cyberbullying research paper introduction

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Psychiatry

Prevalence and related risks of cyberbullying and its effects on adolescent

Gassem gohal.

1 Pediatric Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Ahmad Alqassim

2 Family and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Ebtihal Eltyeb

Ahmed rayyani.

3 Medical Intern, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Bassam Hakami

Abdullah al faqih, abdullah hakami, almuhannad qadri, mohamed mahfouz, associated data.

The authors ensure that the data supporting the results of this study are available within the article. The raw data for the study will be obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable demand.

Cyberbullying is becoming common in inflicting harm on others, especially among adolescents. This study aims to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying, determine the risk factors, and assess the association between cyberbullying and the psychological status of adolescents facing this problem in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia.

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 355 students, aged between 12–18 years, through a validated online questionnaire to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying and assess psychological effects based on cyberbullying questionnaire and Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) questions.

The participants in this study numbered 355; 68% of participants were females compared to 32% were males. Approximately 20% of the participants spend more than 12 h daily on the Internet, and the estimated overall prevalence of cyberbullying was 42.8%, with the male prevalence slightly higher than females. In addition, 26.3% of the participants were significantly affected in their academic Performance due to cyberbullying. Approximately 20% of all participants considered leaving their schools, 19.7% considered ceasing their Internet use, and 21.1% considered harming themselves due to the consequences of cyberbullying. There are essential links between the frequency of harassment, the effect on academic Performance, and being a cyber victim.

Conclusions

Cyberbullying showed a high prevalence among adolescents in the Jazan region with significant associated psychological effects. There is an urgency for collaboration between the authorities and the community to protect adolescents from this harmful occurrence.

Introduction

Cyberbullying is an intentional, repeated act of harm toward others through electronic tools; however, there is no consensus to define it [ 1 – 3 ]. With the surge in information and data sharing in the emerging digital world, a new era of socialization through digital tools, and the popularization of social media, cyberbullying has become more frequent than ever and occurs when there is inadequate adult supervision [ 4 , 5 ]. A large study that looked at the incidence of cyberbullying among adolescents in England found a prevalence of 17.9%, while one study conducted in Saudi Arabia found a prevalence of 20.97% [ 6 , 7 ]. Cyberbullying can take many forms, including sending angry, rude, or offensive messages; intimidating, cruel, and possibly false information about a person to others; sharing sensitive or private information (outing); and exclusion, which involves purposefully leaving someone out of an online group [ 8 ]. Cyberbullying is influenced by age, sex, parent–child relationships, and time spent on the Internet [ 9 , 10 ]. Although some studies have found that cyberbullying continues to increase in late adolescence, others found that cyberbullying tends to peak at 14 and 15 years old before decreasing through the remaining years of adolescence [ 11 – 13 ].

The COVID-19 epidemic has impacted the prevalence of cyberbullying since social isolation regulations have reduced face-to-face interaction, leading to a significant rise in the use of social networking sites and online activity. As a result, there was a higher chance of experiencing cyberbullying [ 14 ].

Unlike traditional Bullying, which usually only occurs in school and is mitigated at home, victims of cyberbullying can be contacted anytime and anywhere. Parents and teachers are seen as saviors in cases of traditional Bullying. Simultaneously, in cyberbullying, children tend to be reluctant to tell adults for fear of losing access to their phones and computers, so they usually hide the cyberbullying incident [ 15 ]. Reports show that cyberbullying is a form of harm not easily avoided by the victim. In addition, in the cyber form of Bullying, identification of the victim and the perpetrator is generally challenging compared to traditional Bullying; this makes an accurate estimation of the problem widely contested [ 16 , 17 ].

There is growing evidence that is cyberbullying causes more significant levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness than traditional forms of Bullying. A meta-analysis examining the association between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents indicates that cyberbullying is more intensely related to suicidal ideation than traditional Bullying [ 18 ]. Moreover, the significant problem is that cyberbullying impacts adolescent due to its persistence and recurrence. A recent report in Saudi Arabia indicated a growing rise in cyberbullying in secondary schools and higher education, from 18% to approximately 27% [ 19 ]. In primary schools and kindergartens in Saudi Arabia, we were not surprised to find evidence that children were unaware that cyberbullying is illegal. Although the study showed an adequate awareness of the problem in our country, Saudi Arabia, there were relatively significant misconceptions [ 20 ].

Adolescents' emotional responses to cyberbullying vary in severity and quality. However, anger, sadness, concern, anxiety, fear, and depression are most common among adolescent cyber victims [ 21 ]. Moreover, cyberbullying may limit students' academic Performance and cause higher absenteeism rates [ 22 ]. Consequently, this study aims to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying, determine the risk factors, and establish the association between cyberbullying and the psychological status of adolescents. We believe our study will be an extension of and significantly add to the literature regarding the nature and extent of cyberbullying in the Jazan region of Saudi Arabia.

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the Jazan region, a province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is located on the tropical Red Sea coast of southwestern Saudi Arabia.

Design and participants

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the Jazan region, a province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is located on the tropical Red Sea coast of southwestern Saudi Arabia. The study targeted adolescents (12–18 years old) who use the Internet to communicate in the Jazan region. The main inclusion criteria are adolescents between 12–18 years who use the Internet and agree to participate; however, it excludes adolescents not matching the inclusion criteria or those refusing to participate in the study. If participants were under 16, the parent and/or legal guardian should be notified. A sample of participants was estimated for this study, and the ideal sample size was calculated to be 385 using the Cochran formula, n  = (z) 2 p (1 – p) / d 2 . Where: p = prevalence of cyberbullying 50%, z = a 95% confidence interval, d = error of not more than 5%. A convenience sample was used to recruit the study participants. A self-administrated online questionnaire was used to collect the study information from May to December 2021.

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from The Institute Review Board (IRB) of Jazan University (Letter v.1 2019 dated 08/04/2021). Informed consent was acquired from all participants and was attached to the beginning of the form and mandatory to be read and checked before the participant proceeded to the first part of the questionnaire. For the participants under 16, informed consent was obtained from a parent and legal guardian.

Procedure of data collection and study measures

An Arabic self-administrated online questionnaire was used for this research. This anonymous online survey instrument was based on (Google Forms). The study team distributed the questionnaire to the participants through school teachers. The research team prepared the study questionnaire and chose the relevant cyberbullying scale questions from similar studies [ 5 , 6 ]. The questionnaire was translated by two bilingual professionals to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the instrument wording. A panel of experts then discussed and assessed the validity and suitability of the instrument for use on adolescents. The panel also added and edited a few questions to accommodate the local culture of Saudi students. It was validated with a pilot study that included 20 participants. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The first part of the questionnaire contains the basic participant information, including gender, age, nationality, school grade, residence, and information about family members and the mother's occupation and education. The mother's level of education was considered as it found that mothers' low levels of education specifically had a detrimental impact on the cyberbullying process [ 23 ]. The second section explores the participant's definition of cyberbullying, questions regarding exposure to cyberbullying as a victim or by bullying another person, and questions considering the possible risk factors behind cyberbullying. The last section explores how cyberbullying affects adolescents psychologically based on the standardized questionnaire Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5). MHI-5 is a well-known, valid, reliable, and brief international instrument for assessing mental health in children and adolescents (such as satisfaction, interest in, and enjoyment of life) and negative aspects (such as anxiety and depression) [ 24 ]. It is composed of five questions, as shown in Table ​ Table1. 1 . There are six options available for each question, ranging from "all the time" (1 point) to "none of the time" (6 points); therefore, the adolescent's score varies between five and 30. These questions assess both negative and positive qualities of mental health, as well as questions about anxiety and depression. By adding all the item scores and converting this score to a scale ranging from 0 to 100, the final MHI-5 score is determined, with lower scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. The value for which the sum of sensitivity and specificity was utilized to establish the ideal cut-off score for MHI-5 in many similar studies was reviewed to reach an optimal conclusion. Therefore, we considered all cut-off values with associated sensitivities and specificities of various MHI-5 cut-off points previously employed among adolescents in similar studies and compared them to conclude that MHI-5 = 70 as our cut points. So the presence of depressive symptoms is considered with an MHI-5 cut-off score of ≤ 70 [ 25 ].

Factor Analysis of the Arabic Version of the Mental Health Inventory – 5 (MHI-5) ( n  = 355)

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.700

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, Chi-Square = 739.84 p  < 0.001

The Questionnaires were initially prepared in English and then translated into Arabic. A native speaker with fluency in English (with experience in translation) converted the questionnaire from the initial English version into Arabic. Then, we performed a pilot study among 20 participants to ensure the readability and understandability of the questionnaire questions. We also assessed the internal consistency of the questionnaire based on Cronbach’s alpha, which produced an acceptable value of 0.672. The internal consistency for Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) was reported at 0.557. In order to assess the factor structure of the Arabic-translated version of the (MHI-5) questionnaire, a factor analysis was conducted. The factor loading of the instrument is shown in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Using principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method, we found a one-component solution explaining 56.766% of the total variance. All items loaded on the first factor ranged from (0.688 to 0.824), which confirms that a single factor has explained all the items of the scale. In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found significant ( p  < 0.001).

Data presentation & statistical analysis

Simple tabulation frequencies were used to give a general overview of the data. The prevalence of cyberbullying was presented using 95% C.I.s, and the Chi-squared test was performed to determine the associations between individual categorical variables and Mental Health. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression model was derived, and unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (C.I.s) were calculated. A P -value of 0.05 or less was used as the cut-off level for statistical significance. The statistical analysis was completed using SPSS ver. 25.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) software.

The distributed survey targeted approximately 385 students, but the precise number of respondents to the questionnaire was 355 (92% response rate), with 68% of female students responding, compared to 32% of male students. More than half of the respondents were secondary school students, with a nearly equal mix of respondents living in cities and rural areas. Table ​ Table2 2 demonstrates that 20% of the participants spend more than 12 h daily on the Internet and electronic gadgets, while only 13% spend less than two hours.

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants

Abbreviations: SD = standard deviation

As demonstrated in Table ​ Table3, 3 , the total prevalence of cyberbullying was estimated to be 42.8%, with male prevalence somewhat higher than female prevalence. Additional variables, such as the number of hours spent on the Internet, did not affect the prevalence. Table ​ Table4 4 shows the pattern and experience of being cyberbullied across mental health levels, as measured by the MHI-5.

Prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents in the Jazan region

# p -value is based on Pearson's Chi-square test, Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval

Pattern and experience of being cyberbullied among adolescents according to a mental health level based on MHI-5

# p -value is based on Pearson's Chi-square test, Abbreviations: MHI-5 = the Mental Health Inventory-5

Academic Performance was significantly affected due to cyberbullying in 26.3% of the participants. Furthermore, approximately 20% of all participants considered leaving their schools for this reason. Moreover, 19.7% of the participants thought of stopping using the Internet and electronic devices, while 21.1% considered harming themselves due to the effects of cyberbullying. Regarding associations between various variables and psychological effects using the MHI-5, there are significant associations between whether the participant has been a cyber victim before (cOR 2.8), the frequency of harassment (cOR 1.9), academic Performance (cOR 6.5), and considering leaving school as a result of being a cyber victim (cOR 3.0). In addition, by using univariate logistic regression analysis, there are significant associations between the psychological effects and the participant's thoughts of getting rid of a bully (cOR 2.8), thinking to stop using electronic devices (cOR 3.0), and considering hurting themselves as the result of cyberbullying (cOR 6.4). In addition, the use of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that frequency of harassment was the only statistically significant predictor of mental health among adolescents (aOR 2.8). Other variables continue to have higher (aORs) but without statistical significance. All these results are demonstrated in Table ​ Table4 4 .

Cyberbullying prevalence rates among adolescents vary widely worldwide, ranging from 10% to more than 70% in many studies. This variation results from certain factors, specifically gender involvement, as a decisive influencing factor [ 26 , 27 ]. Our study found a prevalence of 42.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.7–48), which is higher than the median reported prevalence of cyberbullying of 23.0% in a scoping review that included 36 studies conducted in the United States in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old [ 28 ]. A systematic review found that cyberbullying ranged from 6.5% to 35.4% [ 3 ]. These two studies gathered data before the COVID-19 pandemic. When compared to recent studies, it was found that cyberbullying increased dramatically during the COVID-19 era [ 29 , 30 ]. Subsequently, with the massive mandate of world online communication in teaching and learning, young adolescents faced a large amount of cyberspace exposure with all risk-related inquiries. Psychological distress due to COVID-19 and spending far more time on the Internet are vital factors in this problem, which might be a reasonable explanation for our results.

