Literature review on the usability of the definitions used in cyberbullying literature.

1. LITERATURE REVEW ON THE
RESEARCH ON CYBERBULLYING
DEFINITIONS
The differences between the definitions about
cyberbullying created by scholars?

2. Literature revew on the research on cyberbullying definitions
The differences between the definitions about cyberbullying created by scholars
Abstract
This literature review investigates and provides an overview on how scholars define the
phenomenon called cyberbullying in behavior sciences. It analyses the definitions, shows
what the important missing variables are and discusses what must be done in order to create a
universal definition for cyberbullying. The characteristics discussed in this review could
prove to be useful in creating a general definition for cyberbulling. This literature review also
explains why there is a need for a general definition.
1. Introduction researched on often describe cyberbullying
School violence, often referred to as as a type of bullying that involves
bullying or traditional bullying, is a individuals using information and / or
serious problem that a large part of the communication technology to make
western countries are dealing with. This someone else’s life miserable, or at least,
act, bullying, arises and is mostly present bully a other individual via these kind of
during primary and secondary education technology. An example definition is the
(Li, 2005). One can also call traditional definition used by Smith et al. (2008,
bullying ‘peer victimization’. Sumter, p.376) “An aggressive, intentional act
Baumgartner, Valkenburg and Peter carried out by a group or individual, using
(2012) refer to traditional bullying as peer electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and
victimization. They define it as “Peer over time against a victim who can not
victimization refers to exposure to easily defend him or herself”. However,
aggressive acts by same-age peers. These the literature about cyberbullying is, even
aggressive acts include harming victims up to the year 2012, rather scarce. It also
physically or psychologically or harming lacks conceptual clarity, as Vandebosh and
their social status” (p.1). However, Van Cleemput (2008) suggest. The
bullying nowadays, has changed its form, problem with having multiple definitions
at least to the extent that there is a and multiple perspectives is that each
different type with its own definitions. research that uses a different definition
New technology allows us to be connected obviously focusses on different aspects.
with our friends and family twenty four Research done by various scholars can
hours a day, seven days a week. This therefore not be compared with one
creates a completely new dimension for another, nor can the results be added to
individuals to bully others. Scholars often other researches. The results are too
refer to this new type of bullying as inconsistent (Tokunga, 2010). Law,
cyberbullying (Li, 2005; Besley, 2009; Shapka, Hymel, Olson & Waterhouse
Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russel (2011, p.226) suggested similarities “The
& Tippett, 2008). lack of a clear definition prevents a full
understanding of this construct and how it
Research on cyberbullying has focussed relates to developmental outcomes”.
on different fields, with each scholar often Therefore this literature review will extend
using his or her own definition, or using a our understanding of cyberbullying by
definition created by one of the many looking into the various definitions created
other scholars investigating this matter. by scholars and discusses the missing
The definitions that have often been used elements, which in turn will create a basis
to investigate that what the researchers for further research. Research that

