1

Digital well-being on cyber bullying.

Introduction
Bullying is known as someone hurt by their words or actions and made to feel bad about it. It is a hard time to
stop when happened to them. The new technology gives them a new platform for the actions now a days and
bullies have been for a long time. The cyberbullying is known as use of new technologies such as email,
internet, social media photos, mobile phones to do harassment, embarrass and threaten to target person. These
types of actions usually occur on young people but when an adult involved which means cyber stalking, cyber
harassment etc. The cyberbullying is important to concern on public health which can lead to increase the risk of
mental health issues such as development problems, suicide and psychological. Many researchers had lack of
agreements on definition and occurrences of cyberbullying and methods to measure of cyberbullying and its
prevalence. This report discusses on object of this case study, research methods, limitation of each method,
ethical issues and finally we conclude on cyberbullying on digital wellbeing.
Bullying is a major public health problem. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of cyberbullying and traditional
bullying among adolescents in England and assess its relative effects on mental well-being.

If Objective
The main objective of this report is to demonstrate the prevalence of cyberbullying in and determine how to
prevent and deal effectively with cyberbullying before it takes an opportunity to play in life. This paper
demonstrates that cyberbullying using new technology and literature survey is used to support to change the
policy on bullying which has limits in many places to discipline perpetrators when the bullying occurs. Also
discuss research process and methodology, limitation of each methods and ethical issues.

Literature Review
The continuous examination on cyberbullying is obliged to give the liberal confirmation by the composition
audit to help the advancement of cyberbullying issue and wild. Qing Li proposed an article on 2007 which
communicates that data exhibited that one-fourth of the understudies were cyberbullying losses and fifteen
percent of the understudies were bothered with the use of specific electronic devices. Furthermore, the delayed
effects of the examination showed that most events are unreported. The maker prescribes that the web's
customer anonymity is an essential deterrent in the schools ' fight against computerized torment.
Jennifer Holladay proposes an examination between standard tormenting and propelled harassing. The report
takes a gander at the remarkable mercilessness of cutting-edge chafing explicitly conventional on social
correspondence regions like Facebook. Holladay claims "some spot in the extent of 33% to one piece of youth
shave been based on". In their article Beale and Hall see that paying little regard to endeavours by schools to
make undertakings and give direction on cyberbullying the issue still drives forward. The creators stress riddle
stayed to the liable gatherings through the web as beast hindrance to battle the issue. The article in like way
proposes that present tormenting laws should be stretched out to combine an electronic baiting area.
Several researchers have handled the topic of cyberbullying in the past (Waasdorp and Catherine,
483). Many digital and internet researchers believe that cyberbullying is a form of terrorism that is
imposed on a vulnerable population that o does not know how to deal with the situation (Gardner et
al. 448). In many cases; the victims of cyberbullying are teenagers who use social media to pastime
and to get information (Brewer, and Jade Kerslake, 255). The fraudsters, therefore, take advantage of
the importance that social media have. Some of the most common ways of accessing people, data
illegally include hacking, tracking, hijacking, or lying to the victims to give them their passwords
(Olweus, and Susan, 139). After accessing the profiles of the victims, the fraudsters then proceed to
post offensive contents on the walls of the victims. If the pictures posted are offensive, it can damage
and defame the image of the victim (Aboujaoude, 10). This is the most common ways of damaging
the image of different individuals working on the internet. 

Tangen and Campbell similarly shown practically identical responses as for cyberbullying scenes experienced
by the two get-togethers. The two social occasions furthermore felt that educators were less disposed to envision
cyberbullying than eye to eye tormenting. The makers in like manner express that schools miss the mark on the
 2

data to neutralize and cyberbullying against. Kathleen Conn traces the different cyberbullying types and horrific
cyberbullying after-effects. Suicides have occurred in a few instances of cyberbullying. Misused individuals
can't escape the various kinds of cyberbullying as it's the delight of anyone cruising around when posted. The
objective of the article is to give legal examples of cyberbullying Examine appropriate research methodologies
& approaches as part of the research process
According to Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross (2009, p.182), to date, many writers look complication in interpret and
differentiate cyberbullying since of the use of inconsistent methods. (No Flow from reason of different method
to definition) Cyberbullying has been from a general perspective calculated as bullying through an electronic
means. Drawing from Smith et al. (2008, p.376), cyberbullying interpolates to a confrontational ,premeditated 
act done by a person or a group of people, using electronic contact means, over and over again for a certain
period against a person who is not able to easily defend herself or himself. This interpretation emphasizes on the
act being argumentative, preconceived, and monotonous as well as having the presence of power imbalance.
Belsey (2004) additional circumferences cyberbullying as using cybernetics of intelligence and
intercommunication to underpinning premeditated, successively, and antagonistic conduct by a person or a
group, with the aim of harming other people. From Belsey’s definition, power imbalance is missing, which
conveys the impression that power does not fundamentally form a vitally important component of
cyberbullying. On the other hand, Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor (2007, p.52) argue that, an unmistakable
determination should view repeated actions of online hostility as online harassment (How is this link to the
previous point of Belsey’s definition?). In addition, since the victim can end negative online relation easily, he
or she possesses a certain level of power, which they were not capable of having if the harassment took place
within the schoolyard where they cannot escape easily. On the contrary, there are cases of online harassment,
which the victim cannot prorogue easily such as difficulties involved in getting rid of information from the
internet (From where? What does this show?).
The interdependence of the main fundamentals of cyberbullying is indispensable for a unfluctuating progress in
cyberbullying studies. According to Vandebosch & van Cleemput (2008, p.500), a research was done through
focus groups on 10 to 19-year olds in Belgium regarding their experiences on cyberbullying and their use of
information and communication technology. The findings of the research showed that, cyberbullying actions are
consistent with the definitions such that they are predeterminate, monotonous, and characterised by an
imbalance of power (Mention Results). These features characterize traditional face-to-face bullying. The
research also proposed that, in cyberbullying, behaviour is more important as compared to the medium used
(What medium? What does it show?). Kowalski & Limber (2007, p.24) further define cyberbullying as, simply
the electronic type of face-to-face bullying instead of an enunciated occurrence Viewing cyberbullying as
simply a form of face-to-face bullying can overlook the difficulties of such behaviours.

    Lo1)    Examine appropriate research methodologies & approaches

as part of the research process
Research methodologies refer to the approaches that researchers gather the date that can be used in the analysis
of the research. For this research, three methodologies are appropriately available and can be used in the overall
presentation. The research will use qualitative methodology to analyse the effects that cyberbullying has had on
the individuals of various social classes and status. Qualitative analysis will explore the opinions of the
participants that will choose the researcher. In analysing the social concepts surrounding cyberbullying, the
research will use a literature review to analyse the data that covers the topic. Many researchers have covered the
topic of cyberbullying (Whittaker, and Robin, 11)
According to Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross (2009, p.182), to date, many writers look complication in
interpret and differentiate cyberbullying since of the use of inconsistent methods. (No Flow from
reason of different method to definition) Cyberbullying has been from a general perspective
calculated as bullying through an electronic means. Drawing from Smith et al. (2008, p.376),
cyberbullying interpolates to an confrontational ,premeditated act done by a person or a group of
people, using electronic contact means, over and over again for a certain period against a person who
is not able to easily defend herself or himself. This interpretation emphasizes on the act being
argumentative, preconceived, and monotonous as well as having the presence of power imbalance.
Belsey (2004) additional circumferences cyberbullying as using cybernetics of intelligence and
intercommunication to underpinning premeditated, successively, and antagonistic conduct by a person
or a group, with the aim of harming other people. From Belsey’s definition, power imbalance is
missing, which conveys the impression that power does not fundamentally form a vitally important
 3

component of cyberbullying. On the other hand, Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor (2007, p.52) argue
that, an unmistakable determination should view repeated actions of online hostility as online
harassment (How is this link to the previous point of Belsey’s definition?). In addition, since the
victim can end negative online relation easily, he or she possesses a certain level of power, which they
were not capable of having if the harassment took place within the schoolyard where they cannot
escape easily. On the contrary, there are cases of online harassment, which the victim cannot prorogue
easily such as difficulties involved in getting rid of information from the internet (From where? What
does this show?).
The interdependence of the main fundamentals of cyberbullying is indispensable for an unfluctuating
progress in cyberbullying studies. According to Vandebosch & van Cleemput (2008, p.500), a
research was done through focus groups on 10 to 19-year olds in Belgium regarding their experiences
on cyberbullying and their use of information and communication technology. The findings of the
research showed that, cyberbullying actions are consistent with the definitions such that they are
predeterminate, monotonous, and characterised by an imbalance of power (Mention Results). These
features characterize traditional face-to-face bullying. The research also proposed that, in
cyberbullying, behaviour is more important as compared to the medium used (What medium? What
does it show?). Kowalski & Limber (2007, p.24) further define cyberbullying as, simply the electronic
type of face-to-face bullying instead of an enunciated occurrence Viewing cyberbullying as simply a
form of face-to-face bullying can overlook the difficulties of such behaviours.
P1) Produce a research proposal that clearly defines a research question or hypothesis
supported by a literature review. 

This research proposal will cover the topic of cyberbullying as a major concern for the modern
generation. To appropriately handle this topic, it will be important to answer research questions that
are used as a guideline for the literature review and hypothesis. Research questions the following
research questions will be answered. What are the social effects of cyberbullying? What are some
of the most appropriate was that can be used to guard against cyberbullying? What are the
demographics of internet users exposed to cyberbullying the most? What is the major news
coverage cyberbullying as a major topic? Research hypothesis H1: Cyberbullying is the main
reasons for teenage depression and various problems mentally. H2: Cyberbullying is a social
concern and therefore it is important to have laws that address this concerning situation, this
research proposal will cover the topic of cyberbullying as a major concern for the modern
generation. To appropriately handle this topic, it will be important to answer research questions that
are used as a guideline for the literature review and hypothesis.

Research questions
The following research questions will be answered.
What are the social effects of cyberbullying?
What are some of the most appropriate was that can be used to guard against cyberbullying?
What are the demographics of internet users exposed to cyberbullying the most?
What is the major news covering cyberbullying as a major topic?
Research hypotheses
H1: cyberbullying is the main reasons for teenage depressions and various problems mentally.
H2: cyberbullying is a social concern and therefore it important to have laws that address this
concerning situation.

Literature review

Several researchers have handled the topic of cyberbullying in the past (Waasdorp and Catherine,
483). Many digital and internet researchers believe that cyberbullying is a form of terrorism that is
imposed on a vulnerable population that o does not know how to deal with the situation (Gardner et
al. 448). In many cases; the victims of cyberbullying are teenagers who use social media to pastime
and to get information (Brewer, and Jade Kerslake, 255). The fraudsters, therefore, take advantage of
 4

the importance that social media have. Some of the most common ways of accessing people, data
illegally include hacking, tracking, hijacking, or lying to the victims to give them their passwords
(Olweus, and Susan, 139). After accessing the profiles of the victims, the fraudsters then proceed to
post offensive contents on the walls of the victims. If the pictures posted are offensive, it can damage
and defame the image of the victim (Aboujaoude, 10). This is the most common ways of damaging
the image of different individuals working on the internet.

 P2) Examine appropriate research methods and approaches to primary and secondary
research.

This chapter presents the reader clearly understanding of the research methodology and relevant
research approaches determining the way through this research was conducted. In accordance with the
main objective of research, Kothari (2005) states that research should help the reader to discover the
truth that is hidden through the application of scientific procedures.
Methodology produces the outcomes of any studies and it is important to choose appropriate way to
conduct the research methods in effective way in order to meet researcher’s aims and objectives of the
research.
Research methodology followed in this dissertation presents topics on different forms of research
which are used in order to find an appropriate approach and method in this study. The researcher
outlined aims and objectives of thesis in Chapter 1 therefore the purpose of this chapter is to:
introduce research philosophy in relation to adopted approach in this study
discuss research strategy expounded in current study, including the research methodology conducted
present the instruments of research method which were developed and utilized in the achievement of
researcher’ goals
explain why the specific methods were adopted and constrains in relation with data collection
considering the limitation to the presented research
Further, the chapter discusses the issues followed as: research philosophy, research approaches,
research design, data collection method, data analysis, reliability and limitation of the research.

Research philosophy

According to Proctor ( 2005 ) , the academic research should be developed in a philosophical way.
Differently speaking, the research should be followed with method of study elaborated to better
explain and facilitate the analysis of subject. Looking at this context, the philosophical approach gives
framework of the research according to its configuration, necessary evidence, gathering the data and
the way of its interpretation to provide the right answers to the research questions.
The research starts with its first step which is definition of the philosophical method of research that
ought to be examine. There are several different approaches of research philosophy, such as the
positivism, phenomenology and realism. ( Saunders et. al., 2003 ). Each approach sets hypothesis and
various methodological implication according with its position and the brief description of the
characteristics of each research philosophy will be interpreted below.

Positivism

According to Currie ( 2003), the positivist approach means development of general rules and
principles using the different systematic techniques of scientific method. The positivist approach
begins with dilemma, idea or observation as it is the first step associated with this philosophy.
Following this way of approach, the researcher analyses the fact and objectives of the study in order
to create the logic way of thinking to explain subject of the study. In the view of Newman (2005 ) this
approach is based on quantitative investigation.
Prediction of prospective behaviour is used in the positivist approach by generating general laws from
the standpoint of objective truth. ( Fisher, 2004). Based on researcher’s belief on accurate and value
 5

free data, this approach determines human beings and their action to be studied as objectively as the
part of natural world.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is also called” non-positivist “, ” interpretivist ” , “naturalistic” approach. The

followers of this approach contend the observation of phenomenon should be key of obtaining the
comprehensive explanation and description of the problem. Through the subjective interpretation
reality can be fully analysed. Approach present that the objective truth is less important because the
reality is socially created, hence it holds subjective truth. The key element of the non-positivist
philosophy is the study of the natural environment followed with effects on those phenomena.
Scientists believe the reality is relative part to various variable such as situation, time, location,
culture, value of society, etc. Thus, researchers of this approach go further to realize how things occur
in reality and how people react on its occurrence rather than to generalize things based on standards
laws. ( Fisher, 2004)

Realism

Realism research philosophy lies on philosophical views of positivism and it is based on the statement
that the objective reality exists, and it is independent part of human beings’ beliefs and behaviour.
Realism also states that humans are not considered as objects in the studies of natural science, but
social influence is considered. Further, realism gives mains importance to those social influences in
order to better understand the way of people’s behaviour and thinking and their awareness of these
social forces. ( Saundres et al., 2003 )
Based on the three different type of research philosophies, this research followed phenomenology
approach with the objectives of research project. Developed on this approach, researcher was able to
define the nature of the problem being investigated and to get the better understanding of the
environment within the problem occurred. Usage of phenomenology approach provided a
comprehensive description of the main aim of the research referring to the importance of risk
There are two research methods and research approaches that can be used. The researcher can use
qualitative or quantitative approaches. These two types of research approaches depend on the
available data and the appropriateness that the researcher is seeing in them (Barlett, 171). Primary
research depends on first-hand information and the data that have been collected by the researcher.
Also, data that have not been interfered with in any way. Some of the most appropriate approaches or
methods of primary research include administering questionnaires and interviews. In this case, the
researcher will interview the victims of cyberbullying people who have information about
cyberbullying to get their opinion on some of the reasons why people suffer from cyberbullying. L02
Conduct and analyze research relevant for a computing research project Various authors have covered
research projects that analyses are computing research in the past (Patchin, and Sameer, 69).
Cyberbullying is one of the issues that have been covered by many researchers because it affects the
most important innovation in society, the youth (Sasson, and Gustavo, 15). Many researchers have
also covered various laws that countries must implement to guarantee the safe use of computer
technology (Lee, and Namin, 352). The use of the internet requires honesty and trust from the people
who are interacting so that the laws of technology bodies existing in countries are not broken (Zych et
al. 1) 

M1) Evaluate different research approaches and methodology and make justifications for the
choice of methods selected based on philosophical/theoretical frameworks. 