There is insufficient data to compare our findings to the Arab world context, notably Saudi Arabia. Although, according to one study done among Saudi Arabian university students, the prevalence was 17.6%. [ 31 ]. we discovered a considerable discrepancy between this prevalence and our findings, and the decisive explanation is the difference in the target age group studied. Age is a crucial risk factor for cyberbullying, and according to one study, cyberbullying peaks at around 14 and 15 years of age and then declines in late adolescence. Thus, a U-inverted relation exists between prevalence and age [ 11 – 13 , 32 ].

In our study, males reported being more vulnerable to cyberbullying despite there being more female participants; this inconsistent finding with previous literature requires further investigation. A strong, but not recent, meta-analysis in 2014 reported that, in general, males are likely to cyberbully more than females. Females were more likely to report cyberbullying during early to mid-adolescence than males [ 11 ]. This finding presents a concern for males reporting lower than females’ results in our data and raises some questions about whether cultural or religious conservative values play a role.

Increased Internet hours are another risk factor in this study and were significantly associated with cyberbullying. Specifically, it was likely to be with heavy Internet users (> 12 h/day); a similar result was well documented in one equivalent study [ 3 ]. Notably, while some studies have reported that those living in city areas are more likely to be cyberbullying victims than their counterparts from suburban areas [ 3 ], our observations reported no significant influence of this factor on the prevalence of cyberbullying.

According to a population-based study on cyberbullying and teenage well-being in England, which included 110,000 pupils, traditional Bullying accounted for more significant variability in mental well-being than cyberbullying. It did, however, conclude that both types of Bullying carry a risk of affecting mental health [ 33 ]. We confirmed in this study that multiple occurrences of cyberbullying and the potential for being a victim are risk factors influencing mental health ( P  < 0.001). Moreover, the frequency of harassment also shows a significant, influential effect. The victim's desire to be free from the perpetrator carrying out the cyberbullying is probably an alarming sign and a precursor factor for suicidal ideation; we reported that nearly half of the participants wished they could get rid of the perpetrators. Furthermore, more than 20% of participants considered harming themselves due to cyberbullying; this result is consistent with many studies that linked cyberbullying and self-harm and suicidal thoughts [ 34 – 36 ].

Adolescence is a particularly vulnerable age for the effects of cyberbullying on mental health. In one Saudi Arabian study, parents felt that cyberbullying is more detrimental than Bullying in the schoolyard and more harmful to their children's mental health. According to them, video games were the most popular social platform for cyberbullying [ 37 ]. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal research shows a significant link between cyberbullying and emotional symptoms, including anxiety and depression [ 38 , 39 ]. Therefore, we employed the MHI-5 to measure the mental impact of cyberbullying on adolescents in this study. Overall, the MHI-5 questionnaire showed relatively high sensitivity in detecting anxiety and depression disorders for general health and quality of life assessments. The questions listed happy times, peacefulness, and sensations of calmness, in addition to episodes of anxiousness, downheartedness, and feelings of depression, as given in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Cyberbullying has been well-documented to affect the academic achievement of the victim adolescents. Therefore, bullied adolescents are likelier to miss school, have higher absence rates, dislike school, and report receiving lower grades. According to one meta-analysis, peer victimization has a significant negative link with academic achievement, as measured by grades, student performance, or instructor ratings of academic achievement [ 40 ]. In our investigation, we reported that up to 20% of participants considered leaving their schools due to the adverse effects of cyberbullying (cOR 3.0) and wished they could stop using the Internet; 26% of participants felt that their school performance was affected due to being cyber victims (cOR 6.5). The results of the univariate analysis showed a high odd ratio related to school performance and a willingness to leave school. This conclusion indicates the likelihood of these impacts specifically with a significant p-value, as shown in Table ​ Table5 5 .

Uni-variate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showing associations between various variables of adolescent cyberbullying and mental health level

* Reference category, CI Confidence Interval, cOR Crude Odds ratio, aOR Adjusted Odds ratio

In this study, approximately 88% of the participants were cyber victims compared to only 11% of cyberbullying perpetrators who committed this act on their peers. Mental health affection is well-reported in many studies on cyber victims with higher depression rates than cyberbullying perpetrators [ 41 , 42 ]. However, other studies indicate that cyberbullying victims are not the only ones affected; harm is also extended to involve perpetrators. Cyberbullying perpetrators have high-stress levels, poor school performance, and an increased risk of depression and alcohol misuse. Furthermore, research shows that adolescents who were victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying in their adolescence continue to engage in similar behavior into early adulthood [ 43 , 44 ].

Limitations of the study

Although the current study found a high prevalence and positive connections among variables, it should be emphasized that it was conducted on a determinate sample of respondents, 11 to 18 years old. Therefore, the results could not be generalized for other samples, age groups, and communities from other cultures and contexts. In addition, it was limited to adolescent survey responses, did not include parents' and caretakers' viewpoints, and failed to include other risk factors such as divorce and financial status. We believe future studies should consider parents' perspectives and more analysis of perpetrators' characteristics. Moreover, self-reported tools are susceptible to social desirability bias, which can influence test item responses. As a result, future research should employ a variety of monitoring and evaluation metrics and larger potential populations and age ranges. Another limitation of this analysis is that we cannot make conclusive inferences regarding gender and exact prevalence because male adolescents had a lower response rate than female adolescents, suggesting that males might be more sensitive to disclosing these issues.

Even though experts in the social sciences typically research cyberbullying, it is crucial to investigate it from a clinical perspective because it significantly affects mental health. Adolescents' lives have grown increasingly centered on online communication, which provides several possibilities for psychological outcomes and aggressive actions such as cyberbullying. Stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and deterioration in school performance are all linked to cyberbullying. Therefore, we emphasize the need for parents and educators to be conscious of these dangers and be the first line of protection for the adolescent by recognizing, addressing, and solving this problem. Furthermore, we urge the responsibility of pediatricians, physicians, and psychiatric consultants to create a comfortable atmosphere for adolescents to disclose and report this problem early and raise awareness of the problem in their communities. Furthermore, practical strategies for dealing with such occurrences involving health, education, and law authorities, should be supported to tackle this problem, which can affect the adolescent mentally and academically. Lastly, to decide how to intervene most effectively, more research must be done on the many methods to assess how schools, communities, and healthcare providers tackle cyberbullying.

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge the help and appreciate the efforts of the participating students and their guardians during data collection.

Authors’ contributions

GG, EE and AA did the study design, data collection, statistical analysis manuscript writing, editing, revision, approved final manuscript, and responsible for integrity of research.

AR, BH, AF, AH, AQ, and MM contributed in data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript writing, editing, revision, approved final manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from The Institute Review Board (IRB) of Jazan University (Letter v.1 2019 dated 08/04/2021). Informed consent was received from all participants, and for participants under age 16, informed consent was obtained from a parent and legal guardian. All methods were carried out under relevant guidelines and regulations.

Not applicable.

The authors state that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Gassem Gohal, Email: [email protected] .

Ahmad Alqassim, Email: as.ude.unazaj@missaqlaa .

Ebtihal Eltyeb, Email: as.ude.unazaj@beytlee .

Ahmed Rayyani, Email: moc.liamtoh@inayar_ha .

Bassam Hakami, Email: [email protected] .

Abdullah Al Faqih, Email: moc.liamg@hiqaflaahalludbA .

Abdullah Hakami, Email: moc.liamg@69imakahalludba .

Almuhannad Qadri, Email: [email protected] .

Mohamed Mahfouz, Email: [email protected] .

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: cyberbullying and mental health: an interdisciplinary perspective.

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
• 2 Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
• 3 Faculty of Communication, Cultural and Society, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

Editorial on the Research Topic Cyberbullying and Mental Health: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

Introduction

Adolescents are at risk of various forms of peer victimization, particularly in the school context. However, in the last decade, with the development of new technologies and the proliferation of social media among adolescents, the phenomenon of cyberbullying has attracted the attention of researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, considering the impact of cyberbullying victimization on the psychological adjustment and psychophysical integrity of minors.

Knowledge of the phenomenon of cyberbullying is not only a scientific and theoretical curiosity, but also allows appropriate prevention and intervention strategies to be more effective. Although scientific research has identified cyberbullying as a risk factor for adolescent mental health, little is known about the possible mechanisms and mediating factors involved in this relationship. Theoretical models of the relationship between cybervictimization and mental health are underdeveloped, particularly in the emerging field of social neuroscience.

The goal of this Research Topic is to advance current knowledge of the relationship between cybervictimization and mental health, promote an interdisciplinary view of the phenomenon, and identify opportunities for prevention and intervention.

For the Research Topic, 13 contributions with different cultural backgrounds were compiled, including two literature reviews and 11 empirical studies, two of which applied a qualitative approach.

Literature Review and Theoretical Contributions

In their mini review, McLoughin et al. point out that there is a gap in the literature on how cyberbullying affects brain development. According to the authors, this is an important limitation, as developmental cognitive neuroscience could help us to understand which factors increase the likelihood of an adolescent becoming involved in cyberbullying, as either a victim or an aggressor, and to develop tailored interventions. In particular, the authors emphasize the importance of encouraging longitudinal studies using brain imaging techniques to understand how cyberbullying may affect brain development according to gender and age. The importance of interdisciplinary approaches is also emphasized by Auriemma et al. who propose a theoretical model for understanding the cyberbullying phenomenon based on complex and multifaceted constructs of empathy such as emotional contagion, theory of mind, compassion, prosocial behavior, egocentric bias, and individual traits.

Empirical Findings: Quantitative Data on Cyberbullying and Developmental Outcomes

Empirical articles have examined the relationship between cyberbullying and mental health in adolescents, pointing to possible mediating mechanisms. Wachs et al. found that high levels of alexithymia tended to mediate the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and measures of self-esteem and Internet addiction in three different countries: Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.

The paper by Yu et al. from China attempts to expand knowledge of possible mechanisms to explain the relationship between cybervictimization and non-suicidal self-injury. Based on social control theory and the organism-environment interaction model, the authors report that school engagement is a possible mediating factor between cybervictimization and non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents with high sensation seeking.

In a large sample of Chinese adolescents, Chen et al. found that cybervictimization may increase the risk of deviant peer affiliation, which may help to explain the association between cybervictimization and increased drinking behavior among adolescents. In addition, the authors note that the personal growth initiative plays a mediating role. Consistent with the person-environment interaction model, the authors posit that personal growth initiative is a potential protective factor for the indirect effects of cybervictimization on adolescent drinking.

In a large sample of Chinese adolescents, Wang et al. confirm a significant correlation between cybervictimization and Internet addiction, identifying depression as a possible mediating factor. Interestingly, the authors note that positive peer affiliation does not appear to protect adolescents from negative outcomes when they experience high levels of cybervictimization. This suggests the need for further studies on the relationship between cybervictimization and mental health, and on the mediating role of peer relationships, particularly prosocial peer affiliation.

The pandemic situation and lockdowns around the world have created a context in which forms of cybervictimization can proliferate. The paper by Han et al. addresses the relationship between cyberbullying and mental health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically targets a rural population of Chinese youth. In the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, the authors examined the associations between involvement in cyberbullying, resilient coping, and loneliness. They show that resilient coping strategies can reduce the association between cyberbullying and loneliness. Moreover, bullying victims tend to exhibit higher levels of loneliness and lower levels of resilient coping than perpetrators who engage in bullying alone or victims who engage in bullying alone.

The Italian paper by Saladino et al. adds to our knowledge of adolescents' personal cognitions and perceptions of cyberbullying and its consequences. In addition, the authors explain how these data can support cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts in the school context.

Cyberbullying prevention cannot focus exclusively on victims and aggressors and must consider the entire social scene involved in the dynamics of bullying and cyberbullying. With this in mind, Jungert et al. experimental study addresses potential bystander figures and helps us to better understand when and why youth are motivated to help bullying victims. Research has only recently focused on the bystander figure, but we believe that understanding the factors involved in the predisposition and decision to help a victim of bullying or cyberbullying could have important implications for preventing and counteracting the phenomenon.