3. focusses on creating a general definition of
cyberbullying. In addition to this, the Smith et al. (2008) conducted two surveys,
following research question was additionally followed by a focus group.
developed: The main focus of the study was on
clarifying the nature and impact of
To what extent are there any differences cyberbullying in secondary school. Both
between the definitions about studies conducted found that
cyberbullying created by scholars? cyberbullying happens less often than
traditional bullying, however it occurred
2. Method more often outside the school, than
For this literature review, an analysis of 10 actually inside school. They also found
different research articles will be analyzed that cyber-victims were traditional ‘bully-
in order to answer the research questions. victims’. This data (act and consequences
At first a short summary and justification of cyberbullying), and therefor the view of
of why these articles were added, then the the authors, is interesting in finding the
literature review will discuss the conditions to creating a definition towards
definitions of cyberbullying. At the final cyberbullying.
stage, the literature review will conclude
on whether the research question is Vandebosh and Van Cleemput (2009)
answered, or whether further investigation analyze and sketch a profile of
is needed. cyberbullies and victims. The scholars first
described the problem of definition,
3. Summaries whereas they added information about the
Cyberbullying is a rather new current way of measurement as well. The
phenomenon, and is investigated by main focus of the article, however, is on
several, relatively important and well the description of results related to the
known authors in the field of bullying. Ten profiles of cyberbullies and its victims.
authors and their articles have been used Therefore, the data provided in this article
for this analysis. could add important information to this
review.
Tokunga (2010) synthesized different
findings from reports based on quantitative Kowalski and Limber (2007) conducted
findings. In addition, the scholar added an survey among 3,767 students in the grades
explanation to why research towards a 6, 7, and 8, to investigate the prevalence of
general definition of cyberbullying is cyberbullying (they call it electronic
important. As a result the scholar provided bullying) among these students. Due to the
an integrative definition for cyberbullying. fact that the scholars used a different
Therefore the information from this study definition, the results of the questionnaire
could prove useful for this literature are therefore interesting for this review.
review.
Juvonen and Gross (2008) wrote the
Moore, Nakano, Enomoto & Tatsuya article with the goal to investigate the
(2012) analyzed the roles in cyberbullying overlap between targets of online and in-
related to online forum postings. The school bullying among 12- to 17-year-old
scholar identified several characteristics, individuals. They also tested some
such as a cyberbully is anonymous. All common assumptions that were previously
these characteristics prove to be of high created regarding cyberbulling. The
value when relating to other definitions scholars’ vision (and definition of
towards cyberbulling. A other aspect of cyberbullying) is therefore interesting for
why this article is of interest for this this review.
literature review is the fact that the author
mainly focussed on forum postings. Erdur-Baker (2010) examined the
Overlap with other forms of cyberbullying relationship between cyberbullying and
may therefore be identified. traditional bullying related to experiences,

4. conditioned by gender differences. definition, is valuable to this literature
Contradicting to other findings from, for review, since her view is slightly different
example Li (2007), Erdrur-Baker found compared to other scholars.
that male students were more bullied in
both ways. Therefor, especially when 4. Evaluation
comparing the results to other authors, The question What is cyberbullying? often
these findings were interesting, especially leads to scholars describing and
towards the fact to how this scholar then summarizing multiple media channels and
identifies and defines cyberbullying. interpersonal experiences. These aspects
can often be related to examples of
The study written by Li (2007), describes cyberbullying, or at least, ways in which it
an examination of the way adolescents occurs. Additionally, cyberbullying can,
experience cyberbullying. It explores to just like traditional bullying, occur direct
how the factors, including bullying, gender and indirect. Vandebosh and Van
and culture add to individuals Cleemput (2009) describe each category as
cyberbulling. The results describe that one follows “The first category refers to those
in three individuals was a victim, while types of cyberbullying in which the victim
one in five was actually a cyberbully. is directly involved; the second type may
Since these rather high percentages are take place without the (immediate) notice
present in his study, the question how Li of the victim” (p. 1352). As one can
(2007) defines cyberbullying is therefore conclude from this statement, the acts on
interesting for this literature review, and how individuals cyberbully can differ. One
could add important data towards the example is an individual sending a virus or
general vision of cyberbullying. creating a Facebook group about someone,
but excluding that individual from the
In a study by Slonje and Smith (2008) it group. Another example is the story of the
became clear that the impact of Dutch phenomenon called ‘bangalijsten’.
cyberbullying was seen as highly negative A ‘bangalijst’ is a list created by a student
for bullying related to picture/video. One that shows the top-10 girls who are the
important finding was that the victims most slutty at their school. It includes
sometimes tell their friends, but most often examples of ‘she will do it for a lipgloss’
keep their problems to themselves, and or ‘whether the girl will send nude pictures
therefore parents do often not know about of herself’. These lists are created and
the individuals being cyberbullied. The distributed via e-mail and social media
fact that the scholars used four categories (Jonker, 2012).
of cyberbullying to examine it in relation
to gender and age, questioned the As mentioned in the previous paragraph,
definition to how they defined researchers have not yet reached
cyberbullying. Therefore their view and consensus about the definition relating to
definition was of value to this literature cyberbullying. As one can see in table 1,
review. each researcher uses a different definition,
and therefore a different approach on how
The article written by Willard (2007) gives to define cyberbullying. The problem with,
more information towards cyberbullying as mentioned in the introduction already,
(social aggression as she calls it) that having multiple definitions, is that each
involves speech. It clarifies and informs scholar studies different phenomena while
about the authority and responsibility the investigating under the same title.
school officials have related to responding Tokunga (2010) also emphasizes that
to cyberbulling. Since Willard links without a single definition, cross-
cyberbullying to speech, and also calls it comparison with other research is
social aggression, the findings of this impossible.
report, at least to the extent of the

