing regions often lack , while underreporting persists due to cultural stigmas against admitting . Overall, recent trends suggest stabilization or slight increases in high-income nations post-2020, driven by expanded online access, though causal links remain correlational without controlling for reporting biases.

Variations by Age, Gender, and Socioeconomic Factors

Cyberbullying victimization and perpetration rates exhibit distinct patterns across age groups, with prevalence peaking during . A 2022 survey of U.S. teens aged 13-17 found that 46% had experienced at least one form of cyberbullying, such as offensive name-calling or rumor-spreading , with rates higher among older teens (59% for ages 15-17 versus 33% for ages 13-14). Globally, meta-analyses of studies from 2020-2025 indicate adolescent cyberbullying victimization rates ranging from 14% to 57%, often concentrated in middle and high school years due to increased digital engagement and social pressures. Younger children (under 12) show lower rates, around 20% for tweens, while involvement drops significantly, though underreporting may obscure precise figures. Longitudinal reveal curvilinear trends, with victimization dipping slightly around age 13 for boys but rising for girls at ages 13 and 15, linked to developmental shifts in peer dynamics and platform usage. Gender differences manifest primarily in the forms and rates of perpetration versus victimization. Meta-analyses indicate boys are more likely to perpetrate cyberbullying, with higher odds ratios for direct aggressive acts like threats or , reflecting patterns in traditional extended online. Victimization rates show smaller disparities, though girls aged 15-17 report higher exposure (54%) to relational tactics such as exclusion or rumor dissemination compared to boys (44%), potentially due to greater female participation in networks. A 2020 meta-analysis of 39 studies confirmed a modest male bias in perpetration ( favoring higher male involvement), but no consistent in overall victimization after controlling for reporting biases. These patterns hold across cultures, though societal gender norms influence reporting; for instance, greater correlates with elevated male perpetration. Socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with elevated cyberbullying involvement, particularly among lower-SES groups. Empirical data from a 2018 study of adolescents showed those from low-SES backgrounds were 1.47 times more likely to experience or perpetrate cyberbullying, after adjusting for demographics, attributed to factors like unsupervised online access and higher stress levels. A of broadly found low SES associated with increased odds of victimization or bully-victim status ( ≈1.10-1.20), extending to cyber contexts via mechanisms such as limited parental monitoring or peer group composition. However, relative SES within classrooms yields mixed results: high-SES students may face elevated victimization due to envy-driven targeting, while absolute low SES predicts broader risk. Inconclusive findings in some reviews highlight data gaps, including measurement inconsistencies and variables like , underscoring the need for SES-stratified longitudinal studies. In the United States, recent surveys indicate fluctuating but persistent levels of cyberbullying among youth. The 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) reported that 16% of high school students experienced electronic bullying during the past 12 months, a figure consistent with prior years but lower than peak estimates from the early 2010s. Similarly, data for the 2021–22 school year showed that 22% of students ages 12–18 who experienced any reported it occurring or via text, down from 25% in 2018–19, suggesting a potential stabilization or slight decline in school-associated electronic incidents amid broader digital exposure. However, findings from 2023 highlighted that 46% of U.S. teens encountered at least one form of cyberbullying, with higher rates among frequent users, underscoring how expanded platform engagement—such as 77% of high schoolers using several times daily per 2024 CDC analysis—may sustain or amplify victimization risks despite reported reductions in structured settings. Globally, estimates vary widely, with a poll across 30 countries finding that one in three young people reported online victimization, often linked to skipping in one in five cases, though methodological differences hinder direct comparisons. Emerging trends include heightened incidents on platforms like (79% of affected youth) and (69%), per 2025 analyses, reflecting shifts toward short-form video and ephemeral messaging that facilitate anonymous aggression. Post-pandemic data also reveal correlations with increased , yet causal attributions remain tentative due to factors like socioeconomic isolation. Significant data gaps persist in cyberbullying research, primarily stemming from inconsistent definitions—ranging from repeated to single incidents—and reliance on self-reported surveys prone to underreporting or . Prevalence rates fluctuate dramatically across studies (13–57% for victimization), complicating trend tracking and cross-national analyses, as noted in recent reviews emphasizing the need for standardized metrics. Longitudinal studies are scarce, limiting insights into long-term trajectories, while understudied areas include adult victims, perpetrator beyond correlational links, and emerging vectors like AI-generated content or deepfakes. Moreover, gaps in causal —distinguishing from mechanisms like or platform algorithms—hinder evidence-based interventions, with calls for multimodal to address self-cyberbullying and offline linkages. These deficiencies are exacerbated by institutional biases in academia, where progressive emphases may inflate perceived harms without rigorous controls, underscoring the imperative for unbiased, empirically grounded inquiries.