Research on the relationship between psychological well-being and cyberbullying has focused predominantly on adolescents, with little evidence on younger students. With this in mind, the brief report by Sidera et al. seeks to expand our knowledge on the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and psychological adjustment in elementary school. The authors report that 14% of the students surveyed had been victims of cyberbullying at least once in the past 2 months, and many of them reported having been victims of traditional bullying as well. The data show that males are at greater risk of being victims of cyberbullying than females, and that the impact of cyberbullying is greater on children who have not also experienced traditional bullying. It is possible that cyberbullying in childhood has different risk factors added to social exclusion ( Morese and Longobardi, 2020 ) and impacts on developmental processes than in adolescence, and future research in this area should be encouraged.

Another stage of the life cycle that appears to be under-researched is adulthood. There is limited research on the relationship between cyberbullying and psychological well-being in adults. In relation to this, Schodt et al. conducted two studies on the relationship between psychological symptoms and involvement in cyberbullying among American adults. In doing so, they attempted to fill a gap in the literature by finding an association between mental health measures and increased risk of involvement in cyberbullying as a victim or aggressor, particularly among men who use social media more. These data appear to differ in part from the literature for adolescents. Therefore, further research on the relationship between mental health and cyberbullying at any developmental stage should be encouraged.

Empirical Findings: Qualitative Research on Adolescents' Perceptions and Experiences of Cyberbullying

Two interesting qualitative research articles are found within this Research Topic. Li and Hesketh carried out semi-structured interviews with 41 students (12–16 years old) involved in traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The authors found that traditional bullying is more common than cyberbullying, although there is a great deal of overlap between the two types. They developed a conceptual framework which identified a number of risk factors at the organizational and individual levels, pointing to a lack of support from parents and teachers, even when needed, leading to poorer developmental and academic outcomes.

Mishna et al. have also sought to expand current knowledge about how adults, parents, and teachers perceive traditional bullying and cyberbullying. According to the authors, it is important to examine how adolescents and adults (who represent three critical relationship systems in the ecological context of bullying) conceptualize the nature and impact of peer victimization in online and offline contexts in order to identify more accurate and effective prevention and intervention strategies.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the Research Topic highlights the importance of considering cyberbullying as a risk factor for the psychological adjustment of individuals and adolescents in particular. It is important to increase our knowledge on the relationship between cyberbullying and mental health to understand which areas of individual functioning are affected and which mediating factors are involved. This knowledge will allow us to identify at-risk situations more accurately and implement prevention and intervention strategies more effectively.

The collected contributions point to the need to address and prevent forms of peer victimization, including cyberbullying. Prevention efforts must target all actors involved in the dynamics of bullying and cyberbullying—not only the victims and perpetrators of bullying, but also the observers and the adults (teachers and parents) among their peers. In this respect, the collected research contributions emphasize the importance of making individuals aware of the definition of the phenomenon of cyberbullying and its consequences, starting from the knowledge and personal perceptions that individuals—both adults and minors—develop regarding the phenomenon.

In addition, we believe it is important to increase the scientific knowledge on the relationship between cybervictimization and mental health at different developmental stages, including childhood and adulthood. In connection with this, we emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary approach when studying the relationship between cyberbullying and psychological adjustment, and we believe that social neuroscience can help expand our knowledge and develop theoretical models that can contribute to prevention and intervention.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and have approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Morese, R., and Longobardi, C. (2020). Suicidal ideation in adolescence: a perspective view on the role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Front. psycho. 11, 713.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Keywords: cyberbullying, mental health, adjustment (psychology), adolescents, cross cultural

Citation: Longobardi C, Thornberg R and Morese R (2022) Editorial: Cyberbullying and Mental Health: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Front. Psychol. 12:827106. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.827106

Received: 01 December 2021; Accepted: 17 December 2021; Published: 12 January 2022.

Edited and reviewed by: Pablo Fernández-Berrocal , University of Malaga, Spain

Copyright © 2022 Longobardi, Thornberg and Morese. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Claudio Longobardi, claudio.longobardi@unito.it

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice (2016)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

Bullying, long tolerated by many as a rite of passage into adulthood, is now recognized as a major and preventable public health problem, one that can have long-lasting consequences ( McDougall and Vaillancourt, 2015 ; Wolke and Lereya, 2015 ). Those consequences—for those who are bullied, for the perpetrators of bullying, and for witnesses who are present during a bullying event—include poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior. Federal, state, and local governments have responded by adopting laws and implementing programs to prevent bullying and deal with its consequences. However, many of these responses have been undertaken with little attention to what is known about bullying and its effects. Even the definition of bullying varies among both researchers and lawmakers, though it generally includes physical and verbal behavior, behavior leading to social isolation, and behavior that uses digital communications technology (cyberbullying). This report adopts the term “bullying behavior,” which is frequently used in the research field, to cover all of these behaviors.

Bullying behavior is evident as early as preschool, although it peaks during the middle school years ( Currie et al., 2012 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2010 ). It can occur in diverse social settings, including classrooms, school gyms and cafeterias, on school buses, and online. Bullying behavior affects not only the children and youth who are bullied, who bully, and who are both bullied and bully others but also bystanders to bullying incidents. Given the myriad situations in which bullying can occur and the many people who may be involved, identifying effective prevention programs and policies is challenging, and it is unlikely that any one approach will be ap-

propriate in all situations. Commonly used bullying prevention approaches include policies regarding acceptable behavior in schools and behavioral interventions to promote positive cultural norms.

STUDY CHARGE

Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, a group of federal agencies and private foundations asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study of what is known and what needs to be known to further the field of preventing bullying behavior. The Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization:

Lessons for Bullying Prevention was created to carry out this task under the Academies’ Board on Children, Youth, and Families and the Committee on Law and Justice. The study received financial support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Highmark Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Semi J. and Ruth W. Begun Foundation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The full statement of task for the committee is presented in Box 1-1 .

Although the committee acknowledges the importance of this topic as it pertains to all children in the United States and in U.S. territories, this report focuses on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Also, while the committee acknowledges that bullying behavior occurs in the school

environment for youth in foster care, in juvenile justice facilities, and in other residential treatment facilities, this report does not address bullying behavior in those environments because it is beyond the study charge.

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

This section of the report highlights relevant work in the field and, later in the chapter under “The Committee’s Approach,” presents the conceptual framework and corresponding definitions of terms that the committee has adopted.

Historical Context

Bullying behavior was first characterized in the scientific literature as part of the childhood experience more than 100 years ago in “Teasing and Bullying,” published in the Pedagogical Seminary ( Burk, 1897 ). The author described bullying behavior, attempted to delineate causes and cures for the tormenting of others, and called for additional research ( Koo, 2007 ). Nearly a century later, Dan Olweus, a Swedish research professor of psychology in Norway, conducted an intensive study on bullying ( Olweus, 1978 ). The efforts of Olweus brought awareness to the issue and motivated other professionals to conduct their own research, thereby expanding and contributing to knowledge of bullying behavior. Since Olweus’s early work, research on bullying has steadily increased (see Farrington and Ttofi, 2009 ; Hymel and Swearer, 2015 ).

Over the past few decades, venues where bullying behavior occurs have expanded with the advent of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. These modes of communication have provided a new communal avenue for bullying. While the media reports linking bullying to suicide suggest a causal relationship, the available research suggests that there are often multiple factors that contribute to a youth’s suicide-related ideology and behavior. Several studies, however, have demonstrated an association between bullying involvement and suicide-related ideology and behavior (see, e.g., Holt et al., 2015 ; Kim and Leventhal, 2008 ; Sourander, 2010 ; van Geel et al., 2014 ).

In 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine 1 and the National Research Council convene an ad hoc planning committee to plan and conduct a 2-day public workshop to highlight relevant information and knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary

___________________

1 Prior to 2015, the National Academy of Medicine was known as the Institute of Medicine.

road map on next steps for the field of bullying prevention. Content areas that were explored during the April 2014 workshop included the identification of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying while increasing protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. The discussions highlighted the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of program interventions in realistic settings; the importance of understanding what works for whom and under what circumstances, as well as the influence of different mediators (i.e., what accounts for associations between variables) and moderators (i.e., what affects the direction or strength of associations between variables) in bullying prevention efforts; and the need for coordination among agencies to prevent and respond to bullying. The workshop summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ) informs this committee’s work.

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

Currently, there is no comprehensive federal statute that explicitly prohibits bullying among children and adolescents, including cyberbullying. However, in the wake of the growing concerns surrounding the implications of bullying, several federal initiatives do address bullying among children and adolescents, and although some of them do not primarily focus on bullying, they permit some funds to be used for bullying prevention purposes.

The earliest federal initiative was in 1999, when three agencies collaborated to establish the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative in response to a series of deadly school shootings in the late 1990s. The program is administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth. It is jointly funded by the Department of Education and by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The program has provided grantees with both the opportunity to benefit from collaboration and the tools to sustain it through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base ( Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015 ).

The next major effort was in 2010, when the Department of Education awarded $38.8 million in grants under the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Program to 11 states to support statewide measurement of conditions for learning and targeted programmatic interventions to improve conditions for learning, in order to help schools improve safety and reduce substance use. The S3 Program was administered by the Safe and Supportive Schools Group, which also administered the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State and Local Grants Program, authorized by the

1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 2 It was one of several programs related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. In addition to the S3 grants program, the group administered a number of interagency agreements with a focus on (but not limited to) bullying, school recovery research, data collection, and drug and violence prevention activities ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ).

A collaborative effort among the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Justice; the Federal Trade Commission; and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders created the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention (FPBP) Steering Committee. Led by the U.S. Department of Education, the FPBP works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The FPBP Website provides extensive resources on bullying behavior, including information on what bullying is, its risk factors, its warning signs, and its effects. 3 The FPBP Steering Committee also plans to provide details on how to get help for those who have been bullied. It also was involved in creating the “Be More than a Bystander” Public Service Announcement campaign with the Ad Council to engage students in bullying prevention. To improve school climate and reduce rates of bullying nationwide, FPBP has sponsored four bullying prevention summits attended by education practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and federal officials.

In 2014, the National Institute of Justice—the scientific research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—launched the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with a congressional appropriation of $75 million. The funds are to be used for rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students, including bullying prevention. The initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals ( National Institute of Justice, 2015 ).

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama, reauthorizing the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students. Although bullying is neither defined nor prohibited in this act, it is explicitly mentioned in regard to applicability of safe school funding, which it had not been in previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

2 The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was included as Title IV, Part A, of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-i.html [October 2015].

3 For details, see http://www.stopbullying.gov/ [October 2015].

healthy development of youth, improving the safety of schools and students, and reducing rates of bullying behavior. There are several other federal initiatives that address student bullying directly or allow funds to be used for bullying prevention activities.

Definitional Context

The terms “bullying,” “harassment,” and “peer victimization” have been used in the scientific literature to refer to behavior that is aggressive, is carried out repeatedly and over time, and occurs in an interpersonal relationship where a power imbalance exists ( Eisenberg and Aalsma, 2005 ). Although some of these terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, peer victimization is targeted aggressive behavior of one child against another that causes physical, emotional, social, or psychological harm. While conflict and bullying among siblings are important in their own right ( Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015 ), this area falls outside of the scope of the committee’s charge. Sibling conflict and aggression falls under the broader concept of interpersonal aggression, which includes dating violence, sexual assault, and sibling violence, in addition to bullying as defined for this report. Olweus (1993) noted that bullying, unlike other forms of peer victimization where the children involved are equally matched, involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, where the target has difficulty defending him or herself and feels helpless against the aggressor. This power imbalance is typically considered a defining feature of bullying, which distinguishes this particular form of aggression from other forms, and is typically repeated in multiple bullying incidents involving the same individuals over time ( Olweus, 1993 ).

Bullying and violence are subcategories of aggressive behavior that overlap ( Olweus, 1996 ). There are situations in which violence is used in the context of bullying. However, not all forms of bullying (e.g., rumor spreading) involve violent behavior. The committee also acknowledges that perspective about intentions can matter and that in many situations, there may be at least two plausible perceptions involved in the bullying behavior.

A number of factors may influence one’s perception of the term “bullying” ( Smith and Monks, 2008 ). Children and adolescents’ understanding of the term “bullying” may be subject to cultural interpretations or translations of the term ( Hopkins et al., 2013 ). Studies have also shown that influences on children’s understanding of bullying include the child’s experiences as he or she matures and whether the child witnesses the bullying behavior of others ( Hellström et al., 2015 ; Monks and Smith, 2006 ; Smith and Monks, 2008 ).

