![Cyberbullying ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie The Impact Of Cyberbullying On Its Victims And
Ähnlich wie The Impact Of Cyberbullying On Its Victims And (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
The Impact Of Cyberbullying On Its Victims And
- 1. The Impact of Cyberbullying on Its Victims and Perpetrators Erick Paulus Argosy University
- 14. Lit Review: Strengths & Weaknesses Smith (2009)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This presentation will examine the reasoning behind cyberbullying and its affect on both recipient and giver. What type of person commits cyberbullying? Why do people cyberbully in the first place? How does cyberbullying affect both the bully’s and the victim’s self-esteem and self-concept? Finally, how does cyberbullying compare and contrast to traditional bullying? This paper will thoroughly examine all of these concepts by examining current empirical and peer-reviewed research on the topic.
- The new age bully is a cyberbully. Due to advances in technology, the new bully has a plethora of options to choose from when deciding his or her attack(s). Recent research suggests that cyberbullying may in fact be much more damaging psychologically than traditional bullying (Walker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Dooley et al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009; Coyne et al., 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Furthermore, because technology keeps increasing in power and decreasing in cost, more and more people are acquiring this new option as a way to bully others.
- www.cyberbullying.org defines cyberbullying as: “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.” (as cited in Walker, 2010, p. 598). It is similar to classic bullying, but different in a few key ways—mainly, attacks can occur at any time, attacks can be viewed 24/7, and there is potentially absolute anonymity provided for the bully (Spears et al., 2009). Classic bullying is usually a face-to-face encounter on school grounds, in contrast. In addition, the classic bully’s attacks cease with the school bell dismissal of classes. This is one of the main reasons cyberbullying is so potent: it never ends! 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, millions of web-surfers can view an embarrassing photograph or post for as long as it is up. And even if the site or picture is taken down after a day or a week, already it has reached a vast number of people, possibly from around the globe. Furthermore, these people can easily save the information to their computer for life, and even repost it elsewhere if they wish. The attacks have such a wide reach and greater potency than the traditional bully, allowing for much greater damage to be done.
- Cyberbullying is extremely impersonal, as opposed to traditional bullying (Walker, 2010). There is a great detachment from the bully and his or her victim, with the affordance of posting behind a screen. The bully need not hear the victim’s cries and/or pleas. The bully need not witness the devastated look in the victim’s eyes and see those same eyes when he or she tries to sleep at night. This great attachment may lead to an increase in frequency, potency, and ease of ganging up by others on the victim. There is no negative reinforcement from the victim.
- Once again, the effects of cyberbullying are even greater than classical bullying. Victims are left feeling completely helpless, as they may have no idea who their assailant even is. Bullying is known to disrupt adolescent’ emotional and social development (Walker, 2010). Victims of bullying are correlated with general psychological distress, poor psychosocial adjustment, heightened anxiety, depressive symptoms, and a lower sense of self-worth. Being a bully has its own problems: academic problems, externalizing problems, poor psychosocial adjustment, and delinquency in late adolescence and early adulthood (as cited in Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
- Hodges et al. (1999) has stated that victims of bullies are more rejected by peers and less likely to have friends than non-victimized classmates throughout the year (as cited in Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). The importance of positive peer relationships at this age have been shown by Gavazzi et al. (1993) to be related to successful identity formation, sense of self-worth, healthy self-esteem, and developing skills for romantic relationships (as cited in Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). In addition, Hightower (1990) concluded that stable peer relationships during adolescence are related to high mental health at midlife. Bullying can disrupt adolescents’ emotional and social development (as cited in Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Therefore, it can be assumed via this data that bullying can very likely have a deeply profound and long-lasting psychological effect on the victim—perhaps lasting a person’s entire life (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, one could assess that victims of bullies would have extreme difficulty finding love and achieving the ultimate goal of self-actualization, as they are too busy just trying to survive, from a psychological viewpoint (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009).
- As of 2011, there still is not agreed upon definition of cyberbullying. There also is no standardized testing measurement yet. However, the general consensus is that cyberbullying may very well be more damaging to the victim than traditional bullying as anonymity, continuous online attacks from a single post, and the vastly increased audience are the major benefits afforded to the bully (Walker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Dooley et al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009; Coyne et al., 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
- This study used a questionnaire to obtain answers to some relevant questions regarding cyberbullying. Some major issues with this design is its very small sample size, the age group used, and the lack of multiple cultures. Cyberbullying can start as early as eight years old. In addition, students are still susceptible to the Hawthorne Effect, as the mere presence of others may skew the results of the test (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2009). The information gained here is good, only if used in conjunction with other more representative designs.
- Walker (2010) does a great job of reviewing other articles with regards to cyberbullying. He provides critiques of their designs and makes recommendations for future studies. His main weakness is that he is not doing a new study. Instead, he is merely borrowing other’s work already done and critiquing it.
- Spears et al. (2009) adds a unique piece of the puzzle with their take on cyberbullying. By providing a qualitative study using group sessions, they give the victims the opportunity to provide their unique experiences firsthand with cyberbullying. This, in essence, gives cyberbullying victims a ‘voice’ in which to communicate with. The problem with this study is that it is merely a qualitative take on the subject. It does not offer new statistical data.
- Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross (2009) use their own interviews and focus groups, as well as combine other’s works with it, providing a good comprehensive take on the problem. It combines the strength of others, a single voice perspective, and a group perspective. Their main weakness is that it is not an actual study or naturalistic observation—only a subjective summary from people’s stories and ideas on the problem.
- Smith does a great job of a compare & contrast between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. He points out the multiple ways for a cyberbully to attack, the increase in frequency of attacks with time, and the emotional impact upon the victim. The weakness in this study is that it is nothing new—merely a summary of information which has already been obtained by other authors.
- This study did an outstanding job with reliability, as the sample size is enormous. Their study took seventeen-hundred pupils from various German secondary schools. However, the study was only located in one country. Furthermore, by singling out only internet chatrooms, the validity is severely reduced. The reason for this is that this is merely one outlet for a cyberbully to use. There are so many other ways to cyberbully. Finally, the amount of cyberbullies choosing to use only internet chatrooms versus blogs, social websites, email, cell phones, pictures, videos, etc. remains to be seen. In other words, this study may indeed only apply to a very small number of actual cyberbullies.
- This study points out how little research has actually been done in regards to cyberbullying over the whole slew of data and studies gathered on traditional bullying (Twyman et al., 2010). Furthermore, this study echoes the increased damage potential with cyberbullying over traditional bullying. However, the low number of participants, questionnaire only, and raffle incentive decrease the validity of this study.
- This study did an excellent job of utilizing a large sample size. They took a large sample of nineteen-hundred and ten sixth to eighth-graders to complete a self-report survey on school violence. The large sample size will minimize the skew caused from dishonesty; however, the study is only on grades 6-8. The study shows that (in general) when children perceive their treatment in the family system is unfair, they internalize unfair attitudes and then direct similar attitudes toward other children (Brubacher et al., 2009).
- This study took seven-hundred-sixty-one adolescents aged fourteen to nineteen and gave them a survey to complete regarding the co-occurrence rates of cyberbullying with traditional bullying. They found the highest risk for poor adjustment was observed in students who were double-victims of bullies (traditional and cyber). Another survey with good statistics (for a survey), but focuses on a compare and contrast of cyberbullying vs. traditional bullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009).
- Coyne, Chesney, Logan, & Madden (2009) took a group of eight-six residents of a virtual online community called Second Life and gave them an online survey to complete, focusing only on this new form of bullying using a virtual online community only. This will decrease the generalizability of the findings, as it relates only to this one form of cyberbullying. It does, however, do a great job of defining newer terms like “flaming” in the article, as well as theorizing that the impact of cyberbullying is more psychological than traditional cyberbullying.
- There were differences of opinion with regards to cyberbullying. As touched upon above, there is no clear and agreed upon definition of the problem. There is also no standard for testing measurements. The biggest upset was reading how some authors exclude a power imbalance, which would suggest that online power is not a necessary component (Dooley et al., 2009). Kowalski et al. (2008) also suggests that cyberbullying is merely the electronic form of face-to-face bullying rather than a completely distinct phenomenon. Furthermore, Guerin and Hennessy (2002) propose that there is no need for repetition for an act of aggression online to be considered cyberbullying. A single act , as proposed by Leishman (2005) is enough to be considered repeated, since a picture or sentence can be seen or read over and over by such a vast number of people.
- Cyberbullying is a relatively new concept in psychology that came about with the mass adoption of the internet. Because of its recent emergence, many questions still remain and further research is needed to fully understand its causes and effects. Is cyberbullying more profound and damaging to the self-esteem and self-concept than traditional bullying? Indeed, early research is showing the potential for great psychological damage from cyberbullying. A person may be bullied for years and never know who his attacker is; attacks can be never-ending as they do not stop in the schoolyard; and the amount of people that are able to see or read the attack far exceed the reach of the traditional schoolyard bully (Walker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Dooley et al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009; Coyne et al., 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Moreover, cyberbullying may only need to be a single incident of aggression to be considered cyberbullying. One attack of an embarrassing photo uploaded to a website can be viewed repeatedly every day by a large number of people, making the attack—in essence—repeated. Combined cyberbullying and traditional bullying yields the most drastic effects on both the bully and the victim: the bully exhibits more externalizing adjustment problems, while the victim tends to show more internalizing adjustment problems (Gradinger et al., 2009). A clear definition needs to be adopted in regards to what actually constitutes cyberbullying, as it seems the traditional definition of “repeated acts” may have to be omitted (Smith, 2009). The co-occurrence of traditional bullying with cyberbullying needs to be looked at, as initial studies are showing a high prevalence for both (Gradinger et al., 2009). Finally, longitudinal studies on both the cyberbully and his or her victim's) need to be conducted and track their progress using standardized testing to determine psychological well-being. This would show with greater certainty whether this new kind of bully really does wield a more powerful weapon—the internet—than the traditional bully.