Causal Mechanisms and Effects

Causal mechanisms underlying cyberbullying include the online disinhibition effect, where perceived anonymity diminishes accountability and empathy, prompting individuals to engage in aggressive online behaviors they would typically restrain offline. Algorithms on social networking sites amplify this by prioritizing engagement-driven content, which often includes negative or controversial material, thereby escalating visibility and facilitating the spread of harassment within group dynamics.

Psychological and Emotional Harms

Cyberbullying victimization is strongly associated with increased depressive symptoms, anxiety, and lowered , particularly among adolescents and young adults. Longitudinal analyses have demonstrated prospective associations between cyberbullying exposure and subsequent elevations in depressive (β = 0.61) and somatic symptoms (β = 1.00), independent of prior status. Meta-analyses of cyberbullying outcomes further indicate that victimization predicts incremental variance in depression, anxiety, and related internalizing problems beyond traditional effects. These associations persist over time, with victims showing heightened risk of ongoing emotional distress compared to non-victims. Emotional harms manifest as acute feelings of , isolation, and , exacerbated by the anonymous and pervasive nature of digital attacks, which can infiltrate personal spaces without respite. Victims often report heightened , social isolation impairing real-life interactions and relationships, reduced focus and concentration, and somatic complaints such as disturbances and appetite changes, linked to responses; prolonged exposure may lead to compulsive monitoring of online feedback, perpetuating an emotional downward spiral that impairs daily functioning. Peer-reviewed surveys estimate that up to 45% of affected teenagers experience severe psychological sequelae, including stress-induced anxiety and depressive episodes severe enough to impair daily functioning. Neurobiological evidence suggests alterations in empathy-related brain regions among victims, contributing to prolonged . While correlations are robust, establishing strict causation remains challenging due to bidirectional dynamics—wherein pre-existing depression may increase vulnerability to targeting—and potential confounders like family environment or offline stressors. Some studies find small to moderate effect sizes for cyberbullying's unique contribution to declines, with reverse causation evident in reciprocal models between victimization and depressive symptoms. Nonetheless, the 24/7 and public permanence of online amplify emotional impacts relative to traditional , fostering a sense of inescapable threat. High-quality longitudinal data underscore that these harms are not merely concurrent but temporally ordered in many cases, warranting targeted interventions.

Associations with Suicide and Self-Harm

Research indicates a consistent association between cyberbullying victimization and elevated risks of , attempts, and among youth, though the relationship is primarily correlational and mediated by factors such as preexisting depression. A 2022 cross-sectional analysis of over 12,000 U.S. early adolescents found that experiencing cyberbullying was linked to a fourfold increase in odds of suicidality ( [OR] 4.2, 95% CI 3.5-5.1), independent of demographic factors, while perpetration showed no such association. Systematic reviews of cohort studies confirm that victims of cyberbullying face higher prospective risks for and nonsuicidal compared to non-victims, with effect sizes varying by study design but generally stronger than for traditional bullying alone. Adolescents who perpetrate cyberbullying also exhibit increased risks of suicidal behaviors (OR 1.21) and non-suicidal self-injury, though to a lesser extent than victims, with stronger associations among bully-victims; these are mediated by stress, externalizing symptoms, and emotional problems. There is no robust evidence of immediate guilt-induced self-harm in pure aggressors, and longitudinal risks persist but attenuate after covariate adjustments. Combined victimization (cyberbullying alongside traditional ) amplifies suicide attempt risks more than cyberbullying in isolation, as evidenced by cross-national comparisons where combined exposure yielded the highest ratios across high- and low/middle-income contexts. For instance, a 2023 study of adolescents reported that cyberbullying victims had 20-21% prevalence of past-year , with mediation analyses attributing much of the link to depressive symptoms, which increased ideation by 37-52% in the presence of bullying exposure. prevalence among cyberbullied youth reaches 16-17% in some samples, disproportionately affecting females, though bidirectional effects—wherein internalizing issues predispose individuals to both victimization and self-harm—complicate interpretations. Causal claims remain tentative due to methodological limitations, including reliance on self-reports, cross-sectional designs, and failure to fully control for confounders like prior mental health or family dynamics; critiques highlight that media narratives often infer direct causation from correlation, overlooking evidence that depression or impulsivity may drive both cyberbullying involvement and suicidality. Longitudinal data from 2024-2025 prospective studies support temporal precedence of victimization over suicidal outcomes in subsets of cases, yet reverse causality and third-variable explanations (e.g., social isolation) persist as unrefuted alternatives. Overall, while cyberbullying constitutes a modifiable risk factor, interventions targeting it alone may yield limited suicide prevention benefits without addressing underlying psychopathology.

