Seminar om digital mobbing og uønskede hendelser på nett. Hva er digital mobbing og hvordan skal vi håndtere utfordringene på tvers av sektorer?

1. Cyberbullying:
The International Experience
Oslo,6th April 2016
Professor Mona O’Moore
National Anti-Bullying Research & Resource Centre (ABC)
Dublin City University

2. Plan of Talk: From an Interna1onal Perspec1ve
1. Defini1on of bullying: tradi&onal, cyber and sex&ng
2. Some Research findings: prevalence, age, gender, family affluence, migrant
communi&es
3. Impact of cyber-bullying
4. Bystander Roles in Cyberbullying
5. Student Opinions of Cyberbullying
6. Mo1ves, Personality and Self-Esteem
7. Preven1on and Interven1on: Strengths and Weaknesses
8. Conclusions & Recommenda1ons

3. What is Bullying?
Traditional
Bullying Cyber-
Bullying

4. Traditional Bullying
Definition
Bullying has 3 main criteria:
§ intention to cause harm to the victim;
§ repetition of the abusive behaviour over a period of time;
§ imbalance of power between the victim and bully/bullies.
However, one particularly severe once off incident, which creates an
ongoing sense of intimidation can also be considered bullying.
O’Moore,M.(2010).Understanding School Bullying :A Guide to Parents and Teachers
(Veritas Publishing)

5. Systematic victmisation
§ Physical aggression
§ Verbal abuse
§ Gestures – often threatening
§ Exclusion / Relational
§ Extortion
Traditional Bullying most often
takes the form of…

6. Cyber-Bullying : A definition
“Cyber-bullying is an aggressive intentional
act carried out by a group or an individual,
using electronic forms of contact repeatedly
and over time against a victim who cannot
easily defend him or herself”
Peter Smith et.al.2008

7. Defining Cyberbullying : Is there
common ground among researchers?
Strong agreement rela1ng to:
Ø the inten1onality
Ø the imbalance of power
More controversial:
Ø repe11on
Need to dis1nguish between:
Ø cyber aggression and cyberbullying
Mona O’Moore, Understanding Cyberbullying: A Guide for Parents and Teachers 2014

8. Cyber-Bullying Tac1cs
• Harassment: e.g. sending insulting or threatening messages;
• Denigration: spreading rumours on the internet;
• Outing and trickery: revealing personal information about a person
which was shared in confidence;
• Exclusion: preventing a person from taking part in online social
activities, such as games or chats.
• Flaming or Trolling: sending insulting messages to inflame emotions of
others so that flame war is created in ‘public’ places such as a chat
room or a social networking site.
• Impersonation: Perpetrator uses the victim’s password to send or post
a hateful message / Perpetrator alters the victim’s profile
• Happy Slapping: Filming and forwarding direct physical assaults
which are degrading and humiliating to the victim.
• Sexting: Embarrasses victim by posting messages or images of a
sexual nature of victims or others e.g. the posting of victim’s breasts
caused suicide of Amanda in Canada.
Mona O’Moore,Understanding Cyberbullying:A Guide for Parents and Teachers, 2014

9. Methods of Cyberbullying

10. Girls
%
Boys
%
Total
%
Text-Messages
(In school)
4.1 5.1 5.8
Text-Messages
(Out of school)
10.3 10.6 10.4
Internet pos1ngs
(e.g. Bebo, You Tube, My Space,
Facebook & Nimble)
5.5 6.4 6.1
Camera or Video clips (taken) 12.2 17.2 15.8
Camera or Video clips (sent) 4.8 8.4 7.1
Telephone Calls 8.6 11.8 10.2
Emails 3.3 3.4 3.1
On-Line Chat Rooms 8.6 8.2 8.4
Instant Messages 7.8 9.2 8.5
Percentage of girls and boys reporting different forms of
cyber-bullying. O’Moore & Minton 2011

11. Differences between Cyber &
Traditional Bullying
• Cyber-bullying primarily indirect rather than face to face
and may be anonymous.
• Cyber-bullying has the poten1al to reach large
audiences.
• It has the poten1al to stay in cyber-space indefinitely.
• The aggressor does not see the vic1ms facial/emo1onal
reac1on in the first instance.
• The aaributes that make for imbalance of power differ.
• Cyberbullying allows perpetrators to reach their vic1ms
anywhere on the planet. No safe haven.

12. Prevalence: Cyber-Bullying Studies,2004-2009
Study Cyber vicFms Cyber bullies Cyber bully-vicFm
O’Moore & Minton
(2009) (Ireland)
9.8 4.4 4.1
Ybarra& Mitchell
(2004) (U.S.A.)
4.0 12.0 3.0
Li (2005) (Canada) 24.9 14.5 54.0
Kowalski & Limber
(2007) (U.S.A.)
11.1 4.1 6.8
Hinduja &
Patchia(2009) (U.S.A.)
10.0 8.0 5.0
Reua1, Berone &
Zaneh (2009) (Italy)
7.0 6.0 6.0
Wang, Iannoh &
Nansel (2009) (U.S.A.)
5.3 3.8 4.5

13. Factors that make
cross-cultural comparisons difficult
• Defini1ons of cyber-bullying. Was there one? If so what criteria?
• Methodology: The measurements used, e.g. self-reports(online,
offline); teacher or peer reports.
• Different repor1ng periods (lower prevalence when surveyed most
recently)
• Age (lower prevalence among the younger & older students)
• Typology of Bullying when repor1ng results.
• Sub-categories of cyber-bullying surveyed.