In performing academic research, different approaches and technologies can be used. However, the
researcher must settle for the most appropriate research approach and methodology based on the
theoretical and physical frameworks that are available. Some of the most commonly used research
methodologies and approaches in qualitative analysis, literature review, detective analysis, among
others (Hinduja, and Patchin, 51). For this approach, the qualitative methodology is appropriate
because it will guarantee first-hand information from the participants who have been involved directly
 6

when the topic of study. Also, it will ensure that the researcher gets the right information to be used in
making conclusions about cyberbullying (Rice et al. e66).
 
Research Approach

According to Saunders et al. there are two main research approach conducted by business research
known as deductive and inductive scientific methods of reasoning.
The deductive approach means testing theories on effective way where researcher can develop a
theory or hypothesis creating strategy for testing the theory. In the view of Saunders (2005) it is
appropriate scientific research method for the organization so called “top down” method. There are
three steps when conducting research based on deductive forms of reasoning: Firstly, researcher states
the hypothesis examined with theory or research literature. Secondly, collecting data in order to
researcher test the hypothesis. The final step leads to building the right decision when researcher is
accepting or rejecting the hypothesis based on conclusion.
In contrast, the inductive method, well known as “bottom up” scientific method suitable when
researcher’s aim is to generate theories and hypothesis in order to understand why something happens.
Inductive approach of reasoning is usually basic way for building the theories, when researcher by
collecting data scientific way to develop theory as a result of data analysis.
The inductive method involves three steps in its process referring to researcher’s ability to observe the
environment, find a pattern for observed element and provide generalization about result of analysis.
In reality the two approaches are not mutually exposed, but have joint participation in business studies
(Seddighi, 2000 ). Nevertheless, the important fact about those two scientific methods lies on
statement that its presence in research depends on research question and research objectives.
The inductive and deductive methods are demonstrated in figure below:
Therefore, the deductive approach was adopted to create a path for this research. This method of
research was used to test theory based on hypothesis moving from specific to general. Usage of this
approach enabled researcher to contribute to the successful achievement of the objectives of this
project. Implementing this method researcher was able to understand the company and its risk
management techniques in the specific environment related to the topic and evaluate the strategies
used by the Societe Generale Bank to maintain the same management in today’s business world.

Research Design
The research design is used to address the research questions which were taken into consideration in
this study. The research design appears from questions directly determining the main objectives being
examined in this thesis. These questions are results from the gaps between theory based on literature
review presented in Chapter 2 and analysing and findings of primary data based in the following
Chapter 5.
Yin (2003) states that research design is dependent element for research project helping the researcher
to decide what questions to study, which information are relevant to the current case study, how to
collect data and to do analysis of presented findings. In the view of Saunders et al. (2003 ), there are
three various types of research design followed as :
(1) Exploratory, (2) Descriptive and (3) Explanatory. The description of each will be summarized
below.
Exploratory

Exploratory research is constructed to answer “what” questions, according to Yin (2003), and in many
cases includes new studies which can be result of the appearance of new phenomena or insufficient
knowledge about any study. This approach is also recommended to approve researchers’ objectives by
gaining new insights about specific issue which fit well and present a good match to this research.
Saunders et. al (2003) states usage of this approach especially for understanding the problem
expressing the main steps to conduct an exploratory research: searching and studying the literature
and talking to experts in the subject through interviews. This concept is characterized as flexible and
adaptable to daily changes as result of new information upcoming or new hypothesis appearing.

Descriptive
 7

Concept of this research implies design addressed to reveal validate profile of persons, events or
situations. Descriptive concept tends to answer on questions such as “who”, “where” , “how many”;
“how much”. However, “what” question can be included in situation if the research wants to have u
clue about the details of some specific topic or issue. Descriptive research is also well known as
archival research because of the use of archival records. ( Yin, 2003 ). The concept is useful and
crucial when the researcher achievement focuses on details and description of phenomena or when it
should show prediction about specific findings. Unlike exploratory approach which is based on
qualitative research, descriptive concept implies qualitative way of analysis using archival records,
questionnaire, secondary data, etc.(Saunders et. al., 2003).

Explanatory

Explanatory research is known as casual research and is conducted for answering the “how” and
“why” questions. A casual study is focused on finding casual relationships between variables. This
concept of approach uses qualitative way of research such as case studies, histories, experiments
aiming to describe relationships expressing the cause and effect of particular incident. Explanatory
research design allows using qualitative approach to answer on question “how” and “why” depends
on sources of relationship between cause and effect. In that way, operational links required
implication of secondary data, statistics. ( Yin, 2003; Saunders et. al. 2003).
According to Saunders et. al. (2003), exploratory research design is the most suitable and useful for
new studies giving the significant contribution for understanding of the findings of the main subject.
Therefore, this research is of an exploratory nature and the exploratory research was developed in
order to define the nature of risk management and explain and clarify the understanding of usage and
effectiveness of risk management in Society General Bank. The researcher of the presented issue
wanted to compare the findings with the theory expressed in literature review and was able to give the
suggestion and recommendation to the company or other companies in the same work filed and future
prospective through exploratory research design which is briefly

KEY FINDINGS

1. Understanding the nature and prevalence of cyberbullying

1.1 Prevalence and frequency
The research identified a significant number of young people affected by cyberbullying, as victims
and witnesses, and experienced mostly in a non-persistent manner. Although the persistency of
cyberbullying did not differ by age, prevalence levels did, with a greater number of older youths at
risk compared to younger youth.
 Cyberbullying affected 38% of young people either as victims or witnesses and was
experienced mostly at irregular intervals.
 There were no measurable differences when compared across regions in England -therefore
no regional differences.

1.2 Method of cyberbullying

The shape and path of cyberbullying was complex. The accessibility and the fashionable aspects of
device were contributing factors in the form of cyberbullying and multiplicity of devices used.
Abusive emails and harassing phone calls were equally the most popular, as was using one method.
Sources of under reporting and under recording were due to the subtle nature of cyberbullying (a
greater issue for younger youth), and general acceptance of some forms of bullying behaviour as just
banter. Older youth, as before, experienced
a greater exposure to all forms of cyberbullying, as well as its more multiple forms and aggressive
manner, particularly with the erection of hate websites.
 8

 ‘Abusive emails’ (26%) was the most prominent method of cyberbullying, followed
closely by ‘abusive texts’ (24%) and ‘prank and silent calls’ (19%).
 52% of young people were bullied with two or more forms of technology.
 Older youth experienced higher levels of cyberbullying across the more ‘creative’ and
aggressive categories e.g. hate websites and happy slapping.
 Younger youth experienced higher levels of cyberbullying across the traditional
modes e.g. abusive emails and texts.

2. Effective ways of strengthening response and prevention

2.1 Location and timing of cyberbullying

Young people’s attitudes highlighted the importance of a whole-school and multi-tiered approach.
The majority felt the home (referring to time spent away from the school rather than source of harm)
was the location of cyberbullying, although older youth were more at risk of its omnipresent nature
fearing exposure within the school and home. Schools were generally seen as effective vehicles for
change, due to the acquisition of skills and tips on self-protection and opportunities to participate in
anti-bullying initiatives. The home was uncovered as the location of a shortcoming of knowledge;
young people required parents to be more active and digitally competent and internet providers to
build support and information around parents to help them in this task.
 A total of 99% felt ‘safe and secure’ at school.
 94% felt the school was the most effective place for education and deterrence.
 50% of respondents felt cyberbullying persisted within the wider community
 The majority, 56% felt that it was experienced within the home and 15% whilst
travelling.
 8% more younger youth felt it occurred at home compared to older youth.

2.2 Response to being or seeing cyberbullying

There was huge scope for greater intervention, although this was inhibited by the reluctance and fear
of disclosing incidences - a total of 28% had not informed anyone of their experience. Of those who
did confide in someone, they chose to inform friends and family. This differed by age, with older
youth more inclined to inform friends and agencies such as police, internet providers and helplines,
whilst younger youth relied on parents and family surroundings.

 72%, talked to someone. Of those who sought direct assistance from familiar people;
‘friends’ (23%) were the most trusted, followed by ‘parents’ (22%) and ‘teachers’
(11%).
 Younger youth relied on parents followed by friends (27% and 23% respectively).
 Older youth relied on friends followed by parents (23% and 18% respectively).
 62% of young people knew how to save evidence, but only 47% saved evidence when
they were cyberbullied.

2. 3 Anticipated hopes and fears

There was an ambivalence of the effectiveness of current intervention with 54% of young people
satisfied, but 78% fearing levels would increase due to the evolving nature of technology. Their at-
risk status increased with high technology use, since 90% of young people used a mobile phone and
91% accessed the internet daily. Unsurprisingly, older youth had a higher prevalence of use across all
forms of technology and displayed higher levels of fear that it would increase (81% compared to 74%
for younger youth).
 9

APPROACH AND RESEARCH METHODS

Research aims and questions

For each of the two aims, the following research questions were devised:
1. Provide a nuanced understanding of the nature and prevalence of cyberbullying

 What can the research tell us about the experience of being cyberbullied, specifically
prevalence and different types of cyberbullying?
 Is there a difference in experience amongst a comparison of different ages?
2. Contribute to the body of knowledge and the discourse about effective ways of strengthening
response and prevention

 What can different attitudes, fears and reporting and recording patterns tell us about
how to respond to cyberbullying?
 What do young people and Diana Anti-Bullying Ambassadors view as policy and
practical responses across the statutory, voluntary and private sectors and their
communities?
Methodology

The study was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. Data collection focussed on three
principle tasks: a large-scale survey distributed to young people in two age ranges; the secondary
analysis of two sets of online questionnaires with Diana Anti-Bullying Ambassadors and teachers of
those schools; and four focus groups with young people. These methods are detailed below.
Youth steering group and working group
The research was about and by young people, 1512 in total, from each previous Government Office
Regions in England. A key feature was the use of participatory action research approaches to
incorporate the views of young people into the methodology, body of knowledge and outcomes.
Previous research which has used this technique
has found it achieved a better understanding amongst adults of young people’s worlds
(Kellett, 2005). This consisted of a youth research steering group of six young people aged 15 to 17
years as well as a wider working group of sixteen young people aged 15
to 21 years from charities such as Mencap, SCHOOLS OUT and the Young Anti-Bullying Alliance.
A smaller advisory panel of two young people also acted as critical friends
in the production of the final report. All received training from the Children Research Centre at the
Open University in research techniques. They helped to identify key areas for investigation,
complemented by desk-based research, worked on questionnaire design and ideas (piloted to 60
young people), created accessible resources for those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities,
helped recruit schools, and took part in a participatory analysis day of interim findings.
Survey of young people with age comparisons
It was important to survey a representative cross-section of young people to capture the various types
of cyberbullying. The main postal survey was conducted from September 2009 to January 2010, with
hard copies of questionnaires distributed to 45 schools on the Diana Award database, stratified into
the nine regions in England and by age; Year 8 and Year 10 pupils (aged 12 to 13 years and 14 to 15
years respectively). This was because the focus of analysis sought to ascertain whether there were
differences in experience between older and younger youth using proxy comparative measures. In
total, 1282 questionnaires were returned from 29 schools, and cleaned, entered and analysed using
SPSS. Of this, 56% of respondents were male and 44% female with equal responses from both age
groups. The schools were in a variety of locations from urban, rural and suburban areas to ensure
representation of different types of place and geography. Respondents replied in relatively equal
proportions from each region, grouped into the following:

 38% from the North (North East and North West)

 37% from the South (South East, South West and Greater London)
 26% from the middle England (East Midlands, West Midlands and East of England)
 10

Findings discussed and referenced in the report were only those where patterns of association between
the different age groups were statistically significant using Chi -Square tests of comparison.

Secondary analysis of two online surveys

In order to triangulate these experiences, findings were consolidated against the secondary analysis of
two online surveys distributed to young people aged between 12 to 16 years and teachers over the
period of three months from May 2011 to July 2011 as part of the Diana Anti-Bullying Ambassadors
Programme. In total, 177 online questionnaires were returned from young people in 121 schools, and
64 questionnaires from heads of years, learning mentors, teachers and Directors of Learning.
Focus groups
Surveys, theoretical frameworks and guides were designed in line with two desk-based reviews
conducted in August 2009 and July 2011 and subsequently analysed with the aid of four focus groups
in secondary schools in London. Thirty-one young people participated; 17 males and 14 females aged
between 12 to 16 years. Schools sampled were in a mixture of inner city and more sparsely populated
areas.
In this population-based study, we analysed data from a nationally representative cross-sectional study, What
About Youth, which enrolled a random sample of 298 080 school pupils drawn from 564 886 National Pupil
Database records of adolescents aged 15 years, living in England, with matching postcode and local authority
data, to complete self-report surveys between Sept 22, 2014, and Jan 9, 2015. Mental well-being, defined as life
satisfaction, fulfilling social relationships, purpose in life, and a subjective sense of flourishing, was assessed
using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and was compared between those adolescents who
reported traditional bullying (including physical, verbal, and relational bullying) or cyberbullying 2–3 times a
month or more compared with those adolescents who reported traditional bullying and cyberbullying once or
twice in the past couple of months or less. Traditional bullying was defined as repeated, intentional aggression
that is targeted at a person who cannot easily defend himself or herself; cyberbullying was additionally defined
as taking place in an electronic context (eg, e-mail, blogs, instant messages, text messages).

Findings

120 115 eligible adolescents completed questionnaires, of whom 110 788 adolescents completed measures of
bullying. 33 363 (adjusted: 30% total, 20 668 girls [36%], 12 695 [24%] boys) reported any form of regular
bullying in the past couple of months. 29 302 (27% total, 17 745 [31%] girls, 11 557 [24%] boys) reported
physical, verbal, and relational (ie, traditional) bullying only, while 406 (<1% total, 276 [<1%] girls, 130 [<1%]
boys,) reported only cyberbullying, and 3655 (3% total, 2647 [5%] girls, 1008 [2%] boys) reported both
traditional and cyberbullying. Both kinds of victimisation were related to poorer mental well-being (adjusted
analyses, traditional: b coefficient=–1·99 (SE 0·001); cyberbullying: b coefficient=–0·86 (0·06).
Cybervictimisation accounted for less than 0·1% of observed variability in mental well-being compared with
5·0% of variability accounted for by traditional victimisation.