Societal Ramifications Including Speech Dynamics

Cyberbullying exerts broader societal pressures by fostering environments of intimidation that undermine and collective trust in digital spaces. Empirical analyses reveal that repeated online aggression correlates with reduced , as victims and observers alike curtail expression to evade escalation, a phenomenon termed the "chilling effect." This diminishes the diversity of ideas in online forums, skewing discourse toward echo chambers where dissenting voices are sidelined, as documented in surveys of users across platforms. Consequently, suffers, with studies linking exposure to lower rates of involvement in political or community discussions, amplifying polarization rather than resolution. In terms of speech dynamics, cyberbullying blurs lines between protected expression and actionable harm, complicating regulatory responses. While facilitates aggressive rhetoric, much of it—such as insults or criticism—falls under free speech safeguards in frameworks like the U.S. First Amendment, where courts have invalidated statutes punishing mere offensiveness to avoid overbroad suppression. Peer-reviewed research underscores that anti-harassment interventions, if not narrowly tailored, risk reciprocal chilling by deterring legitimate debate, as individuals anticipate disproportionate platform penalties or legal scrutiny. This tension manifests societally in eroded norms of robust exchange, where fear of being labeled a bully inhibits accountability for public figures or institutions, potentially shielding misconduct under veils of sensitivity. Aggregated across populations, cyberbullying incurs measurable economic burdens, including heightened demands on infrastructure and productivity losses from withdrawal or absenteeism. Global trend analyses from 2004–2019 estimate socioeconomic ripple effects in alone, with victims facing diminished academic and interpersonal outcomes that strain public resources long-term. Broader data indicate associations with societal-level increases in anxiety and isolation, exacerbating healthcare costs; for context, related offline yields annual U.S. expenses exceeding $7 billion in interventions and lost earnings, a benchmark cyber variants likely parallel or exceed due to scalability. Critically, causation remains correlative in many studies, with factors like preexisting vulnerabilities inflating perceived impacts, urging caution against narratives overstating direct societal without longitudinal controls.

Domestic Legislation and Enforcement

In the United States, no comprehensive federal statute specifically criminalizes cyberbullying, though federal laws such as the Communications Decency Act's provisions on obscene or harassing communications and the address related online harms, often requiring schools to implement policies against it. Instead, enforcement primarily occurs at the state level, where all 50 states have enacted anti-bullying laws, and 48 explicitly include cyberbullying provisions, excluding and . These state laws typically mandate school reporting and intervention but vary in criminal penalties, with some classifying severe cases as misdemeanors or felonies under or statutes, such as California's prohibition on electronic communications intended to cause fear or emotional distress. Prosecutions remain infrequent due to evidentiary challenges like proving intent and anonymity, with federal involvement limited to interstate cases under broader laws carrying up to five years' imprisonment. Enforcement faces significant hurdles tied to First Amendment protections, as courts have struck down overly broad statutes that could chill protected speech, emphasizing that cyberbullying often constitutes opinion or offensive expression rather than true threats. For instance, school-imposed punishments for off-campus cyberbullying require demonstrating substantial disruption to the learning environment, as affirmed in cases like Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), limiting administrative overreach. Law enforcement agencies, guided by resources from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, prioritize cases involving credible threats or repeated targeting, but jurisdictional issues across state lines and platforms complicate investigations. In the , cyberbullying is addressed through existing criminal laws rather than a dedicated statute, including the , which penalizes sending messages causing distress with up to two years' imprisonment, and the , targeting persistent online campaigns. The imposes proactive duties on platforms to remove harmful content, including , with enforcement powers including fines up to 10% of global revenue for non-compliance, marking a shift toward regulatory oversight since its full implementation in 2025. Prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service focus on evidence of intent to cause alarm, but challenges persist in attributing anonymous posts and balancing against freedom of expression under the Act 1998. Australia employs a combination of federal and state frameworks, with the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and Online Safety Act 2021 empowering the eSafety Commissioner to order content removal and pursue civil penalties for cyberbullying, defined as repeated aggressive messaging causing serious harm. Federal criminal provisions under the Act 1995 prohibit using to menace or harass, with penalties up to three years' imprisonment, while states like Victoria's Crimes (Amendment) Brodie's Law 2011 extend to serious bullying offenses carrying up to 10 years. Enforcement emphasizes prevention and rapid response, with police prosecuting egregious cases, though anonymity and cross-border elements often delay action, and free speech concerns limit broad application. Across these jurisdictions, empirical on enforcement is sparse, with low conviction rates highlighting gaps in attribution and the tension between harm mitigation and expressive freedoms.