14. Source: EU Kids Online report
Livingstone,S.Haddon,L.,Gorzig,A.&
Olafson,K.(2011). Risks and safety
for children on the Internet: the
Ireland report, London, LSE.
Cyber- vic1ms Trad-vic1ms
Europe 6% 13%
Norway 8% 31%
Ireland 4% 23%
Russia 20% 20%
Australia 13% 16%
Data about bullying,
All forms & internet

15. Overlap between Traditional
and Cyber-Bullying (O’Moore, 2012)
• 71 % of cyber-victims were traditional victims
• 28.9% of cyber-victims were traditional bullies
• 67.4% of cyber-bullies were traditional bullies
• 32.0% of cyber-bullies were traditional victims
Supports Sourander et al (2010) study of 2215 Finnish teens aged 13-16 years

16. WHO Study of 11-15 year olds
in 42 countries(2014)
v Age Effect: Significant for only a minority of
countries with levels higher for boys at 11years and
peaking for girls at 13 years.
v Gender Differences: Seen in less than half of the
countries with no clear paaern emerging. Some
showed boys being cyber-bullied more and some
girls.
v Family Influence: Differences were evident in very
few countries and regions in which cyberbullying was
associated with lower affluence.

17. Effects of Bullying
§ Erosion of confidence and self-esteem
§ Feelings of frustration
§ Anger
§ Sadness, hopelessness
§ Loneliness and depression
§ Inability to concentrate at school/work
§ Not wanting to go to school/work
§ Staying offline
§ Distrustful of others
§ Self-harm 56% LGBTI (14-18yrs)
§ Suicidal thoughts 70% LGBTI (14-18yrs)
§ Suicide
Note: Being cyber & traditionally bullied increases risk of depression and loneliness.
(Gradinger et al, 2009; Bright et al, 2012)

18. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
It made me feel another way
It didn't bother me
Frightened
Angry
Upset
Girls
Boys
How Irish Cyber Vic1ms Feel When Targeted
(N = 564) O’Moore,2012

19. Risk Factors: Mo1ves, Personality
and Self-Esteem

20. Cyber-Vic1ms: Most at risk are those who:
• Have poor peer rela1onships
• Have both emo1onal and behavioural difficul1es
• Spend more 1me online unsupervised
• Bully others face to face
Cyber Bullies: Most at risk are those who:
• Are impulsive
• Hold pro aggressive or pro bullying ahtudes
• Have low levels of empathy(both affec1ve and cogni1ve)
• Poor moral responsibility(moral disengagement)
• Seek popularity among peers through aggression
• Are bullied face to face
Cyber Bully-Vic1ms: Most at risk are those who:
• Share the psychiatric and psychosocial risk factors of cyberbullies and
vic1ms
M.O’Moore(2014).Understanding Cyberbullying: A guide for Parents and Teachers, Veritas Publishing.

21. Mo1ves for Bullying Others in
Cyberspace
Gradinger,Strohmeier and Spiel,2012
• Power: To show that I am more powerful
• Affilia1on: To be accepted by my friends
• Fun: Because it was fun
• Anger: Because I was angry
Parry Apab,2011
• The vengeful angel
• The power-hungry
• The mean girls
• The inadvertent bully (or ‘because I can’)

22. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extraversion Psycho1cism Neuro1cism Lie Scale
M
e
a
n
S
c
o
r
e
Junior Eysenck Personality QuesFonnaire Revised
Pure Vic1ms
Pure Bullies
Bully-Vic1ms
Not Involved

23. Factors that Influence Cyberbullying
• Peer and Family Rela1onships
• The class and school climate
• Student’s feeling of trust in teachers and staff
• Media Repor1ng
Report commissioned by the Department of Educa1on and Skills, Ireland, on the
impact of cyberbullying(H.Gleeson,2014)

24. Participant Roles in Bullying
DistribuFon in %
Perpetrators 8%
Assistants 7%
Reinforcers 20%
Vic1ms 12%
Defenders 17%
Outsiders 24%
Others 12%
Salmivalli et al. (1996) were
able to identify clear roles
within the process of bullying
for 88% of the school
children surveyed.
The results were replicated in
a study in German
comprehensive schools
(Schäfer & Korn, 2004).
Fellow pupils have an important role in the process of bullying. Therefore, it is sensible to
begin an intervention at the class level.