Interpretation

Traditional bullying is considerably more common among adolescents in England than cyberbullying. While
both forms of bullying were associated with poorer mental well-being, cyberbullying accounted for a very small
share of variance after adjustment for offline bullying and other covariates.

Ethics

The research was conducted within a carefully considered ethical framework, guided by the MRS
code of conduct (MRS, 2006) and within Open University and the Diana Award’s safeguarding
procedures. Postal questionnaires were designed to be anonymous and sensitive to the language needs
and feelings, to avoid distressing respondents when
 11

the environment of its completion could not be controlled. Given the nature of the study, each
questionnaire included details of charities and helplines for those seeking further information and
support. For all youth participants and gatekeepers, informed consent was gained through the
provision of an information sheet clarifying the nature and intentions. Great care was taken to
coordinate schedules with the steering and working groups, who were not obliged to maintain
continual commitment, despite doing so. All young people were also reminded of adherence to
confidentiality protocol and sensitive data handling and management.

PART 3: FINDINGS

In part three, the findings from the study are set out in correspondence with each research aim under
the following headings: the prevalence and frequency of cyberbullying; the method of cyberbullying;
location and timing of cyberbullying; responses to being or seeing cyberbullying; and anticipated
hopes and fears.
1. TO PROVIDE A NUANCED UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE AND PREVALENCE
OF CYBERBULLYING
The first part details the broad experience of victims, which asserts that age differences have a bearing
on the scale and type of ‘real’ experiences.
1.1 PREVALENCE AND FREQUENCY OF CYBERBULLYING
Figure 1. 38% of young people were exposed to cyberbullying as victims or as witnesses (n=1282)

YOUNG PEOPLE AFFECTED BY CYBERBULLYING (%)

Yes , OLDER YOUTH
40 60
NO
YOUNGER 35 YOUTH 65

38 TOTAL 62

Young people showed high levels of exposure to cyberbullying, with 38% of respondents who were
or knew of someone cyberbullied within their age group, exceeding the findings of other studies
which placed victimisation rates between 16% (Smith et al, 2008) and 30% (Cross et al, 2009).
Measuring the exposure, as opposed to victimisation rate alone, captured behaviour undermining
aspects of wellbeing embedded in their environment such as; pressures, circumstances, networks; self-
perceptions and quality of relations with peers. Indeed, there were no measurable differences between
regional areas when compared against regional lines, which indicated the universal nature of the
problem across the country. Age comparisons in contrast, identified a difference; with older youth 5%
more at risk of exposure compared to younger youth (Figure 1). This was explained by greater
feelings of emboldened technological use and levels of independence that came with age, which led to
a subsequent lack of monitoring and perceived licence to cyberbully

figure 2: Most young people, 39% experienced cyberbullying once or twice (n=426)
FREQUENCY OF CYBERBULLYING EXPERIENCED BY YOUNG PEOPLE (%)

DON’T KNOW 24

ALWAYS 5
 12

OFTEN 16

SOMETIMES 17

ONCE OR TWICE 39

Given the scale of incidence, cyberbullying was a more transient and threatening facet of
contemporary bullying practice in the sporadic and unpredictable nature of its deployment.
Individuals experienced it over a short lifespan and infrequently - 39% mainly ‘once or twice’
compared to 5% experienced constantly (Figure 2). Age differences were not statistically significant
indicating the extent to which this low frequency
was a universal feature. Previous research, such as Hinduja and Patchin (2009), cited cyberbullying as
a pattern of ongoing behaviour. Its inconsistence and unpredictability in this study highlighted an
alternative view of persistency which continued to have detrimental effects on wellbeing, significant
enough to be noted by respondents.
Although not exhaustive, varying explanations were provided. Some respondents reflected on possible
under-estimation from young people who found it difficult to come to terms with or quantify their
predicament. There were also overinflated expectations as a result of the well documented sharper end
of experiences in the media, skewing people’s judgement of its frequency. Reports of low persistence
also reflected the positive outcomes of direct and indirect intervention which stunted the growth and
escalation of incidence, but not its existence:

I think it gets solved more quickly ‘cos schools have more

information about it and there’s more things [to receive advice from]
on the internet I think.’’

1.2 THE METHOD OF CYBERBULLYING

Figure 3: The most experienced mode of cyberbullying was abusive emails, 26% of those
cyberbullied (n=426)

FORMS OF CYBERBULLYING EXPERIENCED BY YOUNG PEOPLE (%)

Abusive emails older 25 22 20 14 10 9

youths
Abusive texts
Prank and silent calls
Sharing images and younger 28 27 17 7
14 7
youths
information without consent
Happy slapping
Setting up a hate website total 26 24 19 14 9 8
Unsurprisingly, the most accessible forms of
technology became the most used methods of bullying. ‘Abusive emails’ (26%) were the most
popular, followed closely by ‘abusive texts’ (24%) and ‘prank and silent calls’ (19%) (Figure 3).
Indeed, there was evidence that the ease of execution contributed to the method of bullying in the low
incidence of erecting
 13

‘hate websites’, named the most labour intense method. Participants attributed this to the specific
technical skills-set, creative thought processes and condition of holding high degrees of malicious
intent required to establish and maintain sites. Fortunately, the barriers of time, knowledge and effort,
in this case, inhibited the growth of more deviant behaviour.
When disaggregating by multiplicity, a complex picture was depicted. On one hand, this convenience
did not translate to the instant deployment of numerous methods since respondents were bullied using
one method (48%). On the other hand, a total of 52% of young people were bullied with numerous
tools (25% through two methods and 27% using three or more), indicating aspects of its ubiquitous
nature as it encroached into different forms of communication. The closeness between the two
statistics may have captured a transitory snapshot in which online bullying and mobile harassment
were deployed simultaneously and interchangeably. The impact of this change was evident in the
comparison of ranking in other studies which positioned mobile phone bullying above online bullying
(NCH, 2005; Cross et al, 2009). An explanation for this, arguably, was the mainstream use of smart
phones since the early twenty-first century which reduced the distance and logistical barriers in
executing one form above another. Providers, regulators, and researchers who have tended to
disaggregate forms and lines of responsibility may need to reconsider the extent to which such a
distinction can be made.
Comparing risk status, older youth experienced higher levels of cyberbullying, 3%
more, across the more ‘creative’ and aggressive categories and also more numerous mediums, with
the largest difference in ‘happy slapping’. In comparison, 5% more younger youth experienced higher
incidences of ‘conventional’ forms, particularly abusive text messages. A common theme in previous
research was that age undeniably contributed to differences of increased proficiency and
sophistication of knowledge that increased with age (Kowalksi and Limber, 2007). It did, to a degree,
in the more creative categories, but traditional forms of cyberbullying persisted at high levels amongst
younger youth
(Figure 3).

The variety in the mode of cyberbullying, subtlety with which it was deployed, and exclusion of the
victim from the process, made it more difficult to self-identify as a victim. Finding parallels to
research by Abrams et al’s (2010), young people’s subjective interpretations uncovered cyberbullying
as discrete, particularly in the sharing of images and information. This removed their control and
ownership of personal and often embarrassing pieces of information. To exacerbate this, its public and
viral method, often without the knowledge of the victim, increased feelings of humiliation and
paralysis to prevention. With more exclusionary practices, such ‘stalking’ via Facebook and removal
from online discussions and social network friend membership, awareness of their targeting was often
ignored or accepted as part of their evolving social life. In the case of ‘happy slapping’, where images
or videos of being taunted were shared between peers in larger viral spheres, it was not only
trivialised, but legitimised and accepted as an extension of banter between friends. Although it was
difficult to ascertain which cases of cyberbullying were ‘real’, the accumulation of these qualities
delayed the labelling of something that had the potential to escalate into something more vicious:

[Happy slapping] is just mates fooling around....it all depends on what they record and how you are
with your friends. It’s not all bullying . . . it’s funny.’

The type of experience and subsequent understanding of victimisation differed with age. Younger
youth described receiving a range of actions that were detrimental to their transition into secondary
school, such as having rumours spread and photos shared without their consent. More aggressive
behaviour was shown towards older youth who faced the exchange of sexually provocative and
explicit images of themselves or other people, death threats and computer viruses from their peers:

‘[Cyberbullying] is without saying it to their face but targeting someone and sending you pictures and
messages of rude people doing rude things - mentally or sexually.’

1. Nature and prevalence of cyberbullying: summary Cyberbullying affected a high proportion of

young people (nearly 40%) either as victims, witnesses or with knowledge of peers as victims,
 14

and experienced mostly in non-persistent manner. The shape and

path of cyberbullying was complex. The accessibility and the fashionable aspects of device were
contributing factors in the form of cyberbullying and multiplicity
of devices used. Abusive emails and harassing phone calls were equally the most popular. Sources of
under reporting and under recording were due to the discreteness of cyberbullying (a greater issue for
younger youth), and general ambiguity between young people’s perception of acceptable behaviour.
Prevalence rather than frequency varied by age, indicating the universal characteristic of being
experienced in an infrequent manner, but overall risk status increased with age, particularly with
multiplicity of device.

2. TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND DISCOURSE ABOUT

EFFECTIVE WAYS OF STRENGTHENING RESPONSE AND PREVENTION

The second part draws on young people’s attitudes, knowledge and interpretation of the levels and
styles of effective and targeted intervention. By doing so, it is intended to help embed young people’s
opinions in future responses and actions.

2.1 LOCATION AND TIMING OF CYBERBULLYING

Figure 4. Half of young people felt that cyberbullying occurred outside of the school rather than inside
(n=1222)

When you walk to summer school, even with mates they do it. You can’t see them, and you can’t get
away from it.’

EXPECTED LOCATION OF CYBERBULLYING VICTIMISATION (%)

Outside the school older youths 48 46 6

Outside and inside the school
Inside the school younger youths 53 44 3

Total 50 45 5

Positive attitudes towards schools were self-evident. A total of 99% from the online survey felt ‘safe
and secure’ at school, 94% felt it was the most effective place for education and deterrence and 90%
wanted schools to have more powers to maintain success and discipline. Indeed, the extent to which
this was the case came from 50% of respondents from the postal survey who felt cyberbullying
persisted within the wider community
(Figure 4). Schools offered diverse sanctions that acted against the impunity of bullies, provided
avenues for reconciliation through rehabilitative and restorative justice processes and supported
education and preventative initiatives. Respondents found the latter important since many reported
high levels of self-efficacy and felt the onus was on themselves, as responsible and informed
consumers, to minimise exposure to harm. At its simplest, this began with being more receptive to
and applying safety tips such as ensuring the identify and familiarity of friends, being more cautious
of whom they added as contacts, and restricting personal details they made public on social
networking sites. More widely, although not exclusively, student-led initiatives such as peer
mentoring networks and the Diana Anti-Bullying Ambassador programme, allowed young people
to offer relevant styles of support and opportunities to feed into formal problem-solving discussions in
democratic processes. It was the fragmented growth and questions
of sustainability of initiatives which inhibited opportunities for horizontal transfer of learning between
peers and their younger successors.
 15

Figure 5: Just over half of respondents, 56% felt that cyberbullying was experienced whilst at
4
home (n=1282)
‘Outside of school, there are a lot of people who become unsafe.’

EXPECTED MOMENT IN TIME THAT CYBERBULLYING HAPPENS (%)

At home older youths
Whilst travelling 52 15 14 12 7
Lunch break younger youths 60 16 12 9 3
Break time
During the lesson
Total 56 15 11
13 5

Reflecting on its ubiquitous nature and narrowing the timing of cyberbullying, periods away from
school became the primary location of concern. A little over half of respondents, 56%, felt
cyberbullying was experienced within ‘the home’, and 15% ‘whilst travelling’, even in the company
of other peers and friends (Figure 5). The higher prediction of
home victimisation and concerns of its slow resolution were compounded by the gap in knowledge of
technology between parents and their children, which limited the quality and range of information
imparted to young people. Some described the need to strike a balance between parents providing
freedom of use, applying conditions of use and being taught on the responsibility of usage, without
creating a form of censorship. Through proactive knowledge gathering on safety (prior purchasing
devices or the internet), and inclusion in wider conversations with local authorities and internet
providers, parents could become more involved in protecting and monitoring their children’s activity
both directly and indirectly.
Age comparisons, however, indicated the difficulty in apportioning responsibility to either the school
or home since older youth, 46%, were less confident in the refuge of the school (Figure 4). The
increased independence young people sought with age, resistance to internet controls and ease at
which they could bypass age restrictions on social networking sites made the design of programmes
problematic. Although the study did not focus on the perspective of the aggressor, young people’s
technical prowess and persistence to engage in rule-breaking behaviour, in all spheres of life, were
aided by certain qualities that came with age. Bestowing responsibility on any actors of change,
therefore, needed to reflect this dilemma:

‘When you are older, you bring and use your phone in class anyway. You can’t go on websites
[within schools] as they ban it, but we just use our phones’, ‘I didn’t before, but now most of us have
smart phones.’

2.2 RESPONSE TO BEING OR SEEING CYBERBULLYING

Figure 6: 67% of young people confided in either their friend or parent (n=474)

WHO YOUNG PEOPLE TURNED TO IF THEY EXPERIENCED CYBERBULLYING (%)

Friends older youths Parent
Never shown anyone 23 18 18 10 10 6 5 6
Never told anyone
Teacher
Police
Peer mentor
Social network company
Mobile phone provider

The previous findings located the space for intervention and implications for its members. In this
section, the reporting and recording patterns clarified the role for specific agents and actions for
change. Reassuringly most young people, 72%, talked to someone
 16

either face-to-face or through a digital interface. Of those who sought direct assistance from familiar
people; ‘friends’ (23%) were the most trusted, followed by ‘parents’ (22%) and ‘teachers’ (11%),
implying that cyber safety messages were reaching young people
(Figure 6). Certain types of relations were more important for different age groups with younger
youth dependent on the guidance of parents, 9% higher compared to their older counterparts. This
reliance only became problematic when concerns were raised of
the degree to which parents were fully equipped to protect or intervene. In comparison, older youth
were dependent on their knowledge and search techniques rather than the guidance of an adult. They
confided in friends and utilised a complex set of resources beyond their immediate circle such as
charities, network providers and the police:

I guess if you are younger, you don’t think you know it all. They [older youth] think they can sort it
out themselves.

it was unclear if this independence was related to the severity of the incident or behavioural patterns
among the older age group since they also had a greater knowledge of saving evidence, 3% more
compared to younger youth. This intuition confirms research which found families were more
important to younger children’s wellbeing and peer relationships were more valued by older youth
(UNICEF, 2007).
Despite these positive patterns, there were general obstacles in the degree of openness about
victimisation, since 28% of all respondents had not made the incident public - consisting of 17% who
had ‘never shown anyone’ and 11% who had ‘never told anyone’
(Figure 6). Low response rates were not symptomatic of shortfalls in knowledge since a large number
knew how to save evidence; 62%, but only 47% actually saved evidence
(Figure 7). Despite continual reluctance to be forthcoming, there was an even greater mental barrier to
provide proof of the bullying. This prevented evidence gathering against an aggressor which was
required to pursue the discipline of serious cases.