International Approaches and Harmonization Efforts

The has addressed cyberbullying primarily through frameworks and awareness initiatives rather than binding treaties specifically targeting it. established the International Day against and at , including Cyberbullying, observed annually on November 6 since 2017, to promote global prevention strategies and data collection on its prevalence among youth. The UN Council convened a in September 2023 focused on cyberbullying against children, emphasizing state collaboration with platforms to enhance detection and response mechanisms, though no enforceable international standards emerged from the session. has supported campaigns, such as partnerships with platforms to educate on reporting cyberbullying via and gaming sites, reporting that it affects approximately 15% of children worldwide with risks of emotional distress. These efforts highlight a reactive, educational approach but lack uniform legal enforcement across member states. The Council of Europe's Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, adopted in 2001 and entering into force in 2004, provides the primary international framework for harmonizing substantive and procedural laws on cyber offenses, with 69 parties and 70 non-member states as of 2023; while not explicitly naming cyberbullying, it covers related acts like unlawful data interference and child exploitation content, enabling cross-border investigations. The Convention's protocols and subsequent guidance, including updates for emerging threats, aim to eliminate cybercrime "safe havens" by standardizing definitions and penalties, though implementation varies due to national interpretations of intent and repetition in bullying cases. The Council's 2022-2027 Strategy on the Rights of the Child addresses online risks, including cyberbullying in digital environments, urging member states to integrate protections into domestic laws without mandating specific harmonized penalties. In the , cyberbullying is tackled through broader online safety regulations rather than a dedicated directive, with the (effective 2024) imposing obligations on platforms to mitigate systemic risks like , including proactive for minors. on combating and extends to cyber forms such as online threats and , requiring member states to criminalize non-consensual sharing of intimate images by mid-2027. A launched on July 22, 2025, seeks input for an anticipated EU against cyberbullying in early 2026, aiming to coordinate national policies amid recognition of definitional inconsistencies and enforcement gaps across states. Globally, networks like the 2024 Global Online Safety Regulators Network foster information-sharing on issues including cyberbullying to promote aligned enforcement, yet persistent challenges in harmonization stem from divergent free speech protections and jurisdictional hurdles in transnational cases.

