Technology-enabled Bullying & Adolescent Non-reporting

Breaking the Silence

Justin Connolly

and Regina Connolly

Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Dublin, Ireland

Dublin City University, Business School, Dublin 9, Dublin, Ireland

Keywords: Information and Communication Technologies, Technology-enabled Bullying, Cyberbullying.

Abstract: Although early research has pointed to the fact that the successful intervention and resolution of

cyberbullying incidents is to a large degree dependent on such incidents being reported to an adult

caregiver, the literature consistently shows that adolescents who have been bullied tend not to inform others

of their experiences. However, the reasons underlying reluctance to seek adult intervention remain

undetermined. Understanding the factors that influence adolescent resistance will assist caregivers, teachers

and those involved in the formulation of school anti-bullying policies in their attempts to counter the

cyberbullying phenomenonre should be a space before of 12-point and after of 30-point.

1 INTRODUCTION

The problem of adolescent bullying has evolved in

tandem with the digitization of society. Bullying is

a problem that transcends social boundaries and can

result in devastating psychological and emotional

trauma including low self-esteem, poor academic

performance, depression, and, in some cases,

violence and suicide. In its traditional context, it has

been described as being characterized by the

following three criteria: (1) It is aggressive behavior

or intentional 'harm doing' (2) which is carried out

repeatedly and over time (3) in an interpersonal

relationship characterized by an imbalance of power.

One might add that the bullying behavior often

occurs without apparent provocation," and "negative

actions can be carried out by physical contact, by

words, or in other ways, such as making faces or

mean gestures, and intentional exclusion from a

group (Olweus 1999, pp.10-11).

Cyberbullying, which is bullying conducted

through the medium of electronic communication

tools (such as email, mobile phone, social

networking sites, Personal Digital Assistants, instant

messaging tools and the World Wide Web) has been

defined by Willard (2007) as ‘… being cruel to

others by sending or posting harmful material or

engaging in other forms of social cruelty using the

Internet or other digital technologies, such as cell

phones. Young people may be the target of

cyberbullying from others or may engage in such

harmful behavior. Direct cyberbullying involves

repeatedly sending offensive messages. More

indirect forms of cyberbullying include

disseminating denigrating materials or sensitive

personal information or impersonating someone to

cause harm (p.10).’

As can be seen from the above definitions, there

are important distinctions between cyberbullying

and bullying. The first distinction relates to the

nature of the bullying. Traditional forms of bullying

are usually direct and bullies are visible, while

cyberbullying can be anonymous and bullies in

cyberspace do not have to be physically stronger or

bigger than cyber-victims. Second, bullying occurs

often at a particular time and place, whereas

cyberbullying can happen anytime, anywhere

including in the home. Third, cyberbullying can

spread exponentially faster (e.g. copy and paste a

message and send it around the world) than

traditional forms of bullying. Fourth, cyberbullying

can be preserved easily (such as saving messages on

a phone, memory stick, disk, etc). Fifth, bullies

usually have poor relationships with teachers but it

has been noted that cyberbullies can have good

relationship with teachers (Ybarra & Mitchell,

2004). Finally, on the one hand, bullying commonly

happens on school property; cyberbullying, on the

other hand, frequently occurs outside school

property which makes identifying and combating

such behaviour much more difficult.

381

Connolly J. and Connolly R..

Technology-enabled Bullying & Adolescent Non-reporting - Breaking the Silence.

DOI: 10.5220/0004943903810386

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST-2014), pages 381-386

ISBN: 978-989-758-023-9

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 NON-REPORTING

Although even early research in this field (e.g.

Olweus, 1993) has pointed to the fact that the

successful intervention and resolution of bullying

incidents is to a large degree dependent on such

incidents being reported to an adult caregiver, the

extant literature consistently shows that adolescents

who have been bullied tend not to inform others of

their experiences (e.g. Petrosino et al., 2010; Black,

Weinles and Washington, 2010; Mishna and

Alaggio, 2005; Naylor and Cowie, 1999; Charach,

Pepler and Ziegler, 1995). For example, Ybarra et al

(2006) found that 33% of victims of cyberbullying

in their study did not tell anyone about the incident.