I don’t know [if approaches are effective], actions have been taken, but cyberbullying still happens.

Figure 7: 53% of respondents did not save evidence of the cyberbullying (n=437)

PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO SAVED EVIDENCE OF THE CYBERBULLYING

(%)

Saved evidence older youth 52

48
Did not save evidence

Younger youth 45 55

Total 47 53

2. 3 ANTICIPATED HOPES AND FEARS

Figure 8. 54% of respondents agreed that current initiatives and approaches were enough in tackling
cyberbullying (n=1117)
YOUNG PEOPLE’S OPINIONS OF WHETHER CURRENT APPROACHES ARE EFFECTIVE
(%)
 17

Strongly agree older youth

10 39 41 11
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

younger youth 10 50 31 9

Total 10 44 36 10

The relatively low non-response rates and high disclosure rates were, however, not indicative of
overwhelming satisfaction with the effectiveness of current support. Indeed, there was a general split
of opinion of whether current initiatives were enough in targeting their needs, prevention, protection
and empowerment, with only 54% who
‘agreed’ and ‘strongly agreed’ compared to 46% who ‘disagreed’ and ‘strongly disagreed’
(Figure 8). Ambiguity existed for two reasons. Firstly, attempts to be self-directed were not free of
barriers, particularly with social networking sites cited as one of the greatest sources of inadequacy in
self-protection. There was ineffective signposting of safety features, limitations in existing ones,
logistical difficulties in reporting directly, and few deterrent features which were also void of obvious
sanctions. Thus, although young people did utilise an extensive support network, the few that did, did
so with difficulty. Secondly, there were reasonable doubts that existing approaches were targeting the
changing forms of cyberbullying since 78% of young people felt it was increasing compared to 7%
who thought it was decreasing (Figure 9). The age comparison gave additional insights with older
youth who had a more pessimistic outlook that it would increase (81% compared to 74% of younger
youth). Cyberbullying itself was not described as a large threat but there were pessimistic tones that it
could not be prevented due to its ability to evolve with newer forms of technology. This made it a
longstanding issue, knowledge that the older age group felt they were privy to:

Companies like Google and Orange look like they are doing something about it, but there are newer
ways to bully . . . you must see what the latest technology is.

Figure 9. 78% of respondents feared that cyberbullying rates would increase (n=1161)

Online bullies are by strangers. I don’t know who it is. You can’t solve the problem.

YOUNG PEOPLE’S OPINIONS ON WHETHER CYBERBULLYING IS INCREASING,

DECREASING OR STAYING THE SAME (%)

Increasing older youth 81 13 6

Staying the same
Decreasing younger youth 74 18 7
Total 78 16 7
The extent to which this warranted further attention was in the popularity and common use of
technology which uncovered the strength of young people’s online and technological presence. Daily,
90% of young people used a mobile phone and 91% accessed the internet outside of school hours,
mainly using messaging services (76%), followed by emails (75%) and social networking sites (73%)
(Figure 10). When examining the patterns between different ages, there were identical tastes and
preferences but higher usage of existing high levels by older youth compared to younger youth. Policy
makers and practitioners have a difficult task of working alongside these uneasy and sometimes
unhealthy tensions, particularly when some respondents would compromise their safety to maintain
communication:
 18

I wouldn’t go to the police [if cyberbullied] as they are gonna tell you to deactivate your account. But
what if you don’t want to?

Figure 10. Most young people, 91% of respondents, used the internet outside of school hours
(n=1282)

RANGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE’S TECHNOLOGY USE ON A DAILY BASIS (%)

N.B. Could answer more than one category

Older youth SOCIAL

83%
NETWORKING SITES
64%
Younger youth
73%
Total

EMAIL 81%
69%
75%

INSTANT MESSENGER 82%

70%
76%

85%
INTERNET INSIDE OF SCHOOL
73%

79%

MOBILE PHONE 91%

90%
90%

INTERNET OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL 93%

89%
2. Effective ways of strengthening response and prevention: summary 91%Young people’s attitudes
highlighted the importance of a whole-school and multi-tiered approach. The majority felt the home
(referring to time spent away from the school rather than source of harm) was the location of
cyberbullying, although older youth were more at risk of its omnipresent nature since they feared
higher rates within both the home and school. Schools were generally effective vehicles for change,
due to the acquisition of skills and tips on self-protection and opportunities to participate in wider
learning. The home was revealed as a location of a shortcoming of knowledge, requiring parents to be
active and digitally savvy consumers, and internet providers to build support and information around
parents. Close familial and peer networks were heavily relied upon, setting precedence
to tangentially supporting these groups as well as young people. This differed by age, with older
youth more inclined to use independent routes such as friends and formal agencies, with younger
youth relying on parents and family surroundings.
There was an ambivalence of the effectiveness of current intervention with 54% of young people
satisfied, but 78% fearing cyberbullying would increase
 19

due to the evolving nature of technology burgeoning into the daily lives of each young person. There
was huge scope for greater intervention, although this was inhibited by the reluctance and fear of
disclosing incidences and tension between seeking protection and maintaining freedom of use.

Data collection Method

One of the most important elements in research project is data collection method. This method means
good preparation and organization of collecting data in order to researcher not have a problem to face
too much information collected, which can become a major obstacle rather than help in the project
researched. Very often, there is much information available that can be a barrier to sort and evaluate
real and important information and to assess their usefulness It is necessary to understand different
approaches and methods for collecting data and that have great importance in preparing research and
organizing data collection in a systematic way. ( Lancaster, 2005 )
According to Saunders et. al. ( 2003 ), there are various forms of information which can be
distinguished in two main group as secondary data and primary data.

Secondary data

Lancaster states (2005) that the secondary data are” second hand ” data which already are presented
and collected by other researchers for the purpose of previous researches and giving hypothesis on
other issues. It summarized raw data and published data including internal records and external
records within the organization. Those secondary data can provide wide range of sales and marketing
data, production data, financial data, personnel, transcripts of speeches, administrative and public
record data followed by external record such as newspapers articles, journals, internet, official
statistics, etc.
Secondary data have qualitative and quantitative nature and its utilization is visible in both descriptive
and explanatory research.
According to Saunders et. al. ( 2003 ), the advantages of secondary data leads to saving both money
and time, having fewer resource requirements for specific issue, creating easier way for longitudinal
studies, providing comparative and contextual data and may result in unforeseen discoveries of
particular subject. On the other hand, disadvantages can be expressed through some of negative
aspects of its collection. Sometimes its purpose does not match the goal of researcher and its access
may be costly for commercial reasons. Thus, those data can lead to unsuitable definition for the
required subject affecting the quality of data presented.

What are the theoretical, ethical and practical factors which influence a sociologist’s choice of
research method?
1. Theoretical factors: Positivists prefer quantitative research methods and are generally more
concerned with reliability and representativeness. Interpretivists prefer qualitative research methods
and are prepared to sacrifice reliability and representativeness to gain deeper insight which should
provide higher validity.
2. Practical factors: include such things as the amount of time the research will take, how much it
will cost, whether you can achieve funding, opportunities for research including ease of access to
respondents, and the personal skills and characteristics of the researcher.
3. Ethical factors: thinking about how the research impacts on those involved with the research
process. Ethical research should gain informed consent, ensure confidentiality, be legal and ensure
that respondents and those related to them are not subjected to harm. All this needs to be weighed up
with the benefits of the research.
4. A fourth factor is the Nature of the Topic to be studied. Some topics lend themselves to certain
methods and preclude others.
Remember this by using the most handy and memorable mnemonic: TPEN
 20

1. Theoretical Factors Affecting the Choice of Research Method

Theoretical Factors include Positivism and Interpretivism, Validity, Reliability and
Representativeness
Positivist and Interpretivist approaches to research are dealt with in this post: Positivism and
Interpretivism: A Very Brief Overview, and a more detailed post on the Positivist approach to social
research can be found in here: Positivism, Sociology and Social Research.
The three terms Validity, Reliability and Representativeness are fundamental to evaluating the
usefulness of research methods. They should appear in any essay you do on any research methods,
without exception!
Validity – Research is valid if it provides a true picture of what is really ‘out there’ in world.
Generally speaking, the more in depth the research, the fuller picture we get of the thoughts and
feelings of the individuals acting, so the more valid the data and then more the researcher stands back
and allows the respondents to ‘speak for themselves’ the more valid the data. In more quantitative
research, such as social surveys, validity may be lacking because the researcher has decided on what
questions should be answered by respondents, rather than letting the respondents decide on what they
want to say for themselves.
Reliability – If research is reliable, it means if someone else repeats the same research with the same
population then they should achieve the same results. In order to be reliable, research needs to be
easily repeatable. Self-Completion questionnaires have high reliability because it is easy for another
researcher to administer the questionnaire again. More in depth methods such as participant
observation, where the researcher can spend several months or even years with a small group of
respondents are not very reliable as it is impossible to replicate the exact procedures of the original
research. More qualitative methods also open the possibility for the researcher to get more involved
with the research process, probing respondents for very detailed information.

Representativeness – Research is representative if the research sample reflects the characteristics of

the wider population that is being studied. Whether a sample is representative thus depends on who is
being studied. If one’s research aim is to look at the experiences of all white male AS Sociology
students studying sociology, then one’s sample should consist of all white, male sociology students. If
one wishes to study sociology students in general, one will need to have a proportionate number of
 21

AS/ A2 students as well as a range of genders and ethnicities in order to reflect the wider student
body.

2. Practical Factors and Research Methods

All Social Research must take place within the practical constraints of the real world. Social
researchers need to plan, collect, analyse and publish their data with limited budgets; they need to
secure funding from somewhere willing to fund their research; they need to publish their research
within a realistic time frame, otherwise, the data they collect may be worthless because it is so out of
date; they also need to manage their own lives at the same time, and a final constraint on choice of
research methods is the choice of topic itself!

Five practical constraints on social research

Time – As a general rule, the more in-depth the method the more time consuming it is. Also, doing
your own primary research tends to take longer than using secondary sources.

Money – As a general rule, the more in-depth the method the more money it costs. Also, doing your
own primary research tends to be more expensive than using secondary sources.

Funding – There are numerous organisations that fund sociological research including charities and
businesses, but the largest by far is the government. In the past the government has been far more
likely to fund quantitative research than qualitative. Can you suggest why this might be the case? The
government is also more likely to fund research that fits in with its present aims. What kind of
research topics would be more likely to get funding in contemporary Britain?

Opportunity and Access to Respondents – Some research topics and some kinds of respondents are
more difficult to gain access to. It will probably be more difficult to gain access to research pupils in
schools compared to teachers for example, and some people may be less willing to engage with
research than others – those engaged in deviant or illegal activity might not want to be researched
because what they are doing is not socially acceptable.

Personal Situation, Characteristics and Skills of the researcher – Family and work commitments
may prevent researchers from doing long term field work such as participant observation, and not
everyone has the emotional intelligence or resilience required to engage in long-term empathetic field
work. Some research topics might also be better suited to researchers with certain personal
characteristics – girls in education might respond more openly to female researchers for example.

3. Ethical Factors and Social Research

Ethical behaviour helps protect individuals and communities and offers the potential to improve the
quality of life of individuals within society. Much social research is designed to tackle social
problems such as social exclusion, and so sets out to collect knowledge in order to make the world a
‘better place’. Understanding the causes of poverty, for example, can help us to reduce poverty, and
understanding how people come to be involved in crime can help us to figure out how to prevent this
from happening.
However, the actual process of doing research involves interfering with people’s lives and so could
potentially be harmful to those involved, and in order minimise harm, most research follows ethical
guidelines laid down by The British Sociological Association. There are five ethical criteria which
should inform sociological research.
Respondents should be able to give informed consent
Information which the respondents give should be kept confidential (if they ask for it to be kept
confidential)
Research should not involve law breaking behaviour
Research should not involve harming the respondents or anyone else involved in the research process
Research should, ultimately, aim to do better than harm for society.

Respondents should give informed consent

 22

Respondents should be able to give informed consent to take part in the research process. In order to
do this, they should know that research is taking place, what the purpose of the research is and what
the researcher intends to do with the results.
Informed consent can be difficult with young children, because they may not have the capacity to
fully understand the purposes of the research. Informed consent can also be a problem because
respondents might influence the results if they know the purpose of the research, and some
experiments have deliberately misled respondents in order to ensure results are valid – Field
experiments where actors act in a deviant way (vandalising property for example) in order to measure
public responses are an example of this.
Informed consent is also not possible covert research – both in covert participant observation and in
covert non-participant observation.

Respondents’ information should be kept confidential.

It is often important for some aspects of research to remain confidential, especially when it could
harm the respondents or an institution if others became aware of their responses. For example, a
teacher might have their career affected if a senior manager became aware of any negative comments
she may have made, or accounts of disruptive behaviour of pupils were made public. For these
reasons, researchers often must guarantee anonymity and they often change the names of respondents
and institutions when writing up results.
However, where case-studies are concerned and there is a lot of in-depth information being published
about just a handful of people, confidentiality is less likely as the chances of being able to guess who
said what might be high. Anonymity also compromises reliability, as it makes it more difficult for
other researchers to verify the results from respondents.
Some sociologists have taken the issue of confidentiality to extremes. While undertaking research on
a prisoner In the USA Keith Tunnel (1998) discovered that the prisoner had taken on the identity of
someone else in order to avoid a much larger prison sentence. The prison authorities became
suspicious and investigated the prisoner’s background. Thought Tunnel knew the truth, he felt he
owed the prisoner confidentiality and deliberately lied, stating that he knew nothing about the
‘identity theft’. As a result, the prisoner was released many years early.

Research should avoid harming respondents

Research can often influence the people being studied, and researchers need to think of this impact
before they begin their research. When researching victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, or
bullying in schools, this could bring up painful memories which could result in trauma in the
respondents, and, if the abusers find out that respondents have spoken up to researchers this could
result in further victimisation. Within the context of education, even researching something such as
reasons for educational underachievement need to be treated sensitively, as people who have a history
of failing in school probably won’t be happy about being reminded of it.
Research should not involve law breaking behaviour

Research should also take place within the boundaries of legality. This is only really an issue when
researching criminal and deviant behaviour using participatory methods where researchers may have
to take drugs to fit in with the group, or witness or even commit crimes in order not to blow their
cover. A classic case of where this happened was with Sudhir Venkatesh’ study Gang Leader for a
Day where he participated in beating up a member of the gang he was studying as a form of
punishment.