In 2010, the FPBP Steering Committee convened its first summit, which brought together more than 150 nonprofit and corporate leaders,

researchers, practitioners, parents, and youths to identify challenges in bullying prevention. Discussions at the summit revealed inconsistencies in the definition of bullying behavior and the need to create a uniform definition of bullying. Subsequently, a review of the 2011 CDC publication of assessment tools used to measure bullying among youth ( Hamburger et al., 2011 ) revealed inconsistent definitions of bullying and diverse measurement strategies. Those inconsistencies and diverse measurements make it difficult to compare the prevalence of bullying across studies ( Vivolo et al., 2011 ) and complicate the task of distinguishing bullying from other types of aggression between youths. A uniform definition can support the consistent tracking of bullying behavior over time, facilitate the comparison of bullying prevalence rates and associated risk and protective factors across different data collection systems, and enable the collection of comparable information on the performance of bullying intervention and prevention programs across contexts ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). The CDC and U.S. Department of Education collaborated on the creation of the following uniform definition of bullying (quoted in Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ):

Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.

This report noted that the definition includes school-age individuals ages 5-18 and explicitly excludes sibling violence and violence that occurs in the context of a dating or intimate relationship ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). This definition also highlighted that there are direct and indirect modes of bullying, as well as different types of bullying. Direct bullying involves “aggressive behavior(s) that occur in the presence of the targeted youth”; indirect bullying includes “aggressive behavior(s) that are not directly communicated to the targeted youth” ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). The direct forms of violence (e.g., sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological, but the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the target and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer bullying. Examples of direct bullying include pushing, hitting, verbal taunting, or direct written communication. A common form of indirect bullying is spreading rumors. Four different types of bullying are commonly identified—physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property. Some observational studies have shown that the different forms of bullying that youths commonly experience may overlap ( Bradshaw et al., 2015 ;

Godleski et al., 2015 ). The four types of bullying are defined as follows ( Gladden et al., 2014 ):

• Physical bullying involves the use of physical force (e.g., shoving, hitting, spitting, pushing, and tripping).
• Verbal bullying involves oral or written communication that causes harm (e.g., taunting, name calling, offensive notes or hand gestures, verbal threats).
• Relational bullying is behavior “designed to harm the reputation and relationships of the targeted youth (e.g., social isolation, rumor spreading, posting derogatory comments or pictures online).”
• Damage to property is “theft, alteration, or damaging of the target youth’s property by the perpetrator to cause harm.”

In recent years, a new form of aggression or bullying has emerged, labeled “cyberbullying,” in which the aggression occurs through modern technological devices, specifically mobile phones or the Internet ( Slonje and Smith, 2008 ). Cyberbullying may take the form of mean or nasty messages or comments, rumor spreading through posts or creation of groups, and exclusion by groups of peers online.

While the CDC definition identifies bullying that occurs using technology as electronic bullying and views that as a context or location where bullying occurs, one of the major challenges in the field is how to conceptualize and define cyberbullying ( Tokunaga, 2010 ). The extent to which the CDC definition can be applied to cyberbullying is unclear, particularly with respect to several key concepts within the CDC definition. First, whether determination of an interaction as “wanted” or “unwanted” or whether communication was intended to be harmful can be challenging to assess in the absence of important in-person socioemotional cues (e.g., vocal tone, facial expressions). Second, assessing “repetition” is challenging in that a single harmful act on the Internet has the potential to be shared or viewed multiple times ( Sticca and Perren, 2013 ). Third, cyberbullying can involve a less powerful peer using technological tools to bully a peer who is perceived to have more power. In this manner, technology may provide the tools that create a power imbalance, in contrast to traditional bullying, which typically involves an existing power imbalance.

A study that used focus groups with college students to discuss whether the CDC definition applied to cyberbullying found that students were wary of applying the definition due to their perception that cyberbullying often involves less emphasis on aggression, intention, and repetition than other forms of bullying ( Kota et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have responded to this lack of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures to assess cyberbullying. It is noteworthy that very few of these

definitions and measures include the components of traditional bullying—i.e., repetition, power imbalance, and intent ( Berne et al., 2013 ). A more recent study argues that the term “cyberbullying” should be reserved for incidents that involve key aspects of bullying such as repetition and differential power ( Ybarra et al., 2014 ).

Although the formulation of a uniform definition of bullying appears to be a step in the right direction for the field of bullying prevention, there are some limitations of the CDC definition. For example, some researchers find the focus on school-age youth as well as the repeated nature of bullying to be rather limiting; similarly the exclusion of bullying in the context of sibling relationships or dating relationships may preclude full appreciation of the range of aggressive behaviors that may co-occur with or constitute bullying behavior. As noted above, other researchers have raised concerns about whether cyberbullying should be considered a particular form or mode under the broader heading of bullying as suggested in the CDC definition, or whether a separate defintion is needed. Furthermore, the measurement of bullying prevalence using such a definiton of bullying is rather complex and does not lend itself well to large-scale survey research. The CDC definition was intended to inform public health surveillance efforts, rather than to serve as a definition for policy. However, increased alignment between bullying definitions used by policy makers and researchers would greatly advance the field. Much of the extant research on bullying has not applied a consistent definition or one that aligns with the CDC definition. As a result of these and other challenges to the CDC definition, thus far there has been inconsistent adoption of this particular definition by researchers, practitioners, or policy makers; however, as the definition was created in 2014, less than 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to assess whether it has been successfully adopted or will be in the future.

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

This report builds on the April 2014 workshop, summarized in Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ). The committee’s work was accomplished over an 18-month period that began in October 2014, after the workshop was held and the formal summary of it had been released. The study committee members represented expertise in communication technology, criminology, developmental and clinical psychology, education, mental health, neurobiological development, pediatrics, public health, school administration, school district policy, and state law and policy. (See Appendix E for biographical sketches of the committee members and staff.) The committee met three times in person and conducted other meetings by teleconferences and electronic communication.

Information Gathering

The committee conducted an extensive review of the literature pertaining to peer victimization and bullying. In some instances, the committee drew upon the broader literature on aggression and violence. The review began with an English-language literature search of online databases, including ERIC, Google Scholar, Lexis Law Reviews Database, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and was expanded as literature and resources from other countries were identified by committee members and project staff as relevant. The committee drew upon the early childhood literature since there is substantial evidence indicating that bullying involvement happens as early as preschool (see Vlachou et al., 2011 ). The committee also drew on the literature on late adolescence and looked at related areas of research such as maltreatment for insights into this emerging field.

The committee used a variety of sources to supplement its review of the literature. The committee held two public information-gathering sessions, one with the study sponsors and the second with experts on the neurobiology of bullying; bullying as a group phenomenon and the role of bystanders; the role of media in bullying prevention; and the intersection of social science, the law, and bullying and peer victimization. See Appendix A for the agendas for these two sessions. To explore different facets of bullying and give perspectives from the field, a subgroup of the committee and study staff also conducted a site visit to a northeastern city, where they convened four stakeholder groups comprised, respectively, of local practitioners, school personnel, private foundation representatives, and young adults. The site visit provided the committee with an opportunity for place-based learning about bullying prevention programs and best practices. Each focus group was transcribed and summarized thematically in accordance with this report’s chapter considerations. Themes related to the chapters are displayed throughout the report in boxes titled “Perspectives from the Field”; these boxes reflect responses synthesized from all four focus groups. See Appendix B for the site visit’s agenda and for summaries of the focus groups.

The committee also benefited from earlier reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine through its Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Institute of Medicine, most notably:

• Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research ( Institute of Medicine, 1994 )
• Community Programs to Promote Youth Development ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002 )
• Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003 )
• Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 )
• The Science of Adolescent Risk-Taking: Workshop Report ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2011 )
• Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012 )
• Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c )
• The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and Around the World: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014a )
• Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014b )
• Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015 )

Although these past reports and workshop summaries address various forms of violence and victimization, this report is the first consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the state of the science on the biological and psychosocial consequences of bullying and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease bullying behavior and its consequences.

Terminology

Given the variable use of the terms “bullying” and “peer victimization” in both the research-based and practice-based literature, the committee chose to use the current CDC definition quoted above ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). While the committee determined that this was the best definition to use, it acknowledges that this definition is not necessarily the most user-friendly definition for students and has the potential to cause problems for students reporting bullying. Not only does this definition provide detail on the common elements of bullying behavior but it also was developed with input from a panel of researchers and practitioners. The committee also followed the CDC in focusing primarily on individuals between the ages of 5 and 18. The committee recognizes that children’s development occurs on a continuum, and so while it relied primarily on the CDC defini-

tion, its work and this report acknowledge the importance of addressing bullying in both early childhood and emerging adulthood. For purposes of this report, the committee used the terms “early childhood” to refer to ages 1-4, “middle childhood” for ages 5 to 10, “early adolescence” for ages 11-14, “middle adolescence” for ages 15-17, and “late adolescence” for ages 18-21. This terminology and the associated age ranges are consistent with the Bright Futures and American Academy of Pediatrics definition of the stages of development. 4

A given instance of bullying behavior involves at least two unequal roles: one or more individuals who perpetrate the behavior (the perpetrator in this instance) and at least one individual who is bullied (the target in this instance). To avoid labeling and potentially further stigmatizing individuals with the terms “bully” and “victim,” which are sometimes viewed as traits of persons rather than role descriptions in a particular instance of behavior, the committee decided to use “individual who is bullied” to refer to the target of a bullying instance or pattern and “individual who bullies” to refer to the perpetrator of a bullying instance or pattern. Thus, “individual who is bullied and bullies others” can refer to one who is either perpetrating a bullying behavior or a target of bullying behavior, depending on the incident. This terminology is consistent with the approach used by the FPBP (see above). Also, bullying is a dynamic social interaction ( Espelage and Swearer, 2003 ) where individuals can play different roles in bullying interactions based on both individual and contextual factors.

The committee used “cyberbullying” to refer to bullying that takes place using technology or digital electronic means. “Digital electronic forms of contact” comprise a broad category that may include e-mail, blogs, social networking Websites, online games, chat rooms, forums, instant messaging, Skype, text messaging, and mobile phone pictures. The committee uses the term “traditional bullying” to refer to bullying behavior that is not cyberbullying (to aid in comparisons), recognizing that the term has been used at times in slightly different senses in the literature.

Where accurate reporting of study findings requires use of the above terms but with senses different from those specified here, the committee has noted the sense in which the source used the term. Similarly, accurate reporting has at times required use of terms such as “victimization” or “victim” that the committee has chosen to avoid in its own statements.

4 For details on these stages of adolescence, see https://brightfutures.aap.org/Bright%20Futures%20Documents/3-Promoting_Child_Development.pdf [October 2015].

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a broad overview of the scope of the problem.

Chapter 3 focuses on the conceptual frameworks for the study and the developmental trajectory of the child who is bullied, the child who bullies, and the child who is bullied and also bullies. It explores processes that can explain heterogeneity in bullying outcomes by focusing on contextual processes that moderate the effect of individual characteristics on bullying behavior.

Chapter 4 discusses the cyclical nature of bullying and the consequences of bullying behavior. It summarizes what is known about the psychosocial, physical health, neurobiological, academic-performance, and population-level consequences of bullying.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the landscape in bullying prevention programming. This chapter describes in detail the context for preventive interventions and the specific actions that various stakeholders can take to achieve a coordinated response to bullying behavior. The chapter uses the Institute of Medicine’s multi-tiered framework ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 ) to present the different levels of approaches to preventing bullying behavior.

Chapter 6 reviews what is known about federal, state, and local laws and policies and their impact on bullying.

After a critical review of the relevant research and practice-based literatures, Chapter 7 discusses the committee conclusions and recommendations and provides a path forward for bullying prevention.

The report includes a number of appendixes. Appendix A includes meeting agendas of the committee’s public information-gathering meetings. Appendix B includes the agenda and summaries of the site visit. Appendix C includes summaries of bullying prevalence data from the national surveys discussed in Chapter 2 . Appendix D provides a list of selected federal resources on bullying for parents and teachers. Appendix E provides biographical sketches of the committee members and project staff.

Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Katzer, C., Erentaite, R., and Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (2), 320-334.

Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., and Johnson, S.L. (2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 494-508.

Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. The Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336-371.

Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O.R., and Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Eisenberg, M.E., and Aalsma, M.C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (1), 88-91.

Espelage, D.L., and Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365-383.

Farrington, D., and Ttofi, M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5 (6).

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, H.A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 (1), 7-26.

Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., and Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying Surveillance among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Godleski, S.A., Kamper, K.E., Ostrov, J.M., Hart, E.J., and Blakely-McClure, S.J. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 380-392.