Constitutional Challenges and Free Speech Tensions

Anti-cyberbullying statutes in the United States have frequently encountered First Amendment challenges, primarily on grounds of overbreadth and vagueness, as they risk criminalizing protected expressive conduct such as , , or heated online discourse that does not fall into established unprotected categories like true threats or . Courts have emphasized that while cyberbullying can cause harm, the government bears the burden of narrowly tailoring laws to avoid chilling speech, applying to content-based restrictions. For instance, in (2015), the held that federal threats statutes require proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, rejecting a standard, which complicates prosecutions for ambiguous online posts often labeled as cyberbullying. This ruling underscores that reckless or offensive statements alone do not suffice for liability, preserving broad protections for digital expression absent clear . State-level laws have proven particularly vulnerable. In 2016, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-458.1, which criminalized posting private or threatening information online with intent to intimidate, as unconstitutionally overbroad because it encompassed protected speech like anonymous criticism of public figures or satirical content. Similarly, New York's Court of Appeals in People v. Marquan M. (2014) invalidated Albany County's cyberbullying ordinance, finding it facially overbroad for punishing any electronic communication in "lewd, lascivious, profane, vulgar, threatening or otherwise intended to harass, annoy or alarm" another person, thereby sweeping in constitutionally safeguarded annoyance or alarm without requiring unprotected elements like fighting words. In 2022, the Colorado Supreme Court excised the phrase "intended to harass" from the state's cyberbullying statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-204(4)(a)), deeming it overbroad under the First Amendment as it failed to limit liability to speech causing substantial emotional distress or invading privacy rights. In educational settings, tensions arise from schools' authority to regulate off-campus cyberbullying under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which permits discipline for speech causing foreseeable substantial disruption, but the Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) curtailed this for purely off-campus expression, ruling that a student's vulgar post criticizing did not forfeit First Amendment protections absent school-specific interests like viewpoint discrimination or interference with learning. This limits schools' reach over peer-to-peer online interactions, even if harassing, unless they substantially affect campus operations. Critics of expansive cyberbullying regulation argue that such laws, often driven by anecdotal harms, overlook empirical difficulties in distinguishing bullying from robust debate, potentially fostering viewpoint-based enforcement that favors certain narratives while suppressing dissent. These challenges highlight a core constitutional dilemma: balancing harm mitigation against free speech imperatives, with courts consistently invalidating statutes lacking narrow tailoring, as broader prohibitions invite arbitrary application and in online forums where minors and adults alike engage in contentious exchanges. No comprehensive federal cyberbullying law exists, leaving regulation to states and platforms, though of the shields intermediaries from liability for user speech, further insulating digital speech from overregulation. Ongoing litigation reflects evolving digital norms, but precedents affirm that emotional injury from words, without more, rarely justifies abridging core expressive freedoms.

Empirical Research

Methodological Foundations and Key Studies

Research on cyberbullying predominantly relies on self-report surveys administered to adolescents and children, often through anonymous school-based or online questionnaires that query experiences of willful, repeated electronic aggression such as , rumor-spreading, or exclusion via , texting, or other digital platforms. These instruments typically assess frequency (e.g., "more than once or twice"), intent to harm, and power imbalances, drawing from definitions like that proposed by Hinduja and Patchin as "willful and repeated harm inflicted through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices." estimates from such methods vary widely, ranging from 14.6% to 52.2% for victimization in national studies, attributable to differences in recall periods (e.g., past month vs. lifetime), thresholds for repetition, and platform specificity. Methodological challenges include definitional inconsistencies—such as debates over whether one-off incidents or non-repeated acts qualify—and reliance on retrospective self-reports, which are susceptible to , recall inaccuracies, and conflation with traditional experiences. Self-reports may inflate figures due to heightened awareness from media or underreport due to stigma, while lacking objective verification like digital logs, leading to potential overestimation of unique cyber-specific effects independent of offline behaviors. Cross-sectional designs dominate, limiting causal inferences, though emerging qualitative approaches, including interviews and of youth narratives, provide deeper insights into perceptions and contexts but face issues of small sample generalizability. Longitudinal studies, while rarer, track changes over time using repeated measures to examine trajectories, controlling for baselines like prior . Seminal work includes Hinduja and Patchin's longitudinal surveys of U.S. (e.g., 2004–ongoing), which established baseline around 20–30% and linked victimization to depressive symptoms via multi-wave data from thousands of middle and high school students, emphasizing overlap with offline . A 2020 of 56 longitudinal studies confirmed bidirectional associations between cyberbullying perpetration/victimization and factors like depression or , with small to moderate effect sizes (e.g., r ≈ 0.10–0.20), but highlighted by shared variance with traditional . Zhu et al.'s 2021 of global studies underscored risk factors like low and high use, while critiquing methodological heterogeneity in 20+ national datasets for inconsistent perpetration measures. These efforts reveal robust correlations but underscore gaps in randomized or experimental designs to isolate cyber-specific amid co-occurring stressors.