The social impact of research: research should, ultimately, aim to do more harm than good.
 23

As mentioned earlier, much research aims to make society a better place, and choice of research topic
is sometimes based on this ethical decision to generate knowledge in order to improve society. The
problem is that there are many competing (subjective) ideas about the kind of topics, the kind of data
(quantitative or qualitative) and the kind of research process which are the best suited to improving
society.
Positivists would argue that quantitative research which collects ‘objective’ and generalisable data
about the causes of social problems such as crime, unemployment, educational underachievement is
the best suited to improving society because governments can use this data to enact large scale social
changes.
Marxists and Feminists would not necessarily agree, however, because people in power would not
necessarily fund the type of research that could harm them and would not act on any research which
was done but was harmful to their interests. If research found that high levels of inequality is what
causes educational underachievement among the lower classes, they would not expect those in power
to adopt social policies to reduce inequality because that would mean the rich and powerful becoming
poorer. For this reason, some Marxist and Feminist researchers engage in smaller scale research and
focused on highlighting social injustices in order to galvanise people into political action and make
more radical changes. Some Marxist inspired sociologists have focused on issues such as Corporate
Crime for example to highlight the extent to which this often hidden crime harms society, while a
major focus of Feminist research has been to do with issues such as Domestic Violence and the
persistence of sexist attitudes in social media.
Feminists and Interactionist researchers also believe the most ethical research is qualitative in nature –
where the researcher co-creates the data on an equal basis with the respondents – using methods such
as the unstructured interview – such methods are seen as ethical because they empower the
respondents, allowing them to speak for themselves, which is especially useful when researching the
powerless, or the voiceless, the kinds of people who are invisible (victims of domestic violence for
example) or who are typically talked about in a negative way by people in power (criminals for
example).

4. The nature of the topic to be studied

The methods chosen will vary with the topic being studied. If one wishes to find out more about
criminal gangs, for example, these will not respond well to survey based research and other methods
of study will need to be used. Similarly, if one wishes to do research on sensitive issues such as
domestic violence, a closed question questionnaire may be a little ‘cold’ for such emotive issues.
Other topics lend themselves very naturally to survey-based research, such as voting intentions in the
run up to an election, or market research to glean people’s feelings about new products.
The nature of the topic will also influence the way in which the research is administered. The British
Crime Survey asks about people’s experiences as victims of crimes, and so lends itself to a structured
interview, given the sensitive nature of the topic and the possible need for clarification of the
definitions of certain crimes.

Research Approaches and Methodology

Research Approach

According to Feather (2016), a research approach is simply a procedure employed in gathering data,
and in making analysis of the collected data. There are two common types of research approaches:
inductive vs deductive. Inductive approach entails utilisation of specific observations in order to
establish and affirm general theories and statements. On the other hand, deductive approach involves
making conclusions on the general statements or observations made be respondents. This means that
the latter is chiefly related with quantitative data while the former is majorly concerned on qualitative
 24

approach. The current study will make use of inductive research approach, because it will majorly rely
on qualitative data. This approach is deemed to be suitable owing to its potential to obtain the required
information from a readily available and wide source. Since the problem under investigation is wide
scale, this is presumed to be the most effective means of gathering data from different levels.

Primary vs. Secondary data

Two forms of data suffice: secondary vs primary. Secondary data is a form of data from already
published sources such as journals, scientific databases, books, articles among others. On the other
hand, primary data is a kind of data which is obtained from first-hand observations. The collection of
this type of data can be done through questionnaires, experiments, and interviews. Accordingly, the
current study will use both primary and secondary data to gain data and information in relation to the
research objective. The reason for settling on this approach is because they are cost effective while
also making it easier to collect the needed information from desktop research and in a timelier manner
(Dipak, 2013).

Research Methods

According to Bengtsson (2016), a research method can either be qualitative or quantitative.

Quantitative research methods are one that employs numerical quantitative data in deducing
inferences. The data obtained is then compared with existing findings after which analysis is made on
the inferences. On the other hand, qualitative research methods are those that uses non-numerical data
and are mostly exploratory in nature. This method is mostly preferred to gain a better comprehension
regarding opinions, motivations and reasons. It is also employed in highlighting trends in thoughts,
opinions and more insights on the study phenomena (Bengtsson, 2016). Accordingly, the research will
deploy the use of qualitative research which is better applied with secondary research owing to its
relevance in answering the research questions. In using this approach, the researcher aims to benefit
from the advantages including its ability to gain wider insights regarding the measures to curb cyber
bullying and its effects.

Data Analysis

Data obtained from secondary sources will be analysed using content analysis. According to Bulmer
(2017), content analysis is the best approach in analysing secondary and qualitative data. The
approach works by comparing information and data from one source to another in terms of differences
and similarities. The meaning, implication of the data will then be deduced after which generalisation
will be made. The interpretation of the information will then be made based on the research
objectives.
On the other hand, data obtained from primary sources, who includes parents and internet users will
be collected using survey monkey. Survey Monkey is an online survey platform that facilitates
posting and collection of data from willing respondents.

Ethical Issues

As postulated by Neuman (2016), any researcher needs to observe ethical guidelines when collecting
data from whatever approaches. This is critical in ensuring that the outcome remains credible, valid
and reliable. Since this research is secondary in nature, the researcher will make sure that all the
information is properly cited and that all sources are properly credited. Furthermore, the researcher
will ensure that the information used and analysed is relevant to the objective as well as ensuring that
the evidence used is the latest. On the other hand, participants in the primary data collection will be
guaranteed on confidentiality issues while they will be accorded their right to participate or refuse to
participate. Furthermore, participants will be informed on the role of the research alongside the
implications.

P4) Apply appropriate analytical tools, analyse research findings and data. 
 25

 
In analysing the findings in this study and data, they will be presented in a tabular form, and the
administered questionnaires will be compared against each other. The researcher will analyse the
answers that have been given by the participants to make conclusions. Presenting the findings of the
data in a tabular form will make it easier for the researcher to analyse the existing information. In this
research, one of the findings is that cyberbullying causes depression to the victims as well as other
social health and mental problems in those who have been bullied (Bottino et al. 463) and Bottino, et
al., 464). The increasing use of social media is one of the key indicators of increased cyberbullying
(Baldry, Anna Costanza, Anna,1) and (Sorrentino, and David, 6) Also, the lack of appropriate law
implementation in countries makes it difficult to control cyber operations and to cyberbullying in
general. Data is being accessed and ethically by hackers who Post unauthorized information all the
pages of the victims. 

L03) Communicate the outcomes of a research project to identified stakeholders

In presenting this research, the outcomes will be presented to the identified stakeholders who are the
past victims of cyberbullying. The outcomes include methods of preventing and avoiding
cyberbullying, such as regularly changing the password for Facebook and other social media accounts
(Kowalski et al., 417). This will reduce the possibility of the internet frauds to access the profile
information without the authorization of the user (Palermiti et al., 136). Other stakeholders are who
have programs that need to upgrade the security of the social media accounts so that the measures are
safe other information not accessed easily (Watts et al. 268). 

P5) Communicate research outcomes in an appropriate manner for the intended audience.

The intended audiences of these outcomes include the users of the internet who must take
precautionary measures when using social media accounts so that they do not form the victims of
cyberbullying. It is important for the vulnerable population to be educated on a precautionary measure
that can be used to avoid cyberbullying. These are the intended audience for this research.
 
L04) Reflect on the application of research methodologies and concepts 

The application of research methodologies and concepts in this research include the use of qualitative
data to explore first-hand information of the data from the victims of cyberbullying. This data is the
most appropriate research methodology to get the concept that affects several people on the internet. It
is important to make conclusions based on individual experiences in combination with the past
literature that had been used on the same topic. 

P6) Reflect on the effectiveness of research methods applied for meeting objectives of the
business research project.
Objectives of the research 
The main objectives of this research include the analysis concerning issues of cyberbullying. It will
also analyse some of the best strategies that can be used to prevent cyberbullying. The effectiveness of
this research is reflected in the following adjectives. 
• To analyse the major reasons for the increasing concern of cyberbullying 
• To analyse and explore some of the best strategies to guard against cyberbullying or to eliminate the
effect of cyberbullying 
• To show the existing laws that affect computer users from being cyber-bullied 
• To explore the opinions of the victims of cyberbullying to understand the basis of survival
cyberbullying effect and depression. 

P7) Consider alternative research methodologies and lessons learned given the outcomes.
 
 26

Several research methodologies could be used as alternatives to the above-used research

methodologies. One of them is a quantitative analysis that uses statistical analysis to present the data
sources. The other alternative is an experimental research methodology that may involve records the
research about the topic covered. Lessons learned from the review of the outcomes involve the
methods that cyberbullying victims can use to categorize themselves. The researchers note that it is
important to use the best methodology that appropriately fits the description of the research. 

M4) Provide critical reflection and insight that results in recommended actions for
improvements and future research considerations.

This research handles one of the most controversial issues and an important topic in computing.
Cyberbullying has affected and several organizations, including those that deal with internet research.
Some of the recommended actions for improving future research on cyberbullying include an
exploration of quantitative analysis where the researcher will add a different perspective to the
Research (Coleman, 2). This will be important in giving varied information that is different from what
the researcher has given here.

P3) Conduct primary and secondary research using appropriate methods for a computing
research project that consider costs, access, and ethical issues.

In every research conducted, several factors must be considered, including costs, access, and ethical
considerations. Research work must meet the costs that have been set by the researcher as well as
maintain academic ethical standards that have been set. This research uses qualitative data that is not
expensive and meets the cost of the researcher. Also, participants are easily accessed without any
interference. To ensure that ethical standards have been met, the researcher will send a consent form
for the participants to agree before they are questions for the research. 

M2) Discuss merits, limitations, and pitfalls of approaches to data collection and analysis. 

The main merit is that it serves one of the major problems that affect the society about cyberbullying.
The basic limitation is the possibility of getting biased data from the participants. Additionally, there
may be inconsistencies in the literature review, especially from the authors in the past, making it
difficult to make conclusions from them. The pitfall of approaches used in the collection and analysis
of data that are available for the excessive information which may not help the researcher to make
valid conclusions.

M3) Coherently and logically communicate outcomes to the intended audience demonstrating
how outcomes meet set research objectives. 

This research meets the set objectives because it answers the major problem of cyberbullying and then
victims that have continuously suffered from the problem of cyberbullying. These outcomes are
presented to the audience to allow them to have the best strategies to avoid cyberbullying, especially
those that involve using a continuous changing of passwords. 

L01 & 02
 D1) Critically evaluate research methodologies and processes in the application to a
computing research project to justify chosen research methods and analysis. 

The reason for choosing qualitative research methodology for this process and its application
in computing is because of the first-hand data that will be collected from the victims of
cyberbullying (Englander et al. S148). This research project will analyse the experiences of
the victims of cyberbullying as well as the records that have been done in the past about the
 27

same topic. As a result, it will be easier for the researcher to analyse and to present the
findings in the overall research.

 
D2) Communicate critical analysis of the outcomes and make valid, justified recommendations. 

The outcomes of this research involve the knowledge of the existence of cyberbullying by the victims
to promote safety in the use of the internet. The first justified recommendation is internet fraudsters
mainly target the continuous use of passwords for Facebook users. The other justified
recommendation is securing Facebook profiles what are the social media profiles so that strangers
cannot easily access them. Additionally, it is essential to know about cyberbullying and how to
prevent it.

D3) Demonstrate reflection and engagement in the resource process leading to recommended
actions for future improvement 

Engagement in the research process that leads recommendation for the future uses the opinions and
justifications for the victims of cyberbullying and the participants of the research. The future
improvements in the use of the internet involve educating users about the methods and strategies that
can be used to avoid cyberbullying. Additionally, it is important to communicate the findings of
cyberbullying to the victims. 

Conclusion

Bullying is known as someone hurt by their words or actions and make feels bad of it. It is a hard time
to stop what happen to them.  The cyberbullying is known as use of new technology such as email,
internet, social media photos, mobile phones to do harassment, embarrass and threaten to target
person. The cyberbullying is important to concern on public health which can lead to increase the risk
of mental health issues such as development problems, suicide and psychological. This report
discussed on object of this case study, literature survey, research methods, limitation of each methods,
ethical issues and finally we conclude on cyberbullying on digital wellbeing.
Findings & Analysis
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
 

According to a latest report by Ofcom (2019), one in eight children age-12-15 years claim to have
been directly bullied in one way or another on social media. This implies that actually cyber-bullying
is rife and that the trend is becoming common on social media platforms. The relevant authorities
need to come up and design strategies to deal with the phenomena.

What are the Peak Years for Cyberbullying Risk?

 28

According to a report by Suffolk Cybersurvey (2016), the most prime years for cyberbullying risks
are between 14-15 years. The risks also depend on a range of online experiences and encounters. Of
course, these group of people are those who have begun being active on the internet. However, they
don’t know much about how to protect themselves from cyber-bullying.
The Eagerness of Parents to Know about Cyber Bullying  
 

Results from survey monkey indicate that approximately 59% of parents want to know more about
online bullying as they are unsure about when to intervene and how to approach this in a sensitive
manner if they sense their child is being bullied by someone in their friendship group. This
information is important for them to know how they respond should the need arise.
The more time children spend online, the more chance they have of having a negative experience at
some point. From the results, about half of all cyber-bullying comes from someone known to the
victim.

Why is cyberbullying different from face-to-face bullying?

One of the biggest differences between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying is that it can be hard
to get away from. Young people could be bullied anywhere, anytime – even when they’re at home.
It can reach a vast audience in a matter of seconds
It has the potential to draw in large numbers of people
It takes ‘repetition’ to a different level, with hurtful comments and images being shared multiple times
It has the potential to impact at any time of day or night
It can offer a degree of anonymity to the perpetrator
There are very few children that have not been impacted in some way, either as the perpetrator or the
victim
It’s difficult to police and to punish
There is often some form of evidence (e.g. screenshot, text message).
Lauren Seager-Smith from the Anti-bullying Alliance talks about the rise of cyberbullying and how
the ABA can help parents

Cyberbullying terms
 29

You’ll hear various words used in the context of cyberbullying, so it helps to know what each of these
means. Click on the words below to learn the definition.
Catfish: stealing someone’s profile or setting up fake profiles to lure people into starting online
relationships
Cyberstalking: sending repeated and frequent messages that include real threats of physical harm
Dissing: sending or posting information that’s intended to damage someone’s reputation
Exclusion: deliberately excluding someone from online conversations, games and activities
Flaming: sending angry, abusive online messages to intentionally provoke someone into starting an
argument
Fraping: logging into someone else’s account, impersonating them or posting inappropriate content in
their name
Baiting: to intentionally make a person angry by saying or doing things to annoy them
Griefting: abusing and angering people through online gaming
Harassment: targeting an individual or group with persistent and offensive messages which could
develop into cyberstalking
Masquerading: creating a fake identity or impersonating someone else online to harass an individual
anonymously
Outing: publicly sharing personal, private or embarrassing information, photos or videos about
someone online
Roasting: ganging up on an individual online and sending offensive abuse until the victim is seen to
‘crack’
Trolling: deliberately posting provocative and insulting messages about sensitive subjects or inflicting
racism or misogyny on an individual
Protect your child
Cyberbullying is a growing concern but there are practical tips and tools you can use to teach your
child how to make smarter and safer choices as they navigate their online world.