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., and Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., and Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying—Adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73 (4), 1-9.

Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J.L., Wolfe, M., and Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 (2), e496-e509.

Hopkins, L., Taylor, L., Bowen, E., and Wood, C. (2013). A qualitative study investigating adolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (4), 685-693.

Hymel, S., and Swearer, S.M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293.

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders. P.J. Mrazek and R.J. Haggerty, Editors. Division of Biobehavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2011). The Science of Adolescent Risk-taking: Workshop Report . Committee on the Science of Adolescence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2012). Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014a). The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and around the World: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014b). Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014c). Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kim, Y.S., and Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 133-154.

Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8 (1), 107-116.

Kota, R., Schoohs, S., Benson, M., and Moreno, M.A. (2014). Characterizing cyberbullying among college students: Hacking, dirty laundry, and mocking. Societies, 4 (4), 549-560.

McDougall, P., and Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 300.

Monks, C.P., and Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 801-821.

National Institute of Justice. (2015). Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. 2015. Available: http://nij.gov/topics/crime/school-crime/Pages/school-safety-initiative.aspx#about [October 2015].

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development . Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. J. Eccles and J.A. Gootman, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence . Case Studies of School Violence Committee. M.H. Moore, C.V. Petrie, A.A. Barga, and B.L. McLaughlin, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. M.E. O’Connell, T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. What We Know and Whal We Can Do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 (2), 331-359.

Slonje, R., and Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 (2), 147-154.

Smith, P. ., and Monks, C. . (2008). Concepts of bullying: Developmental and cultural aspects. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 101-112.

Sourander, A. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55 (5), 282.

Sticca, F., and Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (5), 739-750.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Safe Schools/Healthy Students. 2015. Available: http://www.samhsa.gov/safe-schools-healthy-students/about [November 2015].

Tanrikulu, I., and Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review , 55 , 138-146.

Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (3), 277-287.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Safe and Supportive Schools . Available: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-388-million-safe-and-supportive-school-grants [October 2015].

Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., Hymel, S., and Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9 (3), 233-250.

van Geel, M., Vedder, P., and Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. Pediatrics, 168 (5), 435-442.

Vivolo, A.M., Holt, M.K., and Massetti, G.M. (2011). Individual and contextual factors for bullying and peer victimization: Implications for prevention. Journal of School Violence, 10 (2), 201-212.

Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., and Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/victim problems among preschool children: A review of current research evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 329-358.

Wolke, D., and Lereya, S.T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100 (9), 879-885.

Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., and Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293-300.

This page intentionally left blank.

Bullying has long been tolerated as a rite of passage among children and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have "asked for" this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. For many years, there has been a general acceptance and collective shrug when it comes to a child or adolescent with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate. But bullying is not developmentally appropriate; it should not be considered a normal part of the typical social grouping that occurs throughout a child's life.

Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing. Historically, bulling has occurred at school, the physical setting in which most of childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for an entirely new type of digital electronic aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.

Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts and each of these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and bullying perpetration or victimization. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, this report evaluates the state of the science on biological and psychosocial consequences of peer victimization and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease peer victimization behavior and consequences.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi

As access to digital technologies increases rapidly worldwide, it brings risks alongside enormous benefits, especially for the children and adolescents. The magnitude of online risks like cyberbullying is growing across the world, and India is no exception. Studies across the globe suggest that use of electronic communication technologies has a significant impact on the mental, physical and social health of adolescents. Therefore, understanding and mitigating online risks is crucial. This requires a shared understanding of online risks amongst the key stakeholders to work collaboratively to promote well-being of youth in an increasingly digital world. The socio-ecological model provides a framework that can organize important protective and risk factors for preventing cyberbullying and other online threats. These factors are located within multiple systems that constantly interact, broadly involving the youth, their families, peers and schools, communities, and society.

In this chapter, we introduce cyberbullying and other online risks faced by adolescents as well as the overall opportunities offered by digital media, particularly in the developing world. By mitigating the threats, we can avoid the increasing digital divide and ensure continued healthy youth development. We explore what cyberbullying is, the magnitude of the problem, and its harmful impacts. We will also briefly introduce the landscape we intend to cover through this book using the framework of the socio-ecological model. Our goal is to make this information accessible for the use of Indian stakeholders who are invested in preventing cyberbullying and promoting adolescents’ digital citizenship. Throughout the book, we draw insights from scientific work across the globe and apply them to India’s current policy ecosystem.

INDIAN CONTEXT

India is home to 1.3 billion people. [1] It has the largest adolescent population globally. [2] According to the 2011 census, 83% of India’s population lives in rural areas. Despite the record economic growth, literacy remains low. In the 2011 census, 73% of the population was literate. Literacy for girls and women is much lower (64.6%) as compared to boys and men (80.9%).

The World Bank classifies India as a low-middle income economy. Its health system is constrained, with a reported 0.53 hospital beds per 1000 people in 2017. [3] Further, it falls in the low density of healthcare workers, with 0.3 psychiatrists and 0.05 psychologists per 100,000 people. [4]

As with many other low-income countries, in India, the digital revolution skipped the phase of computers and laptops. This means that many households owned mobile devices as their first digital device. In India, in 2019, one in three individuals of age 12 years and above had access to internet. Of these users, 32% were within the age group of 12-19 years. [5] This suggests that adolescents are disproportionately more likely to have access to the Internet compared to adults and older adults. Also, our focus groups with stakeholders revealed that the sharing of electronic communication devices is prevalent within Indian families. The latest IAMAI report stated, “While internet users grew by 4% in urban India reaching 323 million users in 2020, digital adoption continues to be propelled by rural India – registering a 13% growth in internet users over the past year”. [6]

Digital technology has already changed the world. As more and more children have access to the technology, it is increasingly changing the dynamics of the childhood as well. If leveraged strategically and made universally accessible, digital technology can be a game changer for children who are left behind.

In this book we make a case for faster action, focused investment and greater cooperation to protect children from the harms of a more connected world. Along with this, we also focus on harnessing the opportunities of the digital age to benefit every child. [7] Strategic planning is critically relevant for India. If action is not taken soon enough, digital divide will continue to magnify the prevailing economic gaps. This will in turn amplify the advantages of children from wealthier backgrounds and fail to deliver opportunities to the poorest and the underprivileged children.

OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY DIGITAL MEDIA

Internet connectivity has ushered in knowledge transfer at a scale which was earlier unknown and unimaginable. Bill Gates once said, “The internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.”

Children and adolescents around the world have embraced technology with ease. They have created new spaces for social interactions. Indeed, the advances have been so rapid that parents and caregivers often struggle to keep up. [8] Digitalization offers seemingly limitless opportunities. It allows children to connect with friends and make decisions for themselves. It gives access to education, which is especially important for those living in remote or marginalized areas. Countless stories and examples illustrate how children worldwide have utilized the digital technologies to learn, socialize, and shape their paths into adulthood. For instance, in Brazil, the Amazon state government’s educational initiative has provided educational content since 2007 to children and youth living remotely. Classes are taught by teachers in rural communities using satellite television. In addition to printed resources, they also have access to digital textbooks and other educational resources through the internet. [9]

Skills and vocational training programs are yet another domain where digital connectivity is opening opportunities to learn. This is particularly true for children hailing from very low- income families. Such children often leave formal schooling to earn livelihood. In Kampala, Uganda, the ‘Women in Technology’ organization offers digital vocational training for young women in under-served communities. The organization teaches young women digital, leadership and life skills. Girls attending the program have reported learning entrepreneurship skills and the use of the internet to identify their business opportunities. [10] Such initiatives of providing access to technology strategically has fostered better educational and economic opportunities to the vulnerable communities.

In addition, digital access is vital during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Online web-based learning or e-learning played a major role in making the teaching-learning process more student-centered, innovative, and flexible, when the schools and colleges were shut down across the world. [11]

DIGITAL ACCESS DIVIDE

Greater online connectivity has opened new avenues for civic engagement, social inclusion and other opportunities, with the potential to break cycles of poverty and disadvantage. However, disparities in access to internet services vary between groups depending upon income, family education and literacy, and urbanicity/rurality. To be specific, 81 percent of people in developed countries use the internet, while only 40 percent of the people use internet in developing countries. In least developing countries the number is even lower at 15 percent. [12] GSM Association (GSMA) survey in 2015 found that in low- and middle-income countries, various socio-economic and cultural barriers tend to keep girls and women from using mobile phones. [13] Such barriers include social norms, education levels, lack of technical literacy and decision-making, employment and income, etc. The National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS5) reports suggest that gender disparities in usage of internet in India are greater across the rural areas than urban regions.  These findings highlight that the gender disparities in the offline world are significantly reflected in the online world as well. [14]

But unless we reduce the disparities, digital technology may create new divides that prevent children from fulfilling their potential. If we don’t act now to keep pace with rapid change, online risks may make vulnerable children more susceptible to exploitation, abuse and even trafficking. It may also result in more subtle threats to their well-being. [15]

DIGITAL RISKS AND SAFETY

Online risks among adolescents are of four kinds [16] —

• Cyberbullying or online harassment
• Sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors
• Exposure to explicit content
• Information breaches and privacy violations

We elaborate on cyberbullying prevention and response in Chapter 1, 2, 3 and 4.  Further, in Chapter 5, we place cyberbullying in the broader context of online digital safety. In Chapter 6, we identify the possible platforms in the Indian policy landscape that can be leveraged to address the situation.

Throughout the book, we make a case for using a common approach of resilience-based frameworks to address all kinds of digital risks.  Digital resilience means empowering children to become active, aware, and ethical digital citizens. It requires building capacity to safely navigate the digital world. [17] This approach strikes a balance between teen’s privacy and online safety through active communication and fostering trust between parents and children. It stands in contrast to the current “risk-averse” approach to online safety. This approach emphasizes on protecting adolescents from being exposed to online risks. The underlying fear often culminates in actions that restrict access to electronic communication technologies for youth. It often includes privacy-invasive monitoring. We suggest that this response is ineffective because no matter how much restrictions we place, just as in everyday life, a zero-risk digital environment is unattainable. We have already elaborated on how online interactions can provide social support, belonging, education, entertainment, and other positive conditions for healthy youth development. Online safety therefore, should maximize the benefits of the internet while mitigating some of its unintended consequences. [18]

WHAT IS CYBERBULLYING?

Bullying is a type of aggressive behavior that is traditionally defined as “intentional, repeated negative (unpleasant or hurtful) behavior by one or more persons directed against a person who has difficulty defending himself or herself.” [19] Bullying can be perpetrated in-person or via electronic means. Cyber bullying or online bullying is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic communication technologies means. It includes direct messaging particularly through social media websites , and a range of electronic applications and other websites.

Cyberbullying is often understood as an extension of in-person bullying that occurs in schools. The definition of cyberbullying has been debated, but most definitions specify that cyberbullying is some type of aggression (e.g., harassment, bullying) that occurs through electronic communication technologies. [20]

Aggression among youth includes the following forms of aggression- physical, verbal and relational (or social). Physical aggression causes or threatens to cause physical harm. It may include behaviors such as hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, pushing or damaging property. Verbal aggression, in contrast, targets a person’s sense of self, agency, or dignity. It includes name-calling, insults, teasing, intimidation, racist remarks, or verbal abuse. Relational or social aggression targets a person’s social relationships, status, image, or reputation. It includes lying, spreading rumors or embarrassing information, making rude or disrespectful negative facial or physical gestures, cracking jokes to embarrass and humiliate someone, mimicking unkindly. It also includes causing social isolation or exclusion, encouraging others to socially exclude someone and damaging someone’s social reputation or social acceptance. [21]

Unfortunately, increased access to the internet through the unmediated use of smartphones exposes children and adolescents to many online risks. Bullying has become a part of our routine interactions on platforms such as WhatsApp, SnapChat, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. Body-shaming goes unabated; false rumors spread unchecked; and morphed pictures or videos are shared with a limitless audience. Cyberbullying also offers anonymity to the perpetrators allowing them to continue bullying without any fear of the real-world consequences. These factors, combined with the lack of monitoring and regulation in cyberspace, makes the issue more intricate and challenging to address.