More recent work by Petrosino et al. (2010) is of

particular importance given that their data collection

involved a nationally representative sample from

American schools and was based on figures from the

National Crime Victimization Survey School Crime

Supplement (2007), which showed that 64% of

adolescents between the age of 12 and 18 did not

report their experience.

Smith, et al.’s (2006) study of 92 students across

the UK found that almost one-third of students who

acknowledged being targetted by cyberbullies chose

not to speak about their experience when it

happened. This figure is close to the findings of the

NCH (2005) study, which revealed that 28% of

those targetted by cyberbullies chose to remain silent

rather than seek help in resolving the problem.

Slonje and Smith (2008) state: ‘Cybervictims most

often chose to either tell their friends or no one at all

about the cyberbullying, so adults may not be aware

of cyberbullying’ (p.147).

Compounding the problem is the fact that

variation appears to exist between cultures. For

example, a cross-cultural comparative study by Li

(2008) showed that 9% of Canadian students

reported their cyberbully experience to adults and

less than one-fifth of those aware of a cyberbullying

incident reported the issue to an adult. In

comparison, 66% of Chinese students who

experienced cyberbullying informed an adult and

60% of ‘bystanders’ reported the phenomenon to an

adult (p.7). The reason for this significant difference

in reporting behaviours between both countries and

cultures may result from a combination of

sociological and philosophical reasons deeply

ingrained in the respective cultures.

3 RESEARCH INSIGHTS

Despite the fact that many studies have found that

adolescents do not report their bullying or

cyberbullying experiences, there is a dearth of

empirical work examining the reasons for same.

Two studies deserve particular mention. The first is

a quantitative study by Holfeld and Grabe (2012),

which replicated earlier descriptive research on the

prevalence of cyberbullying and examined why

students do not report cyberbullying. Using a

sample of 383 students from four middle schools in

a North American city (with average student age of

13.5 years), and using a subset of self developed

measures to capture non-reporting (4 questions in

relation to own experience and 3 questions in

relation to reporting of peer experiences) , they

found that 16% of students reported being

cyberbullied in the previous year and of those 62%

were cyberbullied at least once or twice in the last

30 days. Only 11% of students reported

cyberbullying others at least once in their lifetime

and 9% in the last year. Cell phone cyberbullying

was the method used most frequently. As a key

point of that study concerns the reporting aspects of

cyberbullying, the findings show that almost 30% of

students who were cyberbullied in the past year did

not report the incident. When asked to explain their

reporting behaviour, 57% of the responses

comprised they didn’t feel it was a big deal or they

felt they could handle it on their own. 29% of

students considered that reporting would make it

worse or were scared to tell. Whilst this study

provides an empirical attempt to understand the

issue of non-reporting in more depth, Holfeld and

Grabe’s work is limited in the sense that the number

of questions used to capture non-reporting comprises

a small number of self developed measures that are

not validated or tested for reliability and the study

was purely quantitative in nature and not followed

up by in depth exploration of the issue. It is likely

that our understanding of the factors that influence

adolescent non-reporting would benefit from a

triangulated approach to data collection.

A second study that has sought to bring greater

clarity to this issue is that of De Lara (2012). Using

a qualitative approach, she studied the non-reporting

problem in four schools (two rural and two urban) in

the New York region. The sample comprised twelve

focus groups (3 in each school, comprising 97

students) and 51 individual interviews (with some

cross-participation between students being involved

in both focus group and individual interview) of

which 52% were female and 48% male adolescents.

WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies

382

A significant finding of the research is that the

reasons for non-reporting appear to be multifactorial

with the results indicating that the adolescents in this

sample did not report their experiences due to the

ubiquitous nature of bullying; a sense of

helplessness; concerns over inappropriate adult

action; self-reliance; shame; parental omniscience;

and a different definition of bullying than adults use

(De Lara, 2012: 288).