Cross-National Findings and Critiques

Cross-national research on cyberbullying prevalence demonstrates wide variability, with global victimization rates ranging from 13.99% to 57.5% among children and adolescents, and perpetration rates from 6.0% to 46.3%, according to a 2021 systematic review synthesizing studies worldwide. These differences correlate with regional factors, including higher victimization in Malaysia (52.2%) and Spain (57.5% in some datasets), contrasted with lower rates in Canada (13.99%) and South Korea (14.6%). Internet penetration and cultural tolerance for online aggression contribute to such disparities, though direct causation remains unestablished beyond correlational associations with device usage. In , the World Health Organization's Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey of 44 countries (2018–2022) reported 15% of 11- to 15-year-olds experiencing cyberbullying victimization, equating to about one in six adolescents, with rates stable at 15% for boys and 16% for girls, alongside a rise in perpetration to 12%. Country-level variations persist, as a 2018 across seven nations found victimization from 13.3% in to 37.3% in , positively linked to daily social networking site use exceeding two hours (odds ratios of 1.57–1.83). Northern and some southern European countries (e.g., , ) consistently show lower figures around 5–8%, while eastern regions report higher. The Kids Online network's 2020 data from 19 countries indicated monthly online bullying victimization averaging below 7%, with lows of 2% in . Comparisons with non-European contexts reveal elevated U.S. rates, where a Pew survey found 46% of teens had faced at least one form of online bullying or , often involving multiple incidents. In , prevalence frequently exceeds European averages, with Chinese adolescent victimization at 31.4–59.0% and Indonesian rates up to 80% in select studies, potentially amplified by dense adoption in urban youth populations. Critiques of these findings emphasize profound methodological flaws that erode cross-national reliability, including non-standardized definitions—many omit traditional bullying criteria like repetition or power asymmetry, capturing isolated as victimization—and disparate recall periods (e.g., lifetime vs. past month), inflating ranges up to fourfold. Self-report surveys dominate, unverified against objective logs, introducing response biases varying by cultural stigma; for example, collectivist Asian societies may underreport due to , while individualistic Western ones overreport minor slights. Absence of harmonized instruments and overreliance on school-based samples in high-prevalence claims (e.g., outlier Spanish data) further confound comparisons, suggesting aggregated global estimates overstate uniformity and urgency without accounting for or platform-specific norms. Longitudinal cross-national datasets remain scarce, limiting causal inferences beyond spurious correlations with .

Gaps in Causation Evidence and Overstated Narratives

Much of the on cyberbullying relies on cross-sectional designs, which establish correlations between victimization and adverse outcomes such as depression or but fail to demonstrate causation or temporality. Longitudinal studies are scarce, and those available often suffer from confounders like pre-existing issues, where vulnerable individuals may be more prone to both cyberbullying exposure and negative sequelae, suggesting possible reverse causation. For instance, analyses indicate that cyberbullying victims frequently overlap with those experiencing traditional , complicating attribution of unique causal effects to online forms without controlling for offline . Regarding suicide, while associations with cyberbullying have been reported—such as elevated odds ratios in adolescent samples—causal links remain unproven, as suicide is inherently multifactorial, involving , family history, and comorbidities beyond any single stressor. Media narratives often attribute specific teen suicides directly to cyberbullying incidents, yet forensic reviews and expert consensus emphasize that such claims exceed available evidence, with no rigorous studies isolating cyberbullying as a proximal cause independent of broader risk factors. , a foundational researcher in dynamics, has critiqued these linkages as lacking empirical substantiation, noting that purported cyberbullying-driven suicides rarely involve verified repeated aggression meeting definitional thresholds. Overstated narratives portray cyberbullying as an escalating with uniquely severe impacts, but prevalence data from large-scale surveys show rates stabilizing at low levels—typically under 5-10% for frequent victimization—without the projected rise accompanying digital adoption. Claims of cyberbullying generating "new" victims distinct from traditional victims are unsupported, as overlap exceeds 90% in key studies, undermining assertions of novel causal pathways. Methodological inconsistencies, including varying definitions (e.g., one-off insults versus repeated intent to harm) and reliance on self-reports prone to exaggeration, further inflate perceived threats, as highlighted in critiques of the field's foundational assumptions. These gaps persist despite calls for randomized or quasi-experimental designs, leaving policy responses vulnerable to hype over evidence.