Although children are aware of the damage and profound harm that cyberbullying causes, they are not always immediately conscious of the long-term consequences of their actions. Further, though they have superior technological skills, they lack awareness about the need of appropriate protective measures when it comes to sharing personal information. They may not be able to distinguish between online and offline “friends”. Adults struggle to provide support to youth too. Cyberbullying does not require the physical presence of the victim. It is, by its very nature, a hidden kind of behavior. Often adults fail to detect and address cyberbullying, particularly when they take place in spaces beyond adult supervision. [22]

Despite the growing concern, the research on cyberbullying in India is at a nascent stage. A systematic review done by Thakkar et al. in 2020 reported there were very few scientific articles on the topic for a meaningful inference. [23] As with research, the practice of cyberbullying prevention faces challenges too. The point is driven home by a report commissioned by UNICEF to understand online child safety in India in 2016. The report reveals that despite provisions in legislation and policies in India, there is a general lack of understanding of professionals, policymakers, and society of the risks and threats posed to children by information and communication technology (ICT) and social media. [24] Despite the limitation, the urgency of equipping stakeholders with information is clear. Therefore, throughout the book, we attempt to synthesize the available literature to draw actionable inferences for the Indian context.

With the rising internet usage, the rate of cyberbullying incidents is likely to increase in the years to come. Globally, current prevalence estimates for cyberbullying victimization range between approximately 10 and 40 percent. The wide range suggests that estimates of the burden of cyberbullying victimization varies across studies. The variation is attributed to several factors- the manner in which cyberbullying is defined (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2), differences in the ages and locations of the individuals sampled, the reporting time frame being assessed (e.g., lifetime, 2 months, 6 months), and the frequency rate by which a person is classified as a perpetrator or victim (e.g., at least once, several times a week). [25] Despite the varying estimates, data consistently indicate that a considerable number of youngsters are being cyberbullied across the globe. [26]

Majority of the incidents of cyberbullying are subtle (less harmful). [27] Some, however, cross the line into unlawful or criminal behavior. For instance, cases of cyber stalking or bullying of children rose from 40 in 2018 to 140 in 2020, as reported by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of India. [28] , [29] These criminal cases essentially represent the tip of the iceberg and reports indicate an increasing trend of such episodes. Also, for every serious case reported, many relatively low-risk incidents of risk exposure go unreported. Clearly, we can respond well to these low-risk exposures by empowering teens with necessary technical and socio-emotional coping skills to avoid catastrophic consequences. [30]

The research also suggests that parents and teachers are often in the dark, unaware of bullying experiences of youth. [31] Youth who face cyberbullying, hesitate to confide in their elders or caregivers due to the perception of the lack of technical know-how amongst elders and fear of losing access to their devices. [32] Hence, surveys that measure children’s self-reports of such incidents are a valuable source of measuring the burden.

As per an Indian survey conducted in 2012, eight percent of 174 youth in Delhi ever perpetrated cyberbullying, and 17 percent reported being victimized. The percentage of boys who were victimized exceeded the percentage of girls. The rate of cyberbullying perpetration was comparable across gender. When the exposure to such events is compared with global figures, we find comparable rates across gender. We suspect that India’s cultural factors and gender roles contribute to limited access to mobile devices for girls thus resulting in lower exposure to such events. That is, limited access may explain the anomaly of higher incidence of victimization among boys. [33] However, a systematic enquiry linking gender and digital access with cyberbullying behavior is required to verify this hypothesis. Also, it is worth reiterating that lower access may drive other socio-economic disadvantages. In this case, limited access due to the risk of exposure to cyberbullying or other digital risks may result in the child losing many opportunities for growth and development.

In Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in 2017, a study was conducted on 240 respondents (120 boys and 120 girls) aged 12-17 years, from standard VII to XII.  The findings indicate that nearly 14 percent of respondents reported cyberbullying in their lifetime and seven percent reported cyberbullying involvement in the last thirty days.

Likewise, Microsoft Corporation conducted the ‘Global Youth Online Behavior Survey’, in 2012 on the phenomenon of online bullying. Survey was conducted with 7,644 youth aged eight to seventeen years in twenty-five countries (approximately 300 respondents per country), including six Asian nations. Of the 25 countries surveyed, the three countries in which participants reported the highest rates of online bullying victimization were China (70%), Singapore (58%), and India (53%). Other Asian countries in the study reported the following percentages of online bullying: Malaysia, 33%; Pakistan, 26%; and Japan, 17%. The same three countries with the highest rates of online bullying victimization also reported the highest rates of having bullied someone online- China (58%), India (50%), and Singapore (46%). [34]

Further, in 2020, Child Rights and You (CRY), a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), reported around 9.2% of 630 adolescents surveyed in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) had experienced cyberbullying. Half of them had not reported it to teachers or guardians of the social media companies concerned. [35]

Notably, these surveys were not representative of national-level estimates. Further information on rates disaggregated across sub-groups, e.g., gender, developmental age-groups, socio-economic class, caste, color, rural or urban residence, ethnicities or region of origin, language, disability, sexual orientation, school-going or out-of-school is yet to be studied.

Some victims of cyberbullying are not upset or disturbed. However, cyberbullying is often associated with many emotional and psychological conditions, including stress, lower self-esteem, and life satisfaction, [36] with far-reaching effects during adolescence and adulthood. Most of the scientific literature reporting the impact of cyberbullying is cross-sectional (i.e., the behavior and its impact is reported at the same instance among individuals), and to establish temporal relationships and potential causal inferences, more longitudinal studies (where subjects are followed over time to study the outcome of a certain behavior) are required. Like the burden estimates, evidence from representative surveys measuring the impact of cyberbullying among adolescents is nearly absent in the Indian context. Therefore, we would try to draw from global literature and as much as possible from comparable regions.

In 2014, Kowalski et al. published a meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth, including 131 studies mainly from the developed world. These studies have linked cyberbullying involvement as a victim or perpetrator to substance use; mental health symptoms, e.g., anxiety and depression; decreased self-esteem and self-worth; low self-control; suicidal ideation; poor physical health (difficulty sleeping, recurrent abdominal pain and frequent headaches); increased likelihood of self-injury; and loneliness. Furthermore, victims of cyberbullying are much more likely to be bullied in person when compared to non-victims. [37]

Additionally, both youth who experience cyberbullying victimization and perpetration are more likely to experience poor performance at school and in the workplace as compared to youth who are not involved in cyberbullying. They reported absenteeism, lower grades and poor concentration. Victims are also more likely to face detentions and suspensions, incidences of truancy, and carrying weapons. [38]

Ruangnapakul et al., in 2019, conducted a systematic review of studies from South Asian countries, i.e. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines.  The review revealed that cyberbullying behavior (perpetration or victimization) is common among adolescents in these countries. One of the studies from Philippines noted the association of cyberbullying with unpleasant and uncomfortable feelings. Another study from Malaysia reported that cyberbullying was associated with negative academic and emotional outcomes. The review revealed that there were few (not many) studies on cyberbullying in the Southeast Asian region. The issue needs further systematic enquiry. Since most of the studies were cross-sectional, they mainly report associations and not temporality (e.g., which came first- poor adjustment and functioning, or cyberbullying?) which would require longitudinal studies. [39]

Bullying among youth is costly not just for individuals and families but also for countries. Understanding the economic cost and impacts associated with bullying is critical for any country. Such data informs the design of appropriate evidence-informed programs and prevention measures to reduce its occurrence. To move in this direction, India needs to conduct surveys and ensure availability of administrative data with trends to allow estimates of bullying prevalence and consequences. [40]

Reports from elsewhere suggest alarming costs. For instance, youth violence in Brazil alone is estimated to cost nearly $19 billion per year, of which $943 million can be linked to violence in schools. A report commissioned by Australia’s Alannah and Madeline Foundation suggests the costs of bullying victims and perpetrators into adulthood is $1.8 billion over a 20 years period. This includes the costs of bullying for all school students during school as well as long-term impacts after school. [41]

Cyberbullying is a global problem that affects youth’s mental, socio-economic, psychological, and physical health. This requires a multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural and holistic approach to address the issue through programs focused on students and school personnel, parents, health professionals and the wider community. The more extensive ecological system comprising parents, teachers, various stakeholders like media, law enforcement, health professionals, policymakers, and youth themselves all need to work in active collaboration to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. In this context, the social-ecological model proposed by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for violence prevention is useful and merits discussion.

A FRAMEWORK FOR PREVENTION

Through this book, we aim to empower stakeholders who perform an essential role in the dynamic play of factors that lead to cyberbullying. Knowing the range of actors and factors is critical to prevent and respond to the risk. We use a four-level social-ecological model proposed by CDC (Refer Figure 1) to understand violence and the effectiveness of potential prevention strategies. This model considers the complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal levels leading to interpersonal-violence. It allows us to understand the determinants at each level that put individuals at risk for violence or protect them from experiencing the violence.

The model also explains how the factors at one level influence factors at another level, which requires action across multiple levels of the model at the same time to achieve population-level impact. [42] , [43] Throughout the book, we utilize the socio-ecological framework to understand cyberbullying among youth.

The model is understood through four concentric circles. The innermost circle is the one closest to the individual and the outermost circle is the most distant, yet influential at the societal level. The individual level identifies biological, individual characteristics and personal history factors. These factors often increase the probability of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Some of these factors include age, education, family income, impulsivity, or history of adversity such as abuse.

The next level moves out of the individual and examines close relationships. Some close relationships may increase the risk of experiencing cyberbullying as a victim or perpetrator of cyberbullying. For instance, an individual’s family members influence their behavior and contribute to their risk of or protection against cyberbullying. Also, peers play a critical role in influencing children’s behavior, attitude, thinking and judgment.

This model at third level, the community level, explores settings, such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. In some settings in which social relationships develop may contribute towards factors that are associated with victimization or perpetration of cyberbullying.

The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create an environment in which violence is either encouraged or discouraged. These factors include political, social and cultural norms of the society in which we live. They also include various factors that help to maintain economic or social inequalities among different groups of the society.

In the following chapters, we have elaborated upon risk and protective factors of cyberbullying using the socio-ecological framework described above. The framework also helps understand the preventive strategies with a systems lens. We use insights gained from review of scientific and grey literature, policy documents and discussions held with youth, teachers, parents, health care providers and policy actors during workshops.

Chapter Two emphasizes the importance of a solid understanding of how best to measure cyberbullying within and across cultural contexts. We review the existing measures of cyberbullying in South Asia and provide guidance on measure development for researchers to generate ecologically valid measures of cyberbullying.

Chapter Three covers individual level determinants, relationships with peers and their effect on cyberbullying behavior. This chapter also conveys the role of school as a community level organization in preventing cyberbullying. Understanding school-and peer-level factors is important in preventing cyberbullying events and mitigating its potentially harmful impacts. By far these are the most studied factors addressed in interventions to prevent cyberbullying.

Chapter Four addresses parents’ and caregivers’ needs for guidance and reassurance on how best maintain their children’s safety online and protect against cyberbullying. We emphasize the importance of parent-child communication, warm parent-child relationships, and parental monitoring that supports adolescents’ search for autonomy. In short, this chapter details the role of family, especially parental relationships and media parenting with respect to cyberbullying behavior among youth.

Chapter Five focuses on the broader research areas of digital risks and online safety. We discuss the three primary types of risks that adolescents navigate in digitally mediated environments that extend beyond cyberbullying – online sexual solicitations and risk behaviors, exposure to explicit content, and information breaches and privacy violations. We advocate for a resilience-based, rather than an abstinence-only approach to online safety. Once again, this chapter focuses on the first two levels of the socio-ecological model; individual and relationship level.