25. Percentage of Irish classmates who have been
witness to Cyber-Bullying
Knowledge of those vic1mised:
Girls = 39.0%
Boys = 29.9%
Total = 33.1%
Knowledge of those who bully others:
Girls = 29.4%
Boys = 27.7%
Total = 28.4% M.O’Moore,2012

26. How Irish students respond when they are
witness to cyber-bullying acts (O’Moore,2012)
Girls
%
Boys
%
Total
%
I joined in the cyber-bullying 0.5 1.5 1.0
I had fun watching it 1.9 4.5 3.2
It upset me but I did nothing
to stop it
7.4 5.4 6.4
I tried to stop it 6.3 4.6 5.5
I tried to support the vic1m 8.5 4.8 6.7
I told an adult (teacher or
parent)
1.7 0.8 1.3
I did something else 4.1 5.8 4.9

27. How Irish vic1ms responded to Cyber-Bullying
(N=664)
Girls
%
Boys
%
Total
%
I have told one or more friends 50.2 20.2 35.2
I have told an adult at school 8.0 5.2 6.6
I have told my parents 26.7 10.9 18.8
I was afraid to tell 7.0 6.1 6.6
I have not told anybody 7.0 10.1 8.6
I sent an angry response back 31.4 29.4 30.4
I asked the person to stop 20.9 11.6 16.3
I did not respond 15.8 11.6 13.7
I did something else 17.5 25.5 21.5

28. Coping strategies
(Riebel et al., 2009; Hoff & Mitchell, 2008)
• Social coping: seeking help from friends, family, teachers, peer
supporters;
• Aggressive coping: retalia1on, physical aaacks; verbal threats;
• Helpless coping: hopelessness; passive reac1ons, such as
avoidance; displays of emo1on;
• CogniFve coping: responding asser1vely, using reason; analyzing
the bullying episode and the bully’s behaviour.
• Technical coping: switching off the computer, changing email
address or nickname and only giving them to people that can be
trusted, and showing the messages to a grown-up.’

29. COST AcFon: Data CollecFon in 30 Countries
– Austria
– Australia
– Belgium
– Bulgaria
– Czech Republic
– Denmark
– Estonia
– Finland
– France
– Germany
– Greece
– Hungary
– Iceland
– Ireland
– Israel
– Italy
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Luxemburg
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Poland
• Portugal
• Slovenia
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Kingdom

30. Strengths
The majority of guidelines recognised the need :
• For schools to take a whole school community
approach
• For teachers to treat all reports of cyber-bullying
seriously
• For young people to develop cyber-safety skills
• For young people to exercise principles of ne1queae
• For young people to develop effec1ve coping strategies
• For young people to report incidents of cyber-bullying
• To close the digital divide between young people,
parents and teachers
• For parents and young people to seek further online
informa1on and resources

31. Current Weaknesses
Requiring AcFon
Future guidelines need to encourage
• Schools to implement more fully a whole school
community approach
o Collaborate more fully with parents
o Improve young people’s knowledge about cyber-safety and coping strategies
o Develop posi1ve measures/restora1ve approaches
o Develop coopera1ve group work
o Document procedures and outcomes and evaluate their effec1veness
o Establish links and call on external professional agencies
• Teachers to take greater responsibility and embrace
professional training
o Group dynamics
o Conflict resolu1on skills
o Technological skills

32. Current Weaknesses
Requiring AcFon
Future guidelines need to encourage
• Young people to take a leadership role to discourage cyber-
bullying
o Report /intervene when witness to cyber-bullying
o Seek advice and guidance from external agencies/specialists
• Parents to talk about cyber-bullying to their children
o Challenge bystander apathy
o Find a balance between supervising/ monitoring online ac1vity and
developing trust and self-discipline
o Seek to enhance their own digital skills

34. “Schools are s1ll struggling to produce good
policies” (Smith et al.2012).
Essen1al requirements:
1.Provide adequate funding, training ,templates .
2.Promote accountability by examining:
• Students and parents ahtudes to bullying
• Level of absenteeism
• Drop -out rates
• Record keeping of bullying incidents and
• Outcomes of interven1ons.
Reward effec1ve policy and prac1ce
Overcoming Problems of Compliance to the
Whole School Community Approach

35. Cyberbullying: Outside of School
To deal with any confusion, a school should, in its
code of behaviour or an1-bullying policy, make it
clear when it will intervene, in terms of disciplining
behaviour by students outside the school, outside of
school hours; and that it be consistent in enforcing
such discipline.
Clarity and consistency fundamental for schools
in this area.
Murray Smith.(2013).School Bullying and some Law. In O’Moore,M.&Stevens,P.(Eds.)Bullying in Irish
Educa1on, Cork University Press.
Murray Smith(2014) Some law on cyberbullying: In O’Moore,M. Understanding Cyberbullying, Dublin,Veritas

36. Conclusions
• Cyber-bullying is a worldwide problem
• Imposes mental and physical ill health
• Undermines and dilutes the quality of educa1on
• Preven1on and Interven1on needs to be systemic and collabora1ve
• Poli1cal Ac1on needed at local, na1onal, interna1onal level
Framework for Preven1on and Interven1on to Include
Ø Mandatory Whole School Community Approach
Ø Training of Professionals----Teachers & Health Care
Ø Media Campaign
Ø Na1onal Advisory Centre/ Commissioner for e-Safety
Ø Data Collec1on and Research
Ø Legal Reform
Success will depend on strength of poliFcal will

39. Go Raibh Mile Maith Agat
Thank You