1. Lars Soderberg
Communication & Technology 250

2. Research Question
How prevelent is cyber bullying among
teenagers?

3. What is Cyber Bullying?
• “Willful and repeated harm inflicted through
the use of computers, cell phones, and other
electronic devices.” (Schrock & Boyd, 2011, p.
374)
• Stereotypical widespread problem
• Anonymity
– Private Messages, use of social media, doesn’t
have to be done at school (Farrell, 2012, p.26)

5. Power of Cyber Bullying
• Growth of the internet
• Permanent posts
• Deadly effects
– Depression, suicide, etc. (Cloud, 2010)
• Fast publicity of message (Ringrose, 2011, p.
133)
• Anonymity
– Mystery regarding the root of the message  lack
of control (Ringrose, 2011, p. 132)

6. Cyber Bullying Outlets
• Social Media
– Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.
• Email
• Blogs / Websites (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009, p. 1)
• Text Messaging
• Instant Messaging
– AIM, iMessage, etc.

7. “The youngsters who perpetrate acts of cyber
bullying have, in many cases, also experienced
cyber bullying as victims or bystanders and vice
versa.” (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009,
p.22)

8. Causes of Cyber Bullying
• The internet is a very liberating platform
• Easier establishment of social relationships
• Anonymity
– The identity of the bully is often secret (Erdur-
Baker, 2012, p. 111)
– Provides adoption of “a more aggressive persona”.
(Erdur-Baker, 2012, p. 110)

9. Causes continued…
• Easy access to technology (Farrell, 2012, p.26)
• Increased time spent online spent by
teenagers
– Age of identity exploration (Megan, 2012, p. 703)

10. Types of Cyber Bullying
• Direct involvement of the victim
– Viruses, internet / mobile bullying, social exclusion
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 5)
• Initial lack of involvement by the victim
– Online anonymity, internet / mobile bullying
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 5)

11. A Cyber Bully’s Effectiveness
• Hyperpersonal communication
– The ambiguity of messages online may cause
under/over dramatization of messages (Farrell,
2012, p.28)
• Channel expansion theory
– The level of knowledge in regards to a channel,
message topic, context, and source will determine
the level of effectiveness (Farrell, 2012, p.28)

12. Exposure to Cyber Bullying
• 72% of 18-29 year olds use social networking
cites (Megan, 2012, p. 703)
• 15.8% of young adults in a study (596 people
ages 14-22) reported cyber-bullying compared
to 12.3% of adolescents (Megan, 2012, p. 705)
• In the study, 15.6% of harassing messages
came from someone unknown to the victim
(Megan, 2012, p. 712)

13. Exposure continued…
• School survey (177 7th graders)
– 14.5% reported to being cyber bullies
– 24.9% reported to being victims of cyber bullying
• Online study (500 teenagers aged 11-15)
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 7)
– 32% sent anonymous harassing emails
– 29% sent harassing messages

14. Kristensen and Smith Study
• (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 16-18)
– 44.8% knew their bully offline
– Half didn’t know their bully
– 14.1% were bullied by someone they only knew
online
– Experienced one form of offensive behavior orver
the internet / phone over the last 3 motnhs
• 61.9% reported to being victims
• 52.5% reported to being perpetrators
• 76.3% reported to being bystanders

15. Exposure Results
• Cyber bullying is different from case to case
• Traditional bullies and victimization online
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 11)
• Lack of responsibility by student body

16. Cyber Bully Profile
• Cyber Bullies
– High self image
– Social competence
– High relationship
between traditional
and online bully
– Lack of surveillance by
parents

17. Victim Profile
• Victims
– Girls were more likely to be the victim
(Ringrose, 2011, 122)
– Higher relationship between a strictly online
relationship with their bully
– Tend to be victims of traditional bullying as
well
– High internet dependency
– Not socially competent

18. Ybarra Study
• (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 10)
– Males who reported as being depressed were
eight times more likely to report being a victim
“Ybarra identified both the amount of internet use
and the use of messenger programs as most
important predictors for the experience with cyber
bullying as a victim among females.” (Vandebosch &
Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 10)

19. Li Study
• (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 11)
– 1/3 of “youngsters” bullied in school were also
cyber bullies
– 1/3 of “youngsters” reported their bullying in
school to backfire online and result in
victimization
– Majority of victims were females (p. 10)
– Strong correlation between cyber bullies and
cyber bully victims

20. Patchin & Hinduja Study
• (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009, p. 11)
– 42.5% of cyber bully victims were frustrated
– 40% of victims were angry
– 17% felt sad

21. Conclusion
• Cyber bullying is evident among teenagers
– Amount of internet use
• Different devices are used
• Age is a factor
• Its’ presence varies on a case to case basis
• More research is needed