Chapter Six addresses the more distal societal level factors identified by the model. We summarize how the current knowledge can be applied in India across multiple stakeholder groups, including public policy, law enforcement, school administration, health care providers, community-based organizations, tech industry, and research institutes. Also, we highlight the key gaps in knowledge to guide future research.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Increasing digital access enables education, socialization and entertainment among youth thus offering the most marginalized an opportunity to come out of poverty.
• Though digital access has improved worldwide, there remains inequality in access, particularly for children, especially girls from low-income families in the rural areas.
• Children all around the world are adapting these technologies at earlier ages and are far more adept than their parents in using them.
• Online risks are a reality of current connected work. Children, specifically, are exposed to the risk of cyberbullying, online harassment, sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors, exposure to explicit content, information breaches and privacy violations.
• According to existing literature, cyberbullying rates reported among youth in India range from 5% to 53% based on different studies. This is similar to rates reported elsewhere in developing settings and worldwide.
• The cyberbullying studies undertaken in India have methodological weaknesses such as unavailability of data pertaining to sub-groups. More information at the national level is required to inform policies and action on response.
• Cyberbullying and cyber victimization are both associated with a range of poor outcomes, including depressive symptoms, low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness, drug and alcohol use, low academic achievement, and low overall well-being. In addition, cyber victimization has been linked to somatic complaints, perceived stress, and suicide ideation. However, most of this research is cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies are recommended to identify the direction of relationship of these effects.
• Nevertheless, the evidence of negative impacts of cyberbullying is sufficient to catalyze the policy ecosystem in India to prioritize digital safety and to strengthen systems to monitor, respond and prevent digital risks.
• Population Enumeration Data: Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India; Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html ↵
• Adolescent development and participation; UNICEF India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/adolescent-development-participation ↵
• Human resources for Health-WHO, World Health Organization. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/documents/JLi_hrh_report.pdf ↵
• Digital in India-IAMAI CMS. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Previously available from: https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPapers/d3654bcc-002f-4fc7-ab39-e1fbeb00005d.pdf and now available from: https://www.iamai.in/KnowledgeCentre ↵
• By 2025, rural India will likely have more internet users than urban India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://theprint.in/tech/by-2025-rural-india-will-likely-have-more-internet-users-than-urban-india/671024/ ↵
• Children in a Digital World: UNICEF. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/media/48601/file ↵
• Swist T, Collin P, McCormack J, Third A. Social media and the wellbeing of children and young people: A literature review. ↵
• United Nations Children’s Fund and Move, ‘Igarité: Overview of face-to-face teaching with technological mediation in the state of Amazonas’, UNICEF Brazil, 2017. ↵
• Inoue K, Di Gropello E, Taylor YS, Gresham J. Out-of-school youth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A policy perspective. World Bank Publications; 2015 Mar 17. ↵
• Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020 Sep;49(1):5-22. ↵
• Sanou B. ICT facts and figures 2016. Geneva: The International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2017 Mar. ↵
• GSM Association, ‘Bridging the Gender Gap: Mobile access and usage in low and middle-income countries’, GSMA, London, 2015, pp. 6–9, 29. ↵
• NFHS-5: National Family Health Survey: India. 2019-20. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/national-family-health-survey-nfhs-5-2019-20-fact-sheets-key-indicators—22-statesuts-from-phase-i/ ↵
• An insider’s view of the games industry and what it offers children’s play. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 25]. Available from: https://digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/blog/an-insiders-view-of-the-games-industry-and-what-it-offers-childrens-play/ ↵
• Solberg ME, Olweus D. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2003 Jun;29(3):239-68. ↵
• Hertz MF, David-Ferdon C. Electronic media and youth violence: A CDC issue brief for educators and caregivers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 2008. ↵
• Mehari KR, Farrell AD. Where does cyberbullying fit? A comparison of competing models of adolescent aggression. Psychology of violence. 2018 Jan;8(1):31. ↵
• Prevention, protection and international cooperation against the use of new information technologies to abuse and/or exploit children. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Twenty-third session. Vienna, 12-16 May 2014. Available from: https://undocs.org/E/CN.15/2014/7 ↵
• Thakkar N, van Geel M, Vedder P. A systematic review of bullying and victimization among adolescents in India. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 2020 Sep 7:1-7. ↵
• Child online protection in India; UNICEF. Available from: https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/UNICEF-Child-Protection-Online-India-pub_doc115-1.pdf ↵
• Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological bulletin. 2014 Jul;140(4):1073. ↵
• Background paper on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. Expert Consultation on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. May 2016. Florence, Italy. Office of the special representative of the secretary-general on Violence against Children. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/expert_consultations/bullying_and_cyberbullying/background_paper_expert_consultation_9-10_may.pdf ↵
• McHugh BC, Wisniewski PJ, Rosson MB, Xu H, Carroll JM. Most teens bounce back: Using diary methods to examine how quickly teens recover from episodic online risk exposure. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2017 Dec 6;1(CSCW):1-9. ↵
• Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2016-2018. Crime in India Table Contents. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2018&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
• Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2018-2020. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2020&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
• Wiśniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Parents just don’t understand: Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing 2017 Feb 25 (pp. 523-540). ↵
• Sharma D, Kishore J, Sharma N, Duggal M. Aggression in schools: cyberbullying and gender issues. Asian journal of psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;29:142-5. ↵
• Bhat CB, Chang Shih-Hua, Ragan MA. Cyberbullying in Asia. Cyber Asia and the New Media. 2013;18; 36-39. ↵
• Online Safety and Internet Addiction. CRY [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cry.org/downloads/safety-and-protection/Online-Safety-and-Internet-Addiction-p.pdf ↵
• Cyberbullying in New Zealand. 8 October 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.netsafe.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Cyberbullying-in-New-Zealand-Societal-Cost.pdf ↵
• Ruangnapakul N, Salam YD, Shawkat AR. A systematic analysis of cyber bullying in Southeast Asia countries. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2019;8(8S):104-11. ↵
• Crime, Violence and Economic Development in Brazil: Elements for Effective Public Policy. Report No. 36525. June 2006. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/citizensecurity/brazil/documents/docworldbank.pdf ↵
• The economic cost of bullying in Australian schools. Alannah and Madeline Foundation. March 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.amf.org.au/media/2505/amf-report-280218-final.pdf ↵
• The Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention – Violence Prevention, CDC [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html ↵
• Espelage DL, Polanin JR, Low SK. Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School psychology quarterly. 2014 Sep;29(3):287. ↵

Cyberbullying and Digital Safety: Applying Global Research to Youth in India Copyright © 2022 by Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Most Teens Think AI Won’t Hurt Their Mental Health. Teachers Disagree

• Share article

High school theater teacher Lisa Dyer has noticed in recent years that her students are more reluctant to take risks or make what she calls “big choices” on stage.

As artificial intelligence expands over the next decade—going beyond algorithms suggesting everything from what TV show to watch to what word to type next in a text—she fears her students will be even more hesitant to follow their own instincts.

“The idea of perfection is very pervasive,” Dyer, who teaches at J.R. Tucker High School near Richmond, Va., said of how her students often think in an age increasingly dominated by AI. To her students, the essays spit out in seconds by generative AI tools like ChatGPT “seem like perfection. If the computer makes it up, that must be the right answer.”

She worries that her students’ creativity and self-confidence could be stifled, ultimately hindering their mental well-being.

On the other hand, Nicolas Gertler, 19, the AI and education adviser at Encode Justice , a nonprofit organization that works to promote a values-centered approach to AI, sees the potential for AI to do everything from make school more accessible to students with special learning needs to helping diagnose and treat diseases—which could be beneficial to everyone’s mental health.

And the college freshman wouldn’t mind if robots spared him from his least favorite tasks—especially doing laundry—leaving time for more fulfilling and creative pursuits, or just relaxation.

Teens have a sunnier view of AI than educators

Which vision is closer to what will actually happen? Not even top engineers can say for certain what AI will be capable of in 10 years—much less how it will impact teenagers’ mental health and well-being.

But one thing is clear: High school students and educators have very different perspectives on what AI will mean for young people’s mental health over the next decade, according to a pair of recent EdWeek Research Center surveys.

Educators generally have a dark view. More than two-thirds of teachers and school and district leaders—69 percent—expect that AI will have a negative impact on teens’ mental health over the next decade. Nearly a quarter—24 percent—believe it will be “very negative.” Just 14 percent anticipate a positive impact, including only 1 percent who think it will be “very positive,” according to the survey of 595 educators conducted from Dec. 21, 2023 to Jan. 2, 2024.

Teens themselves are much more optimistic. Just a quarter who participated in a recent EdWeek Research Center survey expect AI will have a negative impact on their mental health over the next 10 years. A slightly higher percentage—30 percent—expect it will actually have a positive effect, including 10 percent who imagine it will be “very positive.” The survey of 1,056 teenagers was conducted Feb. 9 through March 4.

Those findings are in keeping with how different generations have reacted to the introduction of new technologies—from television to the internet to smartphones, said Lee Rainie, a scholar-in-residence and director of the Imagining the Digital Future Center at Elon University, who has spent decades studying the impact of technology on society.

“Young people throughout history are more interested in new technologies than older folks are,” he said. “Younger folks are just sort of more inclined to be early adopters, they’re more inclined to be enthusiastic, they’re more inclined to think that older ways of doing things have been upgraded by new technologies.”

‘For them, this is just the natural progression’

Today’s teens, in particular, likely have a bright perspective on AI’s impact on mental health given that “young people have never lived a life that didn’t involve some form of AI,” said Carly Ghantous, a humanities instructor at Davidson Academy Online, a private virtual school. “They’ve always had Siri and Alexa in their houses. They’ve always had turn-by-turn navigation [GPS] on their phones—that early AI that we don’t even think of as AI anymore. I’m sure, for them, this is just the natural progression.”

Ava Havidic, a senior at Millennium 6-12 Collegiate Academy in Tamarac, Fla., had a similar take.

“I think Generation Z and just youth in general, we are so used to just hearing about the next big like technological advancement,” said Havidic, who is a student facilitator for the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Student Leadership Network on Mental Health. “It just becomes our day-to-day life.”

And while adults try to crack down on cheating with AI , some teenagers see outsourcing their schoolwork to AI as a way to relieve anxiety, said Makena, a high school student in Kansas who preferred to go by her first name so that she could speak candidly about the issue.

“Students at my school are completing assignments through AI. I think, honestly, it helps their mental health because they’re not as stressed,” said Makena, who added that she has never tried to pass off the work of generative AI as her own.

Enlisting armies of trolling bots

But educators who think AI will have a negative impact on teens’ mental health over the next decade point to deepfakes —AI-manipulated video, audio, or photos created using someone’s voice or likeness without their permission—as Exhibit A in their argument.

Already, students have gotten in trouble for making and sharing deepfake pornographic images of their classmates, including male students at a high school in New Jersey who manipulated images of female classmates last fall. And, more recently, four students were expelled from a Beverly Hills, Calif., middle school for creating and distributing deepfake photos of other students.

AI also has great potential to supercharge cyberbullying, said Jeremy Sell, a high school English teacher in California. “Cyberbullying, and all of the things that go with that, AI is going to make it worse and harder,” he said.

As generative AI develops over the next decade, creating those types of deepfakes is bound to get easier—making them even more ubiquitous, Sell added.

What’s more, AI could exacerbate “general troll behavior, mocking people, attacking them, just making their lives miserable,” Rainie said. “Not only will active human trolls go after people, but they’ll enlist their bot armies to the cause.” That could look like bots attacking a particular user every time they sign on to a social platform, for example.

Unable to ‘trust their own eyes’

The ability to use AI to fabricate information has implications beyond just cyberbullying, said Kaywin Cottle, who teaches an AI course at Burley Junior High in Burley, Idaho. Once her students realize how easily images can be manipulated, it’s harder for them to take anything they see on the internet at face value.

“They know they can build something fake that looks real. They’re not going to even be able to trust their own eyes, what they see, what they hear, or what they read,” which could be very unsettling, Cottle said.

AI’s further development may exacerbate another problem: Students’ inability to resist social media— or screens in general .

Some of Sell’s students seem to spend their lives glued to their devices because social media algorithms on sites like TikTok—which are powered by AI—are so effective, he said.

Over time, he expects those algorithms will only get smarter, more powerful—and all the more addictive, making the virtual world more tempting, and the non-virtual one harder to navigate.

Over the next decade, too, bots may become more humanlike, leading to a landscape like the one depicted in the 2013 movie “Her”, in which a lonely man falls in love with an AI-powered operating system.

Rainie predicts teens “might get sucked into a world where their relationships with their bots and the relationship with synthetic environments are going to be more enriching, more appealing, more immersive than the real-world relationships they have, which are messy and boring, and complicated.”

What the ‘modern moment is all about’

On the other hand, in anticipating AI will have a negative impact on teen mental health, educators may be projecting their own fears about its disruptive potential on their jobs , Ghantous suggested.

“Our education system was created to make factory workers,” Ghantous said. “And AI is like, ‘we don’t need factory workers anymore.’”

Teachers and their students may have to work through that kind of anxiety together—along with the rest of society, Rainie said.

“Now that we’ve got an upgrade in our intelligence and our smartness through this tool, how do we take advantage of that without becoming slaves to it, basically?” he said. “That’s what the modern moment is all about. It’s, how do we get the good and diminish the bad that might come out of this?”