Interestingly, students in the research considered

bullying to be the norm or something to be expected

whilst witnesses to such behaviour also perceived it

as a normal rite of passage in school. They were

despondent about the potential for successful adult

intervention, as they feared that parental intervention

could make things worse or, at the other extreme,

that adults would not take the concern seriously

enough. It was of particular concern that some

reported being told by teachers to deal with the

problem themselves – an obvious flaw in the duty of

care by individual teaching staff. When adolescents

seek help from an adult and the bullying continues

unabated despite reporting the issue, the research

shows that they are likely to withdraw from

communicating the issue further to the adult

caregiver (DeLara, 2008; Garbarino & DeLara,

2002). This confirms the findings of Petrosino et al.

(2010) and Pepler et al. (2008) whose research

shows that between 40-65% of adolescents never

report their experience of bullying to an adult.

An indirect finding of DeLara’s work that may

also provide insight as to the reasons for non-

reporting relates to the interpretive difference that

adolescents and adults attribute to the term

“bullying”. For example, she found that many of the

students in her sample, when asked to define

bullying, described it as: ‘when someone is mean to

me’ [italics mine]. However, ‘mean’ behaviour – is

not reflected in current descriptions of bullying in

the literature. This difference in interpretation was

previously highlighted by Smith, Cowie, Olaffson,

and Liefooge (2002) who found that adolescent

perception of what constitutes bullying could differ

remarkably from that of adults. For example, a

student experiencing sexual harassment may not be

aware that they are being bullied. It follows,

therefore, that if students’ understanding of bullying

differs from adult understanding, the chances of

reporting and intervening in such bullying behavior

are reduced. This is of significance in implementing

anti-bullying policies, educating students as to what

constitutes ‘bullying’ and thereby encouraging them

to come forward to relate their experiences to a

significant caregiver.

Whilst the work of De Lara (2012) is valuable in

that it represents an attempt to examine the issue of

non-reporting, it was limited to four schools (2 urban

and 2 rural) within the New York region, the sample

was small and therefore the generalisability of its

findings remain uncertain. It is possible that local

and cultural factors may have impacted the reasons

for non-reporting behaviour. However, whether this

is the case can only be determined by additional

research on this issue in other and broader contexts.

Further study in an Irish context would be

particularly valuable not only in providing insight

into this issue in relation to the factors that predict

Irish adolescent non-reporting, but also as a

comparative measure to establish the culture

independence of these factors.

4 THE IRISH CONTEXT

Despite awareness of a considerable number of

adolescent deaths in Ireland that have been related to

cyberbullying (most notably Lara Burns, Erin

Gallagher, Ciara Pugsley and Leanne Wolfe),

empirical research on this issue remains remarkably

limited. The death by suicide in America of another

Irish adolescent, Phoebe Prince, brought worldwide

attention to the gravity of the problem but the factors

linking cyberbullying and death by suicide need

deeper research.

Whilst there is a dearth of empirical research on

cyberbullying in Ireland, concern about this issue is

widespread and would appear to be justified. For

example, a joint Irish Independent and 'Prime Time

Investigates' survey (Irish Independent, 2008) of

students found that approximately 30% of students

have endured all types of bullying at secondary

schools within a 3-month period of 2008. It also

found that 1 in 5 schoolgirls had experienced

cyberbullying as compared to 1 in 8 boys. The

research data provided by the Anti-Bullying

Research and Resource Centre at Trinity College

Dublin in 2008 revealed an unsettling picture of the

growth in online and mobile phone intimidation

among secondary school pupils and showed that

children as young as 12 are being targeted through

mobile phone calls, text messages, e-mails, internet

forums, chat rooms and social networking sites.

Recent research on the prevalence and nature of

cyberbullying was conducted by Cotter and

McGilloway (2011) and comprised a sample of 122

adolescents from two secondary schools in the South

of Ireland. The findings showed that although

cyberbullying within that sample appeared to be less

Technology-enabledBullying&AdolescentNon-reporting-BreakingtheSilence

383

prevalent than traditional bullying, the adolescents

concerned considered it to be worse than traditional

bullying, with the exception of email.