5. Table 1
Overview of definitions used by researchers
Study Definition
Tokunga (2010) Cyberbullying is any behavior performed through electronic or digital
media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or
aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others
Moore et al. (2012) Cyberbullying is a new form of bullying which can occur through email
messages, forum posting, web site publishing, cell phone text messages,
chat rooms, computer hacking, and any other means of electronic
communication.
Juvonen & Gross (2009) Cyberbullying is portrayed as a pervasive intimidation method that can
happen to any youth using electronic communication tools such as instant
messaging (IM) or e-mail.
Besley (2012) Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication
technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an
individual or group, that is intended to harm others
Smith et al (2008) An aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual using
electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who
cannot easily defend himself’
Kowalski et al. (2008) Electronic bullying includes bullying through e-mail, instant messaging,
in a chat room, on a website, or through digital messages or images sent to
a cell phone.
Erdur-Baker (2010) Aggression using ICT is referred to as cyberbullying (also called
electronic bullying or inline bullying) when it is identified as intentional
and repeated aggression. More specifically, cyberbullying is defined as
hurtful and intended communication activity using any form of
technological device such as the internet or mobile phones
Li (2007) Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication
technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant
messaging, defamatory personal Web sites, to support deliberate,
repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended
to harm others
Slonje & Smith (2008) Cyberbullying [cybermobbn-ing] as bullying through text messaging,
email, mobile phone calls or picture/video clip.
Willard (2007) Being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material or engaging
in other forms of social aggression using the internet or other digital
technologies.
One should note that, as the definitions However, one should be aware that
provided by the researchers mentioned cyberbullying may also be defined in a
above, the actual definition of completely different way. As mentioned in
cyberbullying can even be very different the previous paragraph, the definitions
compared to the definitions that are being provided by those researchers only
used at the moment. Research that has describe the act itself, not the
been done until now, often defines psychological consequences. Also, one
cyberbullying in one way: the way in how should note that a new question can be
cyberbullying occurs, and not how it is asked, meaning that one could ask himself
perceived or experienced, nor does the when cyberbullying is actually
definition go deeper into any cyberbullying. For example, cyberbullying
psychological effects. A good example of can even be cyberbullying when the
a definition that is often used by message or act was not even intended by
researchers, is the definition provided by the sender to be meant as bullying. The
Besley (2012). One could say that those receiver may interpret a comment in a
researchers tend to agree to that specific completely different way that it is
definition. Meaning, that they agree on the officially intended. The sender might want
fact that the behavior is repeated, that it to actually give a compliment or sound
involves psychological pain, and that it is funny, whereas the receiver might
done with an intent (Tokunga, 2010). interpret it as a negative comment (Van
Leeuwen, 2012). An example of this