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

How to Write an Essay Introduction (with Examples)   

The introduction of an essay plays a critical role in engaging the reader and providing contextual information about the topic. It sets the stage for the rest of the essay, establishes the tone and style, and motivates the reader to continue reading. 

Table of Contents

What is an essay introduction , what to include in an essay introduction, how to create an essay structure , step-by-step process for writing an essay introduction , how to write an introduction paragraph , how to write a hook for your essay , how to include background information , how to write a thesis statement .

• Argumentative Essay Introduction Example: 
• Expository Essay Introduction Example 

Literary Analysis Essay Introduction Example

Check and revise – checklist for essay introduction , key takeaways , frequently asked questions .

An introduction is the opening section of an essay, paper, or other written work. It introduces the topic and provides background information, context, and an overview of what the reader can expect from the rest of the work. 1 The key is to be concise and to the point, providing enough information to engage the reader without delving into excessive detail. 

The essay introduction is crucial as it sets the tone for the entire piece and provides the reader with a roadmap of what to expect. Here are key elements to include in your essay introduction: 

• Hook : Start with an attention-grabbing statement or question to engage the reader. This could be a surprising fact, a relevant quote, or a compelling anecdote. 
• Background information : Provide context and background information to help the reader understand the topic. This can include historical information, definitions of key terms, or an overview of the current state of affairs related to your topic. 
• Thesis statement : Clearly state your main argument or position on the topic. Your thesis should be concise and specific, providing a clear direction for your essay. 

Before we get into how to write an essay introduction, we need to know how it is structured. The structure of an essay is crucial for organizing your thoughts and presenting them clearly and logically. It is divided as follows: 2  

• Introduction:  The introduction should grab the reader’s attention with a hook, provide context, and include a thesis statement that presents the main argument or purpose of the essay.  
• Body:  The body should consist of focused paragraphs that support your thesis statement using evidence and analysis. Each paragraph should concentrate on a single central idea or argument and provide evidence, examples, or analysis to back it up.  
• Conclusion:  The conclusion should summarize the main points and restate the thesis differently. End with a final statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader. Avoid new information or arguments. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an essay introduction: 

• Start with a Hook : Begin your introduction paragraph with an attention-grabbing statement, question, quote, or anecdote related to your topic. The hook should pique the reader’s interest and encourage them to continue reading. 
• Provide Background Information : This helps the reader understand the relevance and importance of the topic. 
• State Your Thesis Statement : The last sentence is the main argument or point of your essay. It should be clear, concise, and directly address the topic of your essay. 
• Preview the Main Points : This gives the reader an idea of what to expect and how you will support your thesis. 
• Keep it Concise and Clear : Avoid going into too much detail or including information not directly relevant to your topic. 
• Revise : Revise your introduction after you’ve written the rest of your essay to ensure it aligns with your final argument. 

Here’s an example of an essay introduction paragraph about the importance of education: 

Education is often viewed as a fundamental human right and a key social and economic development driver. As Nelson Mandela once famously said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” It is the key to unlocking a wide range of opportunities and benefits for individuals, societies, and nations. In today’s constantly evolving world, education has become even more critical. It has expanded beyond traditional classroom learning to include digital and remote learning, making education more accessible and convenient. This essay will delve into the importance of education in empowering individuals to achieve their dreams, improving societies by promoting social justice and equality, and driving economic growth by developing a skilled workforce and promoting innovation. 

This introduction paragraph example includes a hook (the quote by Nelson Mandela), provides some background information on education, and states the thesis statement (the importance of education). 

This is one of the key steps in how to write an essay introduction. Crafting a compelling hook is vital because it sets the tone for your entire essay and determines whether your readers will stay interested. A good hook draws the reader in and sets the stage for the rest of your essay.  

• Avoid Dry Fact : Instead of simply stating a bland fact, try to make it engaging and relevant to your topic. For example, if you’re writing about the benefits of exercise, you could start with a startling statistic like, “Did you know that regular exercise can increase your lifespan by up to seven years?” 
• Avoid Using a Dictionary Definition : While definitions can be informative, they’re not always the most captivating way to start an essay. Instead, try to use a quote, anecdote, or provocative question to pique the reader’s interest. For instance, if you’re writing about freedom, you could begin with a quote from a famous freedom fighter or philosopher. 
• Do Not Just State a Fact That the Reader Already Knows : This ties back to the first point—your hook should surprise or intrigue the reader. For Here’s an introduction paragraph example, if you’re writing about climate change, you could start with a thought-provoking statement like, “Despite overwhelming evidence, many people still refuse to believe in the reality of climate change.” 

Including background information in the introduction section of your essay is important to provide context and establish the relevance of your topic. When writing the background information, you can follow these steps: 

• Start with a General Statement:  Begin with a general statement about the topic and gradually narrow it down to your specific focus. For example, when discussing the impact of social media, you can begin by making a broad statement about social media and its widespread use in today’s society, as follows: “Social media has become an integral part of modern life, with billions of users worldwide.” 
• Define Key Terms : Define any key terms or concepts that may be unfamiliar to your readers but are essential for understanding your argument. 
• Provide Relevant Statistics:  Use statistics or facts to highlight the significance of the issue you’re discussing. For instance, “According to a report by Statista, the number of social media users is expected to reach 4.41 billion by 2025.” 
• Discuss the Evolution:  Mention previous research or studies that have been conducted on the topic, especially those that are relevant to your argument. Mention key milestones or developments that have shaped its current impact. You can also outline some of the major effects of social media. For example, you can briefly describe how social media has evolved, including positives such as increased connectivity and issues like cyberbullying and privacy concerns. 
• Transition to Your Thesis:  Use the background information to lead into your thesis statement, which should clearly state the main argument or purpose of your essay. For example, “Given its pervasive influence, it is crucial to examine the impact of social media on mental health.” 

A thesis statement is a concise summary of the main point or claim of an essay, research paper, or other type of academic writing. It appears near the end of the introduction. Here’s how to write a thesis statement: 

• Identify the topic:  Start by identifying the topic of your essay. For example, if your essay is about the importance of exercise for overall health, your topic is “exercise.” 
• State your position:  Next, state your position or claim about the topic. This is the main argument or point you want to make. For example, if you believe that regular exercise is crucial for maintaining good health, your position could be: “Regular exercise is essential for maintaining good health.” 
• Support your position:  Provide a brief overview of the reasons or evidence that support your position. These will be the main points of your essay. For example, if you’re writing an essay about the importance of exercise, you could mention the physical health benefits, mental health benefits, and the role of exercise in disease prevention. 
• Make it specific:  Ensure your thesis statement clearly states what you will discuss in your essay. For example, instead of saying, “Exercise is good for you,” you could say, “Regular exercise, including cardiovascular and strength training, can improve overall health and reduce the risk of chronic diseases.” 

Examples of essay introduction 

Here are examples of essay introductions for different types of essays: 

Argumentative Essay Introduction Example:  

Topic: Should the voting age be lowered to 16? 

“The question of whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 has sparked nationwide debate. While some argue that 16-year-olds lack the requisite maturity and knowledge to make informed decisions, others argue that doing so would imbue young people with agency and give them a voice in shaping their future.” 

Expository Essay Introduction Example  

Topic: The benefits of regular exercise 

“In today’s fast-paced world, the importance of regular exercise cannot be overstated. From improving physical health to boosting mental well-being, the benefits of exercise are numerous and far-reaching. This essay will examine the various advantages of regular exercise and provide tips on incorporating it into your daily routine.” 

Text: “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee 

“Harper Lee’s novel, ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ is a timeless classic that explores themes of racism, injustice, and morality in the American South. Through the eyes of young Scout Finch, the reader is taken on a journey that challenges societal norms and forces characters to confront their prejudices. This essay will analyze the novel’s use of symbolism, character development, and narrative structure to uncover its deeper meaning and relevance to contemporary society.” 

• Engaging and Relevant First Sentence : The opening sentence captures the reader’s attention and relates directly to the topic. 
• Background Information : Enough background information is introduced to provide context for the thesis statement. 
• Definition of Important Terms : Key terms or concepts that might be unfamiliar to the audience or are central to the argument are defined. 
• Clear Thesis Statement : The thesis statement presents the main point or argument of the essay. 
• Relevance to Main Body : Everything in the introduction directly relates to and sets up the discussion in the main body of the essay. 

Writing a strong introduction is crucial for setting the tone and context of your essay. Here are the key takeaways for how to write essay introduction: 3  

• Hook the Reader : Start with an engaging hook to grab the reader’s attention. This could be a compelling question, a surprising fact, a relevant quote, or an anecdote. 
• Provide Background : Give a brief overview of the topic, setting the context and stage for the discussion. 
• Thesis Statement : State your thesis, which is the main argument or point of your essay. It should be concise, clear, and specific. 
• Preview the Structure : Outline the main points or arguments to help the reader understand the organization of your essay. 
• Keep it Concise : Avoid including unnecessary details or information not directly related to your thesis. 
• Revise and Edit : Revise your introduction to ensure clarity, coherence, and relevance. Check for grammar and spelling errors. 
• Seek Feedback : Get feedback from peers or instructors to improve your introduction further. 

The purpose of an essay introduction is to give an overview of the topic, context, and main ideas of the essay. It is meant to engage the reader, establish the tone for the rest of the essay, and introduce the thesis statement or central argument.  

An essay introduction typically ranges from 5-10% of the total word count. For example, in a 1,000-word essay, the introduction would be roughly 50-100 words. However, the length can vary depending on the complexity of the topic and the overall length of the essay.

An essay introduction is critical in engaging the reader and providing contextual information about the topic. To ensure its effectiveness, consider incorporating these key elements: a compelling hook, background information, a clear thesis statement, an outline of the essay’s scope, a smooth transition to the body, and optional signposting sentences.  

The process of writing an essay introduction is not necessarily straightforward, but there are several strategies that can be employed to achieve this end. When experiencing difficulty initiating the process, consider the following techniques: begin with an anecdote, a quotation, an image, a question, or a startling fact to pique the reader’s interest. It may also be helpful to consider the five W’s of journalism: who, what, when, where, why, and how.   For instance, an anecdotal opening could be structured as follows: “As I ascended the stage, momentarily blinded by the intense lights, I could sense the weight of a hundred eyes upon me, anticipating my next move. The topic of discussion was climate change, a subject I was passionate about, and it was my first public speaking event. Little did I know , that pivotal moment would not only alter my perspective but also chart my life’s course.” 

Crafting a compelling thesis statement for your introduction paragraph is crucial to grab your reader’s attention. To achieve this, avoid using overused phrases such as “In this paper, I will write about” or “I will focus on” as they lack originality. Instead, strive to engage your reader by substantiating your stance or proposition with a “so what” clause. While writing your thesis statement, aim to be precise, succinct, and clear in conveying your main argument.  

To create an effective essay introduction, ensure it is clear, engaging, relevant, and contains a concise thesis statement. It should transition smoothly into the essay and be long enough to cover necessary points but not become overwhelming. Seek feedback from peers or instructors to assess its effectiveness. 

References  

• Cui, L. (2022). Unit 6 Essay Introduction.  Building Academic Writing Skills . 
• West, H., Malcolm, G., Keywood, S., & Hill, J. (2019). Writing a successful essay.  Journal of Geography in Higher Education ,  43 (4), 609-617. 
• Beavers, M. E., Thoune, D. L., & McBeth, M. (2023). Bibliographic Essay: Reading, Researching, Teaching, and Writing with Hooks: A Queer Literacy Sponsorship. College English, 85(3), 230-242. 

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

How to Cite Social Media Sources in Academic Writing? 

How long should a chapter be, similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and responsible writing, types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid it in your writing , you may also like, types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid..., similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and..., what is a master’s thesis: a guide for..., should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., what are the benefits of generative ai for..., how to avoid plagiarism tips and advice for..., plagiarism checkers vs. ai content detection: navigating the..., plagiarism prevention: why you need a plagiarism check....

• History of cooperation
• Areas of cooperation
• Procurement policy
• Useful links
• Becoming a supplier
• Procurement
• Rosatom newsletter

© 2008–2024Valtiollinen Rosatom-ydinvoimakonserni

• Rosatom Global presence
• Rosatom in region
• For suppliers
• Preventing corruption
• Press centre

Rosatom Starts Life Tests of Third-Generation VVER-440 Nuclear Fuel

• 16 June, 2020 / 13:00

This site uses cookies. By continuing your navigation, you accept the use of cookies. For more information, or to manage or to change the cookies parameters on your computer, read our Cookies Policy. Learn more