Whether individual factors such as age, gender,

ethnicity, family cohesion (unity) or religious belief

influences cyberbullying remains undetermined.

Equally, the influence of situational factors such as

attendance at public or private school on

cyberbullying outcomes has not received adequate

attention. Understanding the influence of these

variables would contribute to parents and educators’

insight into the problem and increase their ability to

address it. (O’Higgins-Norman and Connolly, 2011).

In order to understand the hesitance that predicts

adolescent non-reporting of bullying experiences, it

is important that the views of those who experience

and witness such behaviour should be understood

and factored into any intervention or policy

formulation processes. However as school policies

are directed from government level and

implemented by individual school boards which are

constituted by adults and therefore such policies are

designed and implemented from an adult

perspective. Therefore, in order to effectively

address the problem of bullying, it is imperative that

research on this issue should consider the views of

the adolescents who actually experience the

behaviour. As DeLara (2012) states:

The preponderance of research on bullying tends

to neither include the perceptions of students nor

provide understanding about their reluctance to rely

on adults for intervention. Research has found that

students may not tell adults about bullying

experienced or witnessed despite repeated

encouragement and directives from adults (p.288).

4.1 Irish Non-reporting Behaviour

In Ireland, the issue of non-reporting of

cyberbullying behaviour was initially identified by

O' Moore & Minton (2011) who found that a distinct

contradiction exists between intent and actual

practice in terms of Irish adolescents reporting their

cyberbullying experiences to adults. For example,

they reported that whilst 14.6% of pupils stated that

they would inform an adult at school if they were

cyberbullied, in reality, only 6% of these pupils had

actually reported their cyberbullying experience.

Instead, the found that pupils were over twice as

likely to do nothing at all, five times more likely to

send an angry message back, and five times more

likely to talk to a friend.

Recent research by Cotter and McGilloway

(2011) of 122 adolescents from 2 schools in the

South of Ireland found that one quarter of victims

did not confide in anybody. However, as only 25

respondents answered the question about whether

they would report their experience or not to another

individual, a broader sample of respondents is

needed in order to have confidence that these results

provide an accurate reflection of the general

adolescent response pattern in relation to reporting

cyberbullying.

The recently published HBSC report - 'Irish

Health Behaviour in School-aged Children' (Kelly et

al, 2012) – found that statistically significant

differences exist by gender and age group - with

more boys reporting having being bullied compared

to girls and younger children more likely to report

ever being bullied as compared to older children.

These findings are particularly concerning in light of

consistent evidence that girls tend to suffer more

cyberbullying experiences than boys and that

cyberbullying experiences tend to increase during

adolescence. Whilst valuable in that it highlights

age and gender distinctions regarding the self-

reporting of bullying experiences in general, the

HBSC measurement instrument does not provide the

level of granularity necessary to determine the

factors that are influencing adolescent resistance to

report their cyberbullying experiences. Similarly,

whilst providing evidence of adolescent resistance to

report cyberbullying, O’ Moore and Minton’s (2011)

study does not provide insight as to the causal

reasons for that resistance. The authors speculate

that the explanation for adolescent non-reporting

may be a perception of greater self-efficacy than

teacher efficacy in dealing with online problems or a

lack of confidence in the school’s abilities to deal

with bullying (2011: 40). However, these are

merely speculations, they are not empirically derived

and simply are the interpretation of the authors.

Consequently, neither study progresses our

understanding of the factors underlying Irish

adolescents’ resistance to report cyberbullying

experiences, nor provide insight as to whether

individual or situational characteristics influence that

resistance.