Prevention Strategies

Individual Resilience and Parental Roles

Resilience, characterized by adaptive mechanisms and emotional regulation, acts as a buffer against the adverse effects of cyberbullying victimization in youth. Empirical studies demonstrate that higher resilience levels correlate with lower self-esteem erosion and reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among victims. For example, resilience moderates the link between victimization and depressive outcomes, with resilient individuals exhibiting fewer internalizing behaviors post-incident. Key individual factors include personal competence—encompassing and problem-solving skills—which predicts post-victimization recovery and sustained well-being. Interventions targeting resilience-building, such as school-based programs emphasizing development, effective communication, and bystander intervention, have shown preliminary efficacy in mitigating cyberbullying's long-term impacts. These approaches foster protective traits like and adaptive , reducing both victimization rates and aggressive responses in adolescents. However, much of the evidence remains correlational, with longitudinal studies needed to establish beyond self-reported surveys. Parental involvement through strategies plays a critical role in bolstering youth resilience and curbing cyberbullying exposure. Active mediation—involving discussions about online risks and content interpretation—along with co-use of , consistently reduces the likelihood of victimization and perpetration, particularly among children under 12. Instructive mediation, where parents guide rule-setting and ethical behavior, buffers against depression linked to victimization and bystanding roles across age groups. Meta-analyses confirm that such positive engagement strategies outperform restrictive controls, which yield mixed results and may inadvertently limit skill-building for independent navigation. Parent-focused interventions, including training in monitoring and communication skills, enhance overall program effectiveness by empowering families to detect early signs and promote resilience. For instance, programs integrating parental with youth coping training have decreased self-harm risks associated with cyberbullying in controlled trials. Nonetheless, efficacy varies by cultural context and parental , with over-reliance on potentially undermining adolescent if not balanced with resilience promotion.

Platform Interventions and Technological Solutions

Social media platforms have implemented user-facing reporting mechanisms to address cyberbullying, enabling individuals to flag abusive content such as targeted or threats for or automated , often resulting in content removal or account suspension if violations of are confirmed. These tools, including one-tap reporting buttons on posts, comments, and direct messages, are standard on platforms like , , and X (formerly ), with policies explicitly prohibiting repeated harm via digital means. However, empirical analyses reveal inconsistencies in , with reporting processes described as non-intuitive, time-intensive, and platform-specific, contributing to low utilization rates among victims. Proactive interventions rely on technological solutions, particularly (AI) and algorithms designed to scan content in real time for indicators of cyberbullying, such as aggressive patterns, repetition, or power imbalances in interactions. Systems like models, including those integrated into platform APIs or third-party tools, classify text based on trained datasets of labeled abusive instances, enabling automated flagging or suppression before visibility. For example, AI-driven moderation has been deployed to crawl feeds and messages preemptively, reducing reliance on user reports, as seen in implementations by major platforms since the mid-2010s. Advanced variants incorporate multimodal analysis, extending detection to images, videos, and emojis alongside text. Assessments of effectiveness indicate moderate success in controlled evaluations, with AI models achieving detection accuracies of 80-95% on benchmark datasets for cyberbullying-specific , outperforming rule-based filters in identifying nuanced . A 2023 study of proactive AI on social platforms found it correlated with decreased reported incidents of visible , particularly in English-language environments, though gains were attenuated by user adaptation tactics like coded language or off-platform migration. Real-world deployment data from platforms suggest removal rates for flagged content exceed 90% in some cases, but overall prevalence of cyberbullying persists, implying incomplete coverage. Critiques highlight limitations, including high false positive rates that suppress legitimate speech—such as heated debates misclassified as —and challenges in contextual understanding, like or cultural variations, which reduce precision in diverse user bases. Adversarial robustness remains weak, as perpetrators exploit gaps by using misspellings, emojis, or non-text media to evade filters, with studies showing detection drops below 70% against such evasions. Transparency deficits in AI systems further complicate evaluation, as platforms rarely disclose or decision logics, potentially embedding unexamined biases from source corpora dominated by Western, English-centric samples. Despite these, hybrid approaches combining AI with human oversight show promise for , though no large-scale randomized trials confirm causal reductions in victimization rates attributable solely to tech interventions.