Get Involved

The best way to keep your child safe online is to take an active interest right from the start. They need
your love and protection online as much as they do in the real world. What your child is exposed to
will depend on how they’re using the internet – social network users are more likely to experience
cyberbullying, see sexual or violent images, or have contact with strangers.
Have meaningful online safety conversations
The earlier you can talk to your child about making positive choices online, the better. Here are some
conversation starters:
Who do they want to be online?
The choices we make online say something about who we.  Talk to your child about how the things
they do online paint a picture of themselves, so they shouldn’t post things without thinking about it.
How much should they share about themselves?
Talk to your child about the risks of sharing, identifying where they live or go to school, and what
people online might do with that information. Talk about what the risks might be of sharing personal
thoughts and feelings.
How much time should they spend online?
Talk about the possible impact of spending too much time online and agree sensible ‘bed-times’ and
breaks during the day. Create opportunities as a family to get ‘off-line’ and have fun together.
Know what your child does online
Talk to your child about what they do online and what they want to do online. Ask them about the
kind of sites they go on and who they talk to and be clear what you don’t want them to do online.

Manage children’s social activity

It’s important to keep the conversation going and take an interest in what your child is doing online.
Here’s your essential toolkit.
 30

Set controls and privacy settings

As a parent you have some decisions to make about how you want your child to engage online and on
social media and what measures you want to put in place to help protect them:
Set up their device
Whatever device you choose, there are free controls you can use to stop your child from purchasing
and using certain apps, seeing certain content, or limiting what they can share with others, like their
location for example. Our set up safe how to guides to set parental controls to cover the most popular
range of devices and apps and platforms children use. From YouTube Kids to streaming services
like Netflix, you’ll find quick and easy steps to set up the right controls to create a safe place for your
child to explore.
Getting the low down on sites, games, and apps
You will probably use social networks yourself, but you might want to know about new ones that
your child is using or wants to use. Use them yourself and set up your own account so you can
experience what your child might see. There are also many child-friendly social networks they could
use while they get ready for the likes of Snapchat and Instagram.
Privacy settings

Spend time together looking at the privacy settings. It’s always best to assume that default settings are
public and should be changed accordingly. We’ve got some advice on using privacy settings on the
most popular social apps.
A good profile
Use their nickname and a profile picture of their pet or favourite band, rather than themselves, and
encourage them to only be friends with people they know in real life. Avoid sharing personal
information like school, age, and place they live.
Use their nickname and a profile picture of their pet or favourite band, rather than themselves, and
encourage them to only be friends with people they know in real life. Avoid sharing personal
information like school, age and place they live.

What does a good social media profile look like?

 31

Blocking software

There is a range of new apps and software that block, filter and monitor online behaviour. You’ll need
to decide as a family whether this is the right approach for you, taking into consideration your child’s
age and maturity, and their need for privacy.
Negotiating the gaming world
In some games like Minecraft or Roblox people deliberately try to intimidate other players. In multi-
player games where gamers talk to one another – you might find abusive language, harassment and
there have been instances of grooming. It’s vital therefore that your child knows how to report abuse
and talks to you if something is causing them concern.
Helping vulnerable children
All children can enjoy the benefits of getting online with the right support.  As a parent of a disabled
child or child with special educational needs you might have additional concerns about potential risks
but not using the internet can mean your child is isolated from other children and have an impact on
them not only socially but in school and the workplace.  The Anti-Bullying
Alliance and Kidzaware have a range of resources to support disabled young people with getting
online and with issues such as cyberbullying. Stonewall and Ditch the Label can also offer support to
young members of the LGBT community to cope with bullying.
The online world can be a huge source of information and support for young people that feel different
or vulnerable for lots of reasons. At some point your child may seek advice from the online world –
whether through a search engine, through social networks or through a chat room and as a parent you
can help your child find sites with good advice and information.

Deal with it

Dealing with children’s cyberbullying experiences can be challenging. Get support on how to stop
cyberbullying by spotting the signs and keeping your child safe online.

How to respond to cyberbullying

The internet and social media have changed the way children experience bullying
Now, Bullying can happen beyond the school gates,
Anywhere and anytime, in the form of cyberbullying – on social, gaming and instant messaging
platforms
With the help of the Anti-bullying Alliance and industry experts, we’ve created a hub of advice for
parents to support children on how to deal with the issue.
Here are five things you need to know about cyberbullying…One, Cyberbullying can take place 24/7
and happens repeatedly on a range of apps, games, and devices
Two, as its digital it can reach more people than traditional forms of bullying and increase the chance
that others will join in the bullying.
Three, Unlike face to face bullying, children can’t see the impact of their words so even children
 32

who’ve never been involved in bullying can post or share something without thinking.
Online safety advice for parents | 5 things you need to know about Cyberbullying
Four, although it’s easy to keep the evidence, it can be anonymous so it’s harder to know who’s
behind it.
Five, according recent stats it’s growing and can consist of a range of actions from harassment and
threats to exclusion, defamation and manipulation.
So, it’s important to take it seriously and give children the tools to deal with it
The best way to keep your child safe online is to take an active interest in their digital life from the
start
Have regular conversations about what they do online to build trust and understanding of what they
are experiencing.
Help them understand that their behaviour online should reflect what they do in the real world and
how
Talk about the potential consequences of what they say and do online, along with the ‘stickiness’ of
the web making it hard to remove things they share.

Last but not least, make them aware of privacy settings and reporting functions on the platforms they
use to help them manage what they see, do and share online.
Putting all these tips into action will help make safer choices online but when things go wrong there
are things you can do to help.
Whether your child is being cyberbullied is involved in the bullying, it’s important to stay calm and
offer your support.

Be led by your child on actions to take to address the situation

Encourage them to continue talking and be ready to listen and take action where necessary.
Don’t take away their devices unless this is what they want, as it may make them feel isolated
Whether you are reporting to a school, the police or an online platform, be sure to find out how these
organisations can help you and your child resolve the situation with advice in our hub.
Dealing with cyberbullying is challenging but with the right support a child can recover and continue
to build the skills to make smarter choices online.
Here are three things to take remember to support a child on cyberbullying:
• One – Be involved and have regular conversations about their online activity
• Two – Give them the tools to be prepared to deal with things they may face online
• Three – Be aware of where and how to seek help to get the right level of support

Spotting signs of cyberbullying

Your child might be reluctant to tell you that they are worried about cyberbullying so it’s important to
look out for the signs:
Stopping using their electronic devices suddenly or unexpectedly
Seeming nervous or jumpy when using their devices, or becoming obsessive about being constantly
online
Any changes in behaviour such as becoming sad, withdrawn, angry, or lashing out
Reluctance to go to school or take part in usual social activities
Unexplained physical symptoms such as headaches, stomach upsets
Avoiding discussions about what they’re doing online or who they’re talking to

https://youtu.be/SO1j_qH5iOs What is Cyberbullying advice for parents

https://youtu.be/ynRBxjbIxn4 Cyberbullying: how can the anti-bullying alliance help you?

 33

https://youtu.be/WVBC_7TA8eU how to protect your children from Cyberbullying internet matters

https://youtu.be/vogLHYOACyw Cyberbullying parent guild – tips to help children deal with it

https://youtu.be/wlYLcZFqdss Cyberbullying advise how can the NSPCC & O2 help you

https://youtu.be/0Q6KYCPJqjU Cyberbullying advise how can the school help you

https://youtu.be/egkOCsiFYho Cyberbullying advise how can the police help you

https://youtu.be/xe5XgOYB-w4 Cyberbullying advice how can child line help you

https://youtu.be/cvYzYde_EpY Cyberbullying advice as from a mum view & her experience

https://youtu.be/X0v42FVXMK8 Age 5 - 10

https://youtu.be/s6sC1QDAuoE Age 11 – 13

https://youtu.be/k_E3EoKxMS4 Age 14 +
What to do if your child is being cyberbullied

When to take immediate action

If you become aware that your child is being cyberbullied, there are many things you should aim to do
straight away.
Talk about it
Create opportunities to talk to your child in a relaxed environment, sometimes it can be less intense if
you go for a walk or a drive rather than sitting face-to-face.
 34

Stay calm and ask them how you can help

Ask open questions and listen without judging
Praise them for talking to you
Don’t take away their devices unless this is what they want, it’s likely to make them angry and
increase feelings of sadness and isolation
If your child is upset by something, they’ve experienced online but seems to be handling the situation
then advice you can give includes:
It may be tempting but don’t retaliate. This can have unpredictable consequences, can make
arguments last longer and make it harder to see who’s in the wrong.
Shut down arguments online before they take hold. Try not to involve lots of others in online
arguments. This includes being careful what they post, what they share, and knowing when to leave a
group chat or change the conversation.
Ask people to take down hurtful or offensive content. Your child may be successful by simply being
honest about how they feel, particularly if the perpetrator didn’t mean to cause them harm.

FAQ: Should I approach the other child’s parent or carer?

If the children involved are at your child’s school, it’s always best to talk to your child’s teacher
first’. You may feel you can discuss the bullying behaviour with the other child’s parent. Always
proceed with caution. It’s natural for a parent to defend their child, so make sure you’re calm and ask
for their help to resolve the situation – rather than accusing their child. Remember they may have
another side to the story. Your goal should always be to stop the bullying behaviour.
Nobody likes to think that their own child could be a cyberbully, but young people can sometimes be
drawn into this behaviour without realising the impact of their actions. We have tips and advice on
what to do if your child is a cyberbully.

FAQ: How do I act online?

Choose to block or unfriend – In some situations, it might be best to encourage your child to block or
unfriend the person that caused them hurt – particularly if they’re an anonymous user or not known to
your child. Your child might be reluctant to do this if they consider the person a ‘friend’ or they know
the person from school or the local community. Revisit what it means to be a friend and talk about
healthy online relationships.  
Report or flag upsetting content – Most social media platforms give you options for reporting or
flagging content that breaches their user guidelines and this is always an option. Be aware that the
thresholds for offensive content, the process for reviewing reports and the time it takes to remove
content varies according to the social network, game or app.
Save the evidence – Bullying is repeated behaviour and it can be helpful to keep a record of events in
case you need to seek professional help. For example, you might want to screengrab offensive
content/save messages. It might not help your child to keep seeing these, so offer to keep them
somewhere safe for them.

How to report cyberbullying to the school

If the person or people doing the bullying are from your child’s school, you may want to contact the
school about it. It’s natural for your child to worry about what the outcome of this might be and how
the school responds will vary depending on their anti-bullying policy. All schools should have a
policy and may have mentors who can help.

Tips to remember

Your child is the most important person – make sure their needs and wants to remain central.
Keep calm – remember the school may not be aware of what’s happening.  Ask to see child’s teacher,
tutor, or year head.
Bring evidence – keep a record of events and any evidence, such as printouts of screenshots, saved
messages.
 35

Be goal orientated – the priority is for the bullying to stop.  Consider practical ways that the school
can help, for example, talking to students involved or providing your child with support.
Set date and time to follow up – make sure you leave the meeting or phone call with an agreed day or
time to check in on progress made.

FAQ: What should I do if the bullying continues?

Don’t give up – the school have a legal duty to prevent all forms of bullying.
Ask for another meeting as a matter of urgency.  This time you may want to meet with a senior
member of staff.
Bring your record of action and outcomes and any evidence of further bullying.
Be goal orientated – what could the school do differently? Is there any additional support they can
give your child, for example, counselling services?
If necessary, follow the school complaints process.
Don’t stop until the bullying stops.
Develop an action plan to make sure you stay on track.
Use template letters to get the message across.

Report it to the police

There is not a law against cyberbullying, but some cyberbullying activities could be criminal offences
under a range of different laws including the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997. If the content is sexual, targeted at your child’s ethnicity, gender,
disability or sexuality, if threats are being made to harm your child or incite your child to harm
themselves, then consider reporting the activity to the police. Some types of bullying are illegal.
This includes bullying that involves violence or assault
theft
harassment and intimidation over a period including calling someone names or threatening them,
making abusive phone calls, and sending abusive emails or text messages (one incident is not
normally enough to get a conviction)
anything involving hate crimes
The response you receive will depend on the nature and severity of the incident, whether it’s likely
that a crime has been committed, and whether your child is at risk of harm. You can also contact the
Children’s Services department in your local authority.

Where to get counselling services

Experiencing bullying can place a huge strain on a child with links to depression, anxiety and self-
harm. As a parent, you should always take it seriously and if you have any worries about your child’s
mental or physical health see your GP. If you need help talking to them about mental health, then
the Mental Health Foundation and Mind have some advice.
Talk to your GP about available support. Many local counselling services offer a sliding scale of cost
depending on your family income. It may even be free. This can be quicker than accessing support
through your GP. For information of counselling services in your area visit the British Association for
Counselling and Psychotherapy and make sure your child knows about ChildLine and other helplines 

Stories

Hear from real family’s experience of cyberbullying and directly from the experts to get guidance on
how to best support your child.

What to do if your child is a cyberbully

No parent wants to think of their child cyberbullying someone else. But young people who may have
never bullied anyone face-to-face can get drawn into cyberbullying, sometimes without realising
that’s what they’re doing.
 36

What you should do

Find out why

Try and establish the facts about the incident and keep an open mind. Often as parents, we are blind to
the behaviour of our own children so try not to be on the defensive.
Think about areas of your child’s life that may be causing them distress or anger and leading to them
expressing these feelings online.
Talk it through
Talk about the blurred line between uploading and sharing content because it’s funny or might get lots
of ‘likes’, versus the potential to cause offence or hurt.
Tell then that bullying other’s online is unacceptable behaviour which could get them into trouble
with the school or police and they could end up losing friends.
Teach by example
Model and encourage positive behaviour in your child and praise them as they take this on board.
Learn from it
Above all help your child learn from what has happened. Think about what you could do differently
as a parent or as a family and share your learning with other parents and carers.

What you shouldn’t do

Don’t get upset

Stay calm when discussing it with your child and try to talk with other adults to work through any
emotions you have about the situation.
Don’t ignore it
Take the situation seriously and don’t blame someone else. As a role model, it is best to show your
child that taking responsibility for your own actions is the right thing to do.
Don’t condone it
If your child was cyberbullying in retaliation, you should tell them that two wrongs cannot make a
right and it will just encourage the bully’s behaviour.
Don’t take away their devices
This could make the situation worse and encourage them to find other ways to get online. Think about
restricting access and take away some privileges if they don’t stop the behaviour.