As previously noted, adolescent resistance to

reporting is equally prevalent in the traditional (face-

to-face) bullying context with evidence (Smith and

Shu, 2000; Whitney and Smith, 1993) to show that

30-50% of pupils do not inform a parent or teacher

that they had been a target of bullies. The influence

of age on reporting behaviour is evident in Rigby

and Slee’s (1993) study which found that whilst

approximately half of Australian students aged

between 8 and 12 stated that they would like help

WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies

384

prevent others being bullied, as they increased in

age, they became more reluctant to confide in or

seek seeking adult intervention. However, the

reasons underlying adolescents’ reluctance to seek

adult intervention or discuss the bullying

experiences remain undetermined. Similarly, the

degree to which gender, age or other variables apply

in the case of Irish adolescents’ resistance to report

cyberbullying experiences has yet to be established.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The literature on cyberbullying is embryonic and as

a consequence many deficits exist in relation to our

understanding of the phenomenon. A growing body

of evidence points to the fact that many adolescents

who have been the target of cyberbullying behaviour

choose to confide in peers rather than adult

caregivers or teachers, despite having previously

stated their intention to inform the latter should they

themselves become the target of such behaviour. As

a result, this behaviour remains unchecked and its

impact unaddressed. The literature provides

evidence that this chasm between reporting intention

and actual behavioral outcome is consistent

regardless of national differences. Despite this fact,

remarkably little attention has been paid to

understanding the factors underlying this resistance

and the ensuring silence on the part of adolescents

regarding their experiences of cyberbullying. Such

insights are necessary if parents, teachers and those

involved in the formulation of anti-bullying school

policies are to be successful in their attempts to

counter and eliminate cyberbullying behaviour.

Research on the factors underlying adolescent

resistance-to-report is therefore urgently mandated.

REFERENCES

Aftab, P. (2008). 'What methods work with the different

kinds of cyberbullies?' [Online]. Available at:

http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/educators/howdoyo

uhandleacyberbully.html. Accessed December 29th

2013.

Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R. & Limber, S. (2007).

Students' perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 41, 59-60.

Black, S., Weinles, D. and Washington E. (2010). Victim

strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence and

Juvenile Justice. 8(2), 138-147.

Charach, A., Pepler, D., & Ziegler, S. (1995). Bullying at

school: A Canadian perspective. Education Canada

(Spring, 1995).

Cornell D. and Brockenborough, K. (2004). Identification

of bullies and victims: A comparison of methods.

Journal of School Violence 3(2-3).

Cotter, P. and McGilloway, S. (2011). Living in an

‘Electronic Age’: Cyberbullying among Irish

Adolescents. The Irish Journal of Education 39 (44-

56).

DeLara, E. (2008). Developing a philosophy about

bullying and sexual harassment: Cognitive coping

strategies among secondary school students. Journal of

School Violence, 7, 72–96.

DeLara, E., (2012): Why Adolescents Don't Disclose

Incidents of Bullying and Harassment, Journal of

School Violence, 11:4, 288-305.

DES (Department of Education and Science), (n.d.). Anti-

bullying policy.

Available at: http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/

Education-Reports/Action-Plan-On-Bullying-

2013.pdf.

Garbarino, J., & DeLara, E. (2002). And words can hurt

forever: How to protect ado- lescents from bullying,

harassment, and emotional violence. New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster /The Free Press.

Goodstein, A. (2007). Totally wired: What teens and

tweens are really doing online. New York: St.

Martin’s Griffin.

Holfeld, B. & Grabe, M. (2012). An examination of the

history, prevalence, characteristics, and reporting of

cyberbullying in the United States. In Q. Li, D. Cross

& P.K. Smith (Eds.). Cyberbullying in the global

playground: Research from international perspectives.

Blackwell.

Irish Independent (2008). 'Cyberbullying "widespread" but

parents kept in the dark’ by Louise Hogan [Online].

Available at: http://www.independent.ie/national-

news/cyber-bullying-widespread-but-parents-kept-in-

the-dark-1380630.html.

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. (2008). Extending the school

grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. The

Journal of School Health, 78(9), pp. 496-505.

Kelly, C., Gavin, A., Molcho, M. & Nic Gabhainn, S.

(2012). The Irish Health Behaviours in School-aged

Children (HBSC) study 2010.Dublin: Department of

Health.

Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’

experience related to.

cyberbullying. Educational Research Vol. 50, No. 3,

September 2008, 223–234.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research on

cyberbullying in schools. Computers and Human

Behaviour, 23(4), 1777-1791.

Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in Schools: A Research of

Gender Differences. School Psychology International,

27(2), 157-170.

Naylor, P., & Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer

support systems in challenging school bullying: The

perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils.

Journal of Adolescence, 22, 467–479.

NCH (2005). Putting U in the picture – mobile phone

bullying survey 2005. Available at:

Technology-enabledBullying&AdolescentNon-reporting-BreakingtheSilence

385

http://www.nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/Mobile_bul

lying_%20report.pdf.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know

and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In Smith, P.K., Morita, Y.,

Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., Slee, P.

(Eds.), The Nature of School Bullying: A cross-

cultural perspective. London: Routledge.

O’Higgins-Norman, J & Connolly, J. (2011). Mimetic

Theory and Scapegoating in the Age of Cyberbullying:

The Case of Phoebe Prince. Pastoral Care in

Education: Vol.29: Issue 4. London: Routledge.

O’Moore, A. M. & Minton, S. J. (2011). Cyber-Bullying:

The Irish Experience. New York: Nova Science

Publishers, Inc.

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital:

Understanding the First Generation of Digital

Natives. New York: Basic Books.

Pellegrini, A. and Bartini, M. (2000). A Longitudinal

Study of Bullying, Victimizatioin, and Peer Affiliation

During The Transistion From Primary School To

Middle School, American Educational Research

Journal 37(3): 699–725.

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008).

Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated

factors. Child Development, 79, 325–338.

Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T.

(2010). What characteristics of bullying, bullying

victims, and schools are associated with increased

reporting of bullying to school ofﬁcials? (Issues &

Answers Report, REL 2010, No. 092). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional

Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands.

Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (2008). Interventions to reduce

bullying, International Journal of Adolescent Medicine

and Health, 20,165-183.

Shariff, S. (2008). Cyberbullying: Issues and solutions for

the school, the classroom and the home. New York:

Routledge.

Slonje, R. and Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another

main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 49(2), pp. 147-154.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher,

S.,Russell, S., Tippett N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its

nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49:4 (2008), pp

376–385.

Smith, P., et al. (2006). UK Report: An investigation into

cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and

the relationship between age and gender in

cyberbullying. Research Brief No. RBX03-06.

London: DfES.

Smith, P. K. and Shu, S. (2000). 'What Good Schools Can

Do About Bullying: findings from a survey in English

schools after a decade of research and action', in

'Childhood', Vol 7 (2).

Tannen, D. (2004). He Said, She Said: Gender, Language

and Communication. [Video]. Narrated by Deborah

Tannen. California: Modern Scholar.

Tannen, D. (1995). Talking from Nine to Five: Women

and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power.

New York: Harper Collins.

Tannen, D. (1991). You Just Don't Understand: Women

and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine

Books.

Trach, J., et al. (2012). To Bully or Not to Bully, That Is

Not the Question: Western Australian Early

Adolescents' in Search of a Reputation. Journal of

Adolescent Research July 1, 2012 27: 498-522.

Trach, J. Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010).

Age Differences in Bystander Responses to School

Bullying: A Cross-Sectional Investigation. Canadian

Journal of School Psychology, 25 (1), 114-130.

Trolley B., Hanel C. and Shields L. (2006). Demystifying

& Deescalating Cyber Bullying in the Schools: A

Resource Guide for Counselors, Educators & Parents.

Book Locker, Bangor, ME.

Wall Street Journal (2007). Article: In Study, Facebook

Users Share with Stranger. August 14

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11870598778049.

Whitney, I. & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature

and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary

schools. Education Research, 35, 3-25.

Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats:

Responding to the challenge of online social

aggression, threats, and distress. Illinois: Research

Press.

Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D.

(2006). Examining Characteristics and Associated

Distress Related to Internet Harassment: Findings

From the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey.

Pediatrics 2006; 118;1169-1177.

Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Youth engaging in

online harassment: associations with caregiver-child

relationships, Internet use, and personal

characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319-

336.

WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies

386