6. would be a message on someones timeline experienced being negatively affected in
on Facebook saying ‘Bastard ;-) you some way. Similar findings have been
kissed Lucy yesterday!’. The receiver reported by Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak &
could interpret the word ‘bastard’ as Finkelhor (2006), whereas they suggest
negative. Also the fact that the other that victims have significantly higher
person mentioned the person kissing with levels of depression, which results in a
someone else, can still be seen as a thread. lower self-esteem. Again, when looking at
In contrast, the sender might just wanted the current definitions, none of the above
to get a conversation started, or give a psychological effects have been mentioned
compliment to the other person, through a in either one of the definitions, whereas
neg. The question now, however, is scholars do suggest that the implications
whether one could see acts like these as underscore the seriousness of the
cyberbullying, whenever an individual phenomenon (Tokunga, 2010).
experiences the act as cyberbullying, even
though it was not intended by the sender 5. Conclusion
as cyberbullying. One would suggest so. One can acknowledge that scholars each
To add to that, one would also suggest that have different definitions, however they
emotion and interpretation play an do tend to agree that the behavior related
important role in this matter. to cyberbullying is repeated, it involves
psychological pain, and it is done with an
Emotion, however, is a completely intent. However, there are still a lot of
different, yet important aspect that has not aspects that have obviously not been
been added to any of the definitions included in the definitions that have been
provided above. Emotions, also described developed so far, such as the
as psychological consequences, that often psychological effects or ways of
go hand in hand with bullying, are ones interpretation. These aspects should be
where the individual becomes insecure, considered in creating a definition about
lonely, sad, develops more social anxiety cyberbullying. Further research should
or becomes over-compliant (Hawker & focus on identifying multiple dimensions
Boulton, 2000). Additionally, when an that are important to cyberbullying, check
individual is being cyberbullied, research which aspects should be included and
suggest that the individual displays similar which aspects should be removed from the
behaviors (Beran & Li, 2007). Patchin and definition. Then a general definition can
Hinduja (2006) reported in their study that be created.
individuals who were cyberbullied
References
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The Relationship between Cyberbullying and School Bullying.
Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.
Besley (2012). Cyberbullyning. Retrieved on June, 1, 2012, from
http://www.cyberbullying.org
Erdur-Baker, O. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and
frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media &
Society, 12, 109-125. doi: 10.1177/1461444809341260
Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victmization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Psychological Psychiatry, 41, 411-455. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00629
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2006). Offline Consequences of Online Victimization: School
violence and Delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89-112.

7. Jonker, J. (2012, March 26). Balen van bangalijst [web log post]. Retrieved on May, 30,
2012, from http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/binnenland/2012/03/balen-van-bangalijst
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the School Grounds? - Bullying Experiences in
Cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-505. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2008.00335.x
Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2007). Electronic Bullying Among Middle School
Students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22-S30. doi:
10.1016/j.adohealth.2007.08.017
Law, D.M., Shapka, J.D., Hymel, S., Olson, B.F., & Waterhouse, T. (2011). The changing
face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and
victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226-232. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004
Li, Q. (2005) New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 1777-1791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in Schools : A Research of Gender Differences. School of
Psychology International, 27,157-170. doi: 10.1177/0143034306064547
Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber
victimisation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 435-454.
Moore, M., Nakano, T., Enomoto, A., & Tatsuya, S. (2012). Anonymity and roles associated
with aggressive posts in an online forum. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 861-867.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russel, S., & Tippet, T. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385. doi: 10.1111.j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9450.2007.00611.x
Sumter, S.R., Baumgartner, S.E., Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. (2012). Developmental
Trajectories of Peer Victimization: Off-line and Online Experiences During Adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence Health, xx, xxx-xxx. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10.251
Tokunga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Vandebosh, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitiative
Research into the Perceptions of Youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 499-503.
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
Vandebosh, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among younsters: profiles of
bullies and victims. New media & society, 11, 1349-1371. doi:
10.1777/1461444809341263
Van Leeuwen, J.C. (2012). Jongeren en Cyberpesten. Manuscript in preparation.

8. Willard, N.E. (2007). The Authority and Responsibility of School Officials in Responding to
Cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S64-S65. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.013
Ybarra, M.L., Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006) Examining characteristics
and associated distress related to Internet harassment: Findings from the Second Youth
Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118, e1169-e1177. Retrieved from
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/118/4/e1169.full