The effects of cyberbullying on children of different ages

Hear from the experts

Resources
If your child is affected by cyberbullying, there are lots of places to go for more help and advice. See
our list of useful resources for further support

1. Nearly 43% of kids have been bullied online. 1 in 4 has had it happen more than once.
2. 70% of students report seeing frequent bullying online.
3. Over 80% of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most common medium for
cyberbullying.
4. 68% of teens agree that cyberbullying is a serious problem.
5. 81% of young people think bullying online is easier to get away with than bullying in person.
6. 90% of teens who have seen social-media bullying say they have ignored it. 84% have seen others
tell cyberbullies to stop.
7. Only 1 in 10 victims will inform a parent or trusted adult of their abuse.
 37

8. Girls are about twice as likely as boys to be victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying.

9. About 58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online. More than 4 out
10 say it has happened more than once.
10. Bullying victims are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider committing suicide.
11. About 75% of students admit they have visited a website bashing another student.
With the widespread access of the Internet, social apps, and texting features available to kids,
cyberbullying is likely to continue to invade our lives. Cyberbullying can have a variety of harmful
short and long-term effects, including depression, isolation, lack of confidence, and suicidal thoughts.
It is necessary for parents to arm themselves with as much information about cyberbullying as
possible in order to know how to help kids. uKnow can provide parents with tools and resources that
help prevent the multitude of dangers associated with cyberbullying. 
FACTS AND STATISTICS ON BULLYING AND CYBER BULLYING
Below we have compiled a list of facts and statistics on bullying, including cyber bullying and the impact
it can have on young people.
The Diana Award's Anti-Bullying Ambassadors programme aims to reduce bullying across schools in the
UK through establishing student Anti-Bullying Ambassadors in schools. The Anti-Bullying Ambassadors
programme offers;
Research
Resources
Training
Campaigns
IMPACTS OF BULLYING
-          More than 16,000 young people are absent from school because of bullying (6).
-          83% of young people say bullying has a negative impact on their self-esteem (8).
-          30% of young people have gone on to self-harm as a result of bullying (8).
-          10% of young people have attempted to commit suicide as a result of bullying (8).
-          Those who have been bullied are more than twice as likely to have difficulty in keeping a job, or    
committing to saving compared to those not involved in bullying (7).
-         People who have been bullied are at greatest risk for health problems in adulthood, over six times
more likely to be diagnosed with a serious illness, smoke regularly, or develop a psychiatric disorder          
compared to those not involved in bullying (7).

CYBERBULLYING/ONLINE BULLYING
 38

-          Over the last three years there has been an 87 % increase in the number of Childline’s counselling
sessions about online bullying (1).
-          40% of 7 to11 year old respondents know someone who has been cyberbullied (3).
-          7 in 10 young people aged between 13 and 22 have been a victim of cyberbullying (9).
-          An estimated 5.43 million young people in the UK have experienced cyberbullying, with 1.26
million subjected to extreme cyberbullying on a daily basis (9).

YOUNG PEOPLES' BEHAVIOUR ONLINE

-          60% of 13 to 18 year olds have been asked for a sexual image of video of themselves (1) 
-          20% of 7 to 11 year olds surveyed said they had needed to report content online, but hadn’t done so
because they didn’t know how to make a report, they didn’t know what a report was, and/or they didn’t
think it would help (3).
-         27% of 7 to 11 year olds said they have seen something on the internet in the last year that upset or
worried them (3).
-          41% of 11 to 19 year olds said they have seen something on the internet in the last year that upset or
worried them (3).
-          96% of young people age 11-19 use some form of online communication tool (3).
-          72% of 11-15s and 92% of 16-19s use social networks, with a particularly rapid increase in take up
from 11 years (46%) to 13 years (84%) (3).
-          16-24 year olds who use social media spend almost one and a half hours on it per day (4).
What is Cyberbullying – Facts and its Effects
March 4, 2018 by Allan Jay Monteclaro

BEST ANTI-MALWARE
MalwareFox Premium

Removes Malware which Antivirus cannot

Protects from Ransomware Attacks
Lightweight and Fast Detection
 39

Free Download
Bullying has been an age-old problem. It is especially a significant issue among kids and teens. The
progress in technology did not stop the problem of bullying. It evolves along with growth in
technology. Social media becomes the new platform for both connecting with friends and bullying.
Cyberbullying is harder than ever to control. The power of anonymity makes it difficult to monitor
and stop cyberbullying attacks.
What is Cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is a type of harassment that happens through electronic means. Social media, emails,
and even websites can serve as platforms for cyberbullying. Moreover, bullies take advantage of the
victims' vulnerability. It may include perceived flaws or intimate information.
McAfee's 2014 survey shows that nearly 87% of kids and teens witnessed an act of cyberbullying.
Sadly, 24% of youth report that they do not know what to do in the event of being harassed or bullied
online.
Classic causes of bullying still exist such as appearance, race, religion, and sexuality. However, other
reasons arise in research about cyberbullying. The McAfee study reports that 50% of respondents
were involved in an argument because of something they posted online. The tendency of the youth to
overshare makes them very vulnerable.
Only 61% of youth have their privacy protection enabled in their social media accounts. Moreover,
52% do not turn off their location services on mobile devices. Fourteen percent even post their home
addresses online. Children are also less likely to have their parents within their online circle of
connections.

READ
Windows 10 Privacy Issues and Fix

Types of Cyberbullying
There are countless types of cyberbullying. Children receive threats online all the time.
Online Bashing
One of the most common forms of cyberbullying is bashing. It often happens in message boards,
posts, threads, and messaging apps. Teens often use these platforms to chat and discuss their school
lives.

Conversations and discussions can turn ugly fast. Offline harassment can spill over online. A group of
bullies may target a vulnerable victim.
Gossiping
The rapid exchange of information online can quickly lead to gossiping. False information can pass
from one person to another. Bullies may use perceived flaws to humiliate the victim further. They
may even create pages or groups to spread gossip also. It isolates the victim from his or her peers.
Isolation can rapidly cause depression and anxiety.
Exposure
Kids and teens also reveal a bit too much online. They pass personal and intimate information without
much thought about privacy. Bullies will then use this to threaten the victim. Photos or videos which
may be damaging to the victim's reputation can spread. It may even affect the victim's future such as
academic opportunities and job potential.

READ
10 Types of Hackers You Should Know

Types of Cyberbullies
Not all bullies of the victims are within their age group. Bullies vary in background and intention.
Children open themselves to be victims due to their online engagement.
School Bullies
 40

More often than not, bullies are from the same school of the victims. A study by Duke University
shows that 90% of teens who are the victim of cyberbullying, also experience harassment offline.
Bullies often create fake personas to hide behind anonymity.

Some cyberbullies may attack in groups. It involves shaming or humiliation, threats, and
blackmailing. Bullying may not even happen in public threads. Messaging apps are typical tools
bullies use against their victims.
Cybercriminals
More insidious types of bullies are cybercriminals who aim to make a profit or even hurt their victims.
They often lurk in web chat apps, dating sites, and websites where strangers connect. Cybercriminals
make an effort to get close to their victims and earn trust. They are looking for leverage which they
can use as blackmail.

Revealing intimate photos and videos are often used to scare victims. Criminals will threaten to
release the pictures and videos to the victims' family and friends. They will often ask for payment.
One such case is of Daniel Perry. The Scottish teen took his own life after being blackmailed on
Skype.

READ
Facebook Scams : Expert Advice on How to Avoid

Effects of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying, and bullying, in general, have short-term and lasting effects on both the victim and the
bully. Identifying impacts, in the beginning, may be tough. However, children often show signs
depending on the severity of the cyberbullying.
Academic Effects
 41

Children who are being bullied often show first signs of their overall academic performance. There is
a noticeable decrease in academic achievements. This effect shows in both GPA and standardized test
scores. It is due to missing periods, skipping classes, or worse, dropping out of school.

Cyberbullying worsens the academic effects of bullying. Children and teens are known to use and
various social media. In the past, they can escape attacks after school. However, social media
encompasses most of their day. Dealing with cyberbullying affects their concentration and habits.
Physical and Mental Health
Children's mental and physical health is affected along with academic performance. Anxiety and
depression are common effects of constant stress. Additionally, the increased feelings of sadness and
loneliness further affect a child's health.

Physical health also suffers along with mental conditions. Parents often notice considerable changes
in their child's sleeping and eating habits. There is also a lack of interest in activities they used to
enjoy.
Mental and physical effects can have long-lasting effects. Researchers found that the victim children
of cyberbullying have a high risk for depression as a young adult. It also increases depressive issues
later in life.
Extreme Effects
Suicide is one of the leading cause of death among young people. There are about 4,000 deaths per
year caused by suicide according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, bully
victims are two to nine times more like to consider suicide than non-victims. Studies conducted by
researchers at Yale School of Medicine found correlations between bullying and suicide in children.
 42

Being bullied and bullying also affects teen behavior towards alcoholism and drug use. Additionally,
it can result in delinquent acts. It may include vandalism, abusive behavior, and even criminal
activities.

READ
Fake Tech Support Scams - How to Protect Yourself

Protect your Kids from Cyberbullying

Protecting your child against cyberbullying becomes a necessity nowadays. The effects are
worsening. The pervasiveness of technology also means it is harder to escape.
Constant communication is a critical element in protecting your child. They should be able to express
themselves without fear or embarrassment freely. It will be challenging as only 1 in 10 children
confides with their parents. However, the willingness of a child to open up to you makes it easy to see
possible signs of bullying.
Educating your child is also important. Technology is complicated to manage even for adults. Teach
them how to protect themselves. It includes an understanding of privacy, security, and possible
threats.
Privacy and Passwords
Encourage your children to employ strong passwords in their online accounts. Their privacy should be
one of their top concerns. Teach them how to create a secure password. You can even enable two-
factor authentication.Hacking one's social media can open your child to cyberbullying.

Additionally, educate them about clean online habits. Log-out of any online accounts when not in use.
Encourage empathy and logic when posting on social media. Make them understand that their actions
have significant effects on others.
 43

Turn On Parental Controls

Most modern operating systems come with parental controls. Parents can easily monitor their kid's
activities in Windows 10. Even Xbox One has parental controls.

The earlier you catch signs of cyberbullying, the easier it is to stop. Tools, like Bark, even allow
monitoring of texts, emails, and social media networks. It alerts parents of potentially harmful content
or messages in their children's online activities.

Look for Signs

Be on the lookout for any significant changes in your child. Signs are typically not as noticeable. It is
more difficult to spot if you don't have open communication with your child. The effects described
above often show when the bullying gets worse.

It is essential to gather information if you suspect cyberbullying. You should report instances to the
school. It is also possible to get the authorities' attention depending on the severity.

READ
Ultimate Guide to Parental Controls

Final Thoughts
Technology brings both innovation and responsibility. It is mostly a neutral entity which has the
potential to be good or evil. As such, threats like cyberbullying continues without proper attention. It
is essential to be sensitive to your child's needs both offline and online.
 44

PART 4: CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Providing effective responses to cyberbullying required a combination of different approaches from

young people, schools and educational settings, network providers and technology companies,
charities as well as the government. The spotlight from recent research and campaigns highlighted
some of the good practices as well as gaps. In this study, we found that age mattered. An obvious
assumption was that opposite ends of school life, either primary and secondary school or contrasting
ends within each period resulted in different behaviours. This study showed how young people in
even smaller and tighter age ranges, within seemingly similar periods, emitted different behaviours
and responses, demonstrating the infectivity of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ response.
Location also mattered. Schools provided huge support for young people as victims but also as
champions spearheading youth-led initiatives and opportunities to be involved in problem-solving
discussions. The home, instead, was uncovered as a location of cyberbullying, as well as presenting a
shortcoming of knowledge from parents. Young people wanted to take control, be more responsible,
but wanted help doing so. They found it more difficult to protect themselves than access technology
and avenues to abuse it.
Young people in this study generally acknowledged the difficulties of overcoming this, and although
seeing current progress in a positive light, had an appetite to do more. They valued the close
relationships and knowledge exchange with different sectors, helping them be better placed to make a
difference, rather part of the problem. In thinking about the further development of approaches, the
following four areas were deemed to benefit from further attention:

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Building a better understanding:

 Funding and planning of programmes and research that recognise age differences as
shaping the experience and perception of risk.
 Time and resources for the formation and management of initiatives and partnerships
that include or are led by young people.

Building capacity and sustainability:

 Charities and private sector organisations supported to provide leadership training

and skills development for young people to spearhead campaigns and initiatives.
 Schools to gain access to more capital and investment to become a hub for knowledge
exchange.
 Funders to ring-fence funds for sustained anti-bullying work within communities to
counter high levels of bullying, particularly cyberbullying.

Maintaining and sharing good practices:

 Charities and private sector organisations to engage in information exchanges with

young people, parents and each other to develop good practices.
 Schools to continue to roll out student-led initiatives and provide formal platforms for
young people.
 Schools to share the findings of this report to members of staff.
 45

 Government led commitment to create one central anti-bullying resource and best
available practice for all parents and adults working with young people, as well as
young people themselves.

Providing direct protection:

 All sectors to educate young people and parents on becoming responsible consumers.
 Internet, mobile phone and technology companies to provide continuing, visible and
accessible cyber safeguards that engage with parents and young people in their design
and appeal. This may mean improved safety features, more regulation, policies and
codes of conduct.
 Parents to gain skills and access information on how to help their children be
responsible and safe users online.
 Young people to share the responsibility to be safe online.
 Schools to continue with both rehabilitative and sanction-based approaches, whilst
also deepening education programmes.
 Central government to hold industries, schools, colleges and youth organisations to
account, implementing and regularly reviewing cyber bullying policies. In some
cases, to encourage signatories to good practice agreements and self-regulation.