Policy and Educational Critiques

Critiques of school-based educational programs for cyberbullying prevention highlight their modest and inconsistent impacts on behavior. Meta-analyses of such interventions, which typically involve curriculum modules on digital etiquette, empathy training, and reporting mechanisms, indicate small effect sizes, with reductions in cyberbullying perpetration ranging from 10-15% and victimization by about 14% in controlled studies. These programs often rely on self-reported outcomes, which are prone to social desirability bias, and show limited long-term retention, as follow-up assessments beyond six months reveal diminished effects. Moreover, general anti-bullying curricula adapted for cyber contexts perform no better than broad violence prevention efforts, suggesting a lack of specificity to online dynamics like anonymity and rapid dissemination. Policy responses, including state-level mandates for school protocols and criminalization of severe cyberbullying, encounter enforcement barriers rooted in technological and jurisdictional hurdles. tools and encrypted platforms hinder perpetrator identification, resulting in prosecution rates below 5% for reported incidents in jurisdictions with dedicated statutes, such as those enacted post-2010 in over 45 U.S. states. Vague definitions of "" in invite inconsistent application, with schools often deferring to platforms whose self-regulation prioritizes user growth over aggressive moderation, as evidenced by delayed responses in high-profile cases. Critics argue that zero-tolerance policies foster over-reporting of minor disputes without addressing causal factors like peer dynamics or vulnerabilities, potentially exacerbating stigma rather than fostering resilience. Both educational and approaches are faulted for overemphasizing over evidence-based causal interventions, with randomized trials showing no significant divergence from control groups in real-world incidence rates when scaled beyond pilots. This underscores a reliance on unproven assumptions about behavioral change through top-down mandates, amid academic incentives that may inflate program efficacy in grant-driven evaluations.

Notable Incidents

Seminal Early Cases

One of the earliest documented cases of cyberbullying involved Ryan Patrick Halligan, a 13-year-old from , who died by suicide on October 7, 2003. Halligan had faced physical in over a stuttering problem, after which he reportedly befriended one of his tormentors; however, online interactions via AOL escalated the harassment, with a female peer feigning romantic interest to elicit explicit statements from him, which were then disseminated to others for ridicule. His father, John Halligan, discovered the instant message logs postmortem, revealing the betrayal and public shaming that contributed to Ryan's despair amid preexisting depression. This incident, among the first to spotlight instant messaging as a vector for peer-to-peer cyberbullying, prompted John Halligan's advocacy efforts, including testimony leading to Vermont's 2004 bully prevention law requiring schools to address electronic aggression. In 2006, the case of Megan Taylor Meier, a 13-year-old from , drew national attention to adult-perpetrated cyberbullying on . Meier died by via hanging on October 17, 2006, after engaging with a fictitious 16-year-old male profile, "Josh Evans," created on by Lori Drew, the mother of Meier's former friend, ostensibly to monitor her but evolving into targeted harassment following a falling-out between the girls. Messages from the profile included taunts like "the world would be better off without you," amplifying Meier's emotional distress amid her history of depression and medication. Drew was federally indicted under the for unauthorized access, convicted on three misdemeanor counts in 2008—the first such cyberbullying verdict—but acquitted by a judge who ruled the statute's application overly broad; the case spurred legislative pushes, including failed federal bills like the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. These early incidents, occurring via nascent digital platforms like instant messengers and proto-social networks, underscored cyberbullying's and persistence, influencing initial policy responses despite debates over direct causation in suicides, which often involve multifaceted factors. No prominent verified cases predating 2003 have been widely documented, as widespread among youth was limited prior to broadband proliferation in the early 2000s.

Contemporary High-Profile Examples

In 2025, animal rescuer died by , with her husband attributing the act partly to relentless online harassment from viewers who criticized her content and personal life on platforms. Raines, known for her wildlife rehabilitation videos, faced accusations of animal mistreatment and personal attacks that escalated in the months prior to her death on June 20, 2025, highlighting the vulnerability of content creators to anonymous detractors. Her case drew attention to the psychological toll of public scrutiny in digital spaces, though direct causation between the and her remains unestablished by forensic analysis. The reality TV series Love Island USA issued public warnings against cyberbullying of contestants in June 2025, ahead of episode airings, amid reports of contestants receiving death threats, body-shaming, and racial abuse via and following eliminations and couplings. Producers cited an influx of hateful direct messages and comments, prompting disclaimers urging viewers to engage positively, as similar online vitriol had affected prior seasons and led to contestant disclosures. This incident underscored platform-specific dynamics where fan loyalty turns aggressive, with over 1,000 reported complaints tied to the show since 2023. In , actress Kim Sae-ron's on February 16, 2025, reignited debates over cyberbullying's role in celebrity deaths, as she had endured years of online backlash for a 2022 incident, including doxxing, career campaigns, and invasive personal attacks on forums like Nate Pann. Public petitions following her death, amassing over 100,000 signatures by March 2025, demanded stricter penalties for malicious commenting under revised laws, building on earlier cases like singer Goo Hara's 2019 linked to similar fan and media . Investigations revealed Sae-ron received thousands of derogatory posts daily in 2024, exacerbating her isolation, though experts caution that underlying factors often interplay with online abuse.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.