Under the coalition government, the vehicle for safeguarding against bullying has remained the same,
with an emphasis on prioritising the elimination of prejudice-based bullying as a step towards
eliminating discrimination under the new Public Sector Equality Duty (Department for Education,
2011a). In addition, as part of delivering key national priorities for children, young people and
families (Department for Education, 2010), fostering and maintaining partnerships with the voluntary
and community sector are integral to creating sustainable change (Government Equality Office,
2010). Part of this ‘wrap-around’ approach has also been the inclusion of coordinated action with
statutory services such as the police and the local authority’s anti-social behaviour coordinator when
reporting or dealing with serious incidences (Department for Education, 2011b).
More broadly, as an act on its own, cyberbullying is not yet a specific criminal offence
in UK law, although it is subject to laws governing cyber stalking and menacing and threatening
communications. Criminal laws such as the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 may apply in terms of harassment or threatening
behaviour. Where persistent harassment on a mobile phone is concerned, the Malicious
Communications Act 1988 and the Telecoms Act (1984) makes it a criminal offence to make
anonymous or abusive calls. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Public Order Act
1986 also makes it a criminal offence to send offensive messages through public electronic
communications networks, perhaps relevant to a school setting. The ambiguity of the boundaries
between criminal and deviant acts are made all the more difficult and controversial with young
people, when incidences
are not captured by formal authorities or are accepted as falling under the remit of school discipline.
Nonetheless, steps have been taken to implement regulations and initiatives that both directly and
indirectly seek to prevent cyberbullying and deal with its effects within a pedagogical setting. Most
recently, schools have been given extended powers to identify, prevent and tackle all forms of
bullying with a strong emphasis on disciplining behaviour, and dealing with pupil bullying in the
community (Department for Education, 2011a). Under the Education and Inspections Act (2006),
head teachers have legal powers to regulate the conduct of pupils off-site, with further deterrent
policies in the form of
staff powers to confiscate mobile phones. Specific measures have been created under The Safe to
Learn guidance (2009) and accompanying suite of resources, by the then Department for Children
Schools and Families Cyberbullying Taskforce in partnership with Child Net International - to raise
awareness and educate children, parents, carers and youth workers about online dangers. The coalition
government has been aware of the contribution that cyberbullying makes to overall bullying
 46

victimisation rates and the need to include parents in anti-bullying policies (Department for
Education, 2011a) but have yet to supersede this with specific guidance:

From elsewhere, numerous charities and umbrella bodies have created their own materials,
programmes and high-profile awareness-raising campaigns which have been complemented by
actions from the private sector. For example, members of the United Kingdom’s Council for Child
and Internet Safety (UKCCIS), a stakeholder group initially set up to deliver recommendations of the
Byron Review (2008), and other and Corporate and Social Responsibility teams have collectively or
individually signed agreements
to tackle online grooming, inappropriate content and cyberbullying. This has been guided in England
under the Home Office’s ‘Good practice guidance for the providers of interactive services for
children’ and more widely, the ‘Safer social networking principles for the EU’ which encourages
corporate signatories to implement good practices of self-regulating the age appropriateness of their
services, access controls for adult content and awareness-raising campaigns for parents and children
(European Commission, 2009).
Reflecting on these developing policy aspirations to tackle cyberbullying, it is evident that central and
local governments, schools, the private sector, charities, parents and young people are contributors to
change. In order to understand how it operates within specific dimensions and to move the debate and
ideas forward, there is a continual need to explore and deconstruct cyberbullying.

HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT

The study was carried out in seven stages:
 Review of the cyberbullying literature
 Facilitated training sessions with the youth research working group
 Ongoing facilitated meetings with the youth research steering group
 Large scale postal survey completed by 29 schools from within each of the previous
nine regions in England
 Online surveys from the Anti-Bullying Ambassador schools across the country
 Focus groups with young people
 Participatory review of the material collected with the youth steering group and small
advisory group.

Taken together, the findings in this report are based on:

 A large-scale survey with 1282 responses from young people in secondary schools
across England
 The secondary analysis of two online surveys with 177 responses from young people
and 64 responses from teachers and support staff
 Four focus groups with 31 young people
 Documentary data from government records, research institutions, grey literature and
policy reports.

OW TERMS ARE USED IN THIS REPORT

In this report, terms are used in the following ways:

The focus of the report and age of interest is with young people, those aged 12 to
16 years old.
Cyberbullying refers to the bullying and harassment of others by means of digital technologies, with
the intention to harm someone, both directly and indirectly. This includes a wide range of behaviours
such as being recorded against one’s will; verbal abuse, silent and malicious calls; blackmailing,
embarrassing or humiliating someone on the internet and electronic media; and dissemination through
GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) services.
 47

Wellbeing refers to the quality of young people’s lives in a broad and multi-dimensional sense which
is inclusive of the domains of relationships, risk behaviours, educational and material aspects and
subjective wellbeing.
The term survey and subsequent statistics refer to the main postal survey completed by 1282 young
people, whilst the online survey refers to the secondary analysis of the more recent set of
questionnaires completed by 177 young people. Participants are young people involved in the focus
groups and respondents are to those who completed both surveys.
Quotations from young people are indicated in italics to illustrate the key themes and findings.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

In part two we describe the approach to the study and examine key research in this field. Part three
sets out the findings from the surveys and focus groups, followed by conclusions and
recommendations in part four.

PART 2: THE APPROACH TO THE STUDY

In this section, the nature and extent of cyberbullying will be covered, followed by a description of
how the study was carried out including research questions, approach, method and analysis. It is
important to note that the study focuses on cyberbullying from a victim perspective (direct or indirect)
and not from the aggressor or perpetrator perspective.

WHY STUDY CYBERBULLYING?

Technological advances have opened the door to a new world in cyberspace which both benefits and
endangers young people (Spears et al, 2008). Focus on the harm it causes has revealed how young
people’s wellbeing has become increasingly compromised with greater exposure to the risk of
indecent behaviour; sharing of personal details and images with online contacts; stalking; sexual
online contact and behaviour; online gambling; and cyberbullying (UNICEF, 2011).
Its dissimilarity to traditional bullying, by its nature and more infrequent experience, makes it more
challenging to prevent. Recent studies on age and gender comparisons have indicated disproportionate
experiences by those from an older age range and
by females (Hinduja and Patchin, 2008). Age on its own is a large contributor to young people’s
wellbeing levels affecting the extent to which they are exposed to high risk behaviour, confide in
adults and have the knowledge to seek assistance from formal channels (UNICEF, 2007). These
differences need to be understood in order to provide the context of the societal changes (Stratham
and Chase, 2010).
It also carries its own characteristics and qualities (Akbulut et al, 2010) related to the wide reach and
the ability to be enacted at any time or place (Marilyn et al, 2009). It is controlled remotely,
anonymously and assumed repetitively (Spears et al, 2008). At the other extreme, it has a potentially
large audience and the ability to galvanise supporters over a short period of time, creating infinite and
sometimes unintentional consequences in publicising the young person’s victimisation status (Cross et
al, 2009). All these qualities make it an effective mechanism to bully (Coyne et al, 2009), leaving
victims feeling anxious, frustrated, and helpless to respond as they struggle to recover from the large
scale and irreversible negative effects (Chung et al, 2011). Perpetrators, on the other hand, are often
left unidentifiable, living with limited fear of reprisal, having created a permanent digital mark
(Hobbs, 2009). As a relatively new phenomenon, in its prevalence and form, it too becomes less
easily identifiable by young people and adults. Adults have an unfamiliar grasp of the problem and
young people are unable to identify themselves as victims and in some cases accept this behaviour as
part of their peers’ normative beliefs (Almeida et al, 2009). Since the early twenty-first century, there
has been much research, theory generation and policy responses from international and British
research on the issue. Both have uncovered varying statistics of its scale but emit consistent messages
of its existence. In recent European comparative data, focussing on online bullying, 8% of those in
the UK were bullied, placing it sixth out of 25 countries, higher than Spain and France
 48

(Livingstone et al, 2011). In AVG’s (2011) study, 20% of children were bullied online in the UK, the
second country most at risk compared to other developed nations (AVG, 2011). Interestingly, recent
studies in England have shown these to be an underestimation, with rates varying from 18.4% of 500
pupils aged 11 to 19 years in one study (O’Brien and Moules, 2010) to 31% of 695 pupils in another
(Bryce, 2009). This is complicated further when considering the persistence of cyberbullying, with
only 7.5% of 2094
young people aged 11 to 16 years cyberbullied (Cross et al, 2009), a figure closer to international
comparisons.

SITUATING THIS WORK

The preceding discussion has shown the need for a nuanced exploration of the issues to complement
the sparse literature on age comparisons on cyberbullying, despite it being a large contributing factor
to overall wellbeing. By disaggregating age, additional knowledge is hoped to be generated to
ascertain the extent to which this may influence young people’s experiences, responses and attitudes
and prevention.
At a practical level, there is the need to achieve a breadth and depth of analysis, given the
complexities and discrepancies between studies in the design and measurement

of its prevalence. Incorporating perspectives of numerous and diverse young people,

representative of a cross-section of youth in England, is an important feature of this work. In terms of
depth, it is important for the research to gain a richness of data, using youth-centred approaches to
quantify the scale, form and fear surrounding response to it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bulmer, M. (2017) Sociological research methods. UK: Routledge.

Gabriella Coleman (2014). Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous.
London: Verso Books.
 
Chris Kyriacou& Antônio Zuin (2014). “It’s the permanence of online abuse that makes
cyberbullying so damaging for children”, The Conversation, 31st July 2014.

Feather,  D. (2016). How to write a research methodology for an undergraduate dissertation.
Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield

 
NSW DEC (2016). Bullying: Preventing and responding to student bullying in schools policy.
Retreived from https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/bullying-preventing-and-
responding-to-student-bullying-in-schools-policy

Shariff, S (2012). Profile of traditional and cyber-bullying. In Confronting cyber-bullying. Cambridge

University Press. Retrieved
from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=412752

Shariff, S (2012). Profile of traditional and cyber-bullying. In Confronting cyber-bullying. Cambridge

University Press. Retrieved
from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=412752

Suffolk (2016). The Suffolk Cybersurvey 2016. Retrieved from

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/community-and-safety/staying-safe-online/Suffolk-cybersurvey-
2016-Final.pdf
 49

Beale, A. V., & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) cando.
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81 (1), 8-12.
 
Conn, K. (2010). Cyberbullying and other student technology misuses in K-12 americanschools:The
legal landmines.Widener Law Review, 16 (1), 89-100.
 
.Holladay, Jennifer (2011). Cyberbullying. The stakes have never been higher for students or schools.
Education Digest, 76(5), 4-9.
 
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23(4), 1777-1791.
 
Tangen, D., & Campbell, M. (2010). Cyberbullying prevention: One primary school's approach.
Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(2), 225-234
Neuman, W. L. (2016) Understanding research. Pearson: Pearson Publishers

14.Ofcom (2019). Children and parents: media use and attitudes report 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-
media-use-and-attitudes-report-2018
15. Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross (2009, p.182)
16. Belsey (2004)
17. Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor (2007, p.52)
18. Vandebosch & van Cleemput (2008, p.500)
19. Kowalski & Limber (2007, p.24)
20. Zacchilli & Valerio (2011, p.11)
21. Hinduja & Patchin (2008, p.152)
22. Tattum (1989, p.17)
23. Aalsma & Brown (2008, p.101)
24. Rigby (2007, p.19)
25. Arsenio & Lemerise (2004, p.989)
26. Menesini & Camodeca, 2008, p.187)
27. Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel (2009, p.211)
28. Ybarra & Mitchell (2004a, p.1308)
29. Smith & Sharp (1994, p.13)
30. Nunnally & Bernstein (1994, p.27)
31. Spector (1992, p.44)
32. Rigby & Slee (1999, p.121)
33. Peterson & Rigby (1999, p.483)
34. Ahmed & Braithwaite (2004, p.38)
35. MacCallum et al. (2002, p.20)
36. MacCallum et al. (2002, p.22)
37. Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon (1999, p.344)
38. Hoffman & Miller (1998, p.83)
39. Li (2007, p.4)
40. Solberg & Olweus (2003, p.242)
41. Norman & Connolly (2011, p.287)
42. Wilcox, 2009, p.9
43. Marsh, Craven, & Hinkley (2003, p.193)
44. Schafer & Graham, 2002, p.147)
45. Griezel et al. (2008, p.2)
46. Piquero & Sealock (2000, p.451)
47. Paternoster & Mazerolle (1994, p.236)
48. Mazerolle et al. (2000, p.89)
 50

49. Sources Consulted Badke, W. B. (2008). Research strategies: Finding your way through the
information fog (3rd ed.). Lincoln, NE: universe. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006), How to
design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Hart, C. (2001).
Doing a literature search: A comprehensive guide for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Kennedy, M. (2005). What makes a research question answerable? Retrieved from Michigan State
University Doctoral Program in Teacher Education Web site:
http://edweb3.educ.msu.edu/digitaladvisor/Research/whatanswerable.htm
Badke, W. B. (2008). Research strategies: Finding your way through the information fog (3rd ed.).
Lincoln, NE: universe. Available from the Twin Cities Campus Library, this is the best student-
cantered book I've seen. It is loaded with tips, resources, and examples of both bad and good research
questions. Best of all, the author is funny.

Twin Cities Campus Library Designing a Research Strategy the URL for this document is . . .
http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/tclibrary/tutorials/finding/starting.pdf

Twin Cities Campus Writing Centre Literature Review the URL for this document is . . .
http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/tcwritingcenter/writing/lit_review.php

50. Proctor ( 2005 )

51. Saunders et. al., 2003 )
52. Currie ( 2003)
53. Newman (2005 )
54 Saundres et al., 2003
55. Fisher, 2004)
56. Saunders (2005)
57. Seddighi, 2000 ).
58. Yin, 2003
59. Lancaster, 2005
60. Marshall and Rossman (1999)
Aboujaoude, Elias, et al. "Cyberbullying: Review of an old problem gone viral." Journal of 
adolescent health 57.1 (2015): 10-18. Baldry, Anna Costanza, Anna Sorrentino, and David P.
Farrington. "Cyberbullying and cyber 
victimization versus parental supervision, monitoring, and control of adolescents' online activities."
Children and Youth Services Review 96 (2019): 302-307. Barlett, Christopher P., Douglas A. Gentile,
and Chelsea Chew. "Predicting cyberbullying from 
anonymity." Psychology of Popular Media Culture 5.2 (2016): 171. Bottino, Sara Mota Borges, et al.
"Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: a systematic 
review." Cadernos de Saude Publica 31 (2015): 463-475. Brewer, Gayle, and Jade Kerslake.
"Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy, and loneliness." 
Computers in human behavior 48 (2015): 255-260. Coleman, Gabriella. Hacker, hoaxer,
whistleblower, spy: The many faces of Anonymous. Verso 
books, 2014. Englander, Elizabeth, et al. "Defining cyberbullying." Pediatrics140.Supplement 2
(2017): S148- 
S151. Gardner, Dianne, et al. "Predictors of workplace bullying and cyber-bullying in New 
Zealand." International journal of environmental research and public health 13.5 (2016): 448.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2017). Cultivating youth resilience to prevent bullying and 
cyberbullying victimization. Child abuse & neglect, 73, 51-62. Kowalski, Robin M., et al.
"Cyberbullying among college students with disabilities." Computers 
in Human Behavior 57 (2016): 416-427. Lee, Changho, and Namin Shin. "Prevalence of
cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying 
perpetration among Korean adolescents." Computers in Human Behavior 68 (2017): 352- 358.
Olweus, Dan, and Susan P. Limber. "Some problems with cyberbullying research." Current 
opinion in psychology 19 (2018): 139-143. Palermiti, Anna Lisa, et al. "Cyberbullying and self-
esteem: An Italian study." Computers in 
 51

Human Behavior 69 (2017): 136-141. Patchin, Justin W., and Sameer Hinduja. "Measuring
cyberbullying: Implications for 
research." Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015): 69-74. Rice, Eric, et al. "Cyberbullying
perpetration and victimization among middle-school students." American Journal of Public Health
105.3 (2015): e66-e72. Sasson, Hagit, and Gustavo Mesch. "The role of parental mediation and peer
norms on the 
likelihood of cyberbullying." The Journal of genetic psychology 178.1 (2017): 15-27. Waasdorp,
Tracy E., and Catherine P. Bradshaw. "The overlap between cyberbullying and 
traditional bullying." Journal of Adolescent Health 56.5 (2015): 483-488. Watts, Lynette K., et al.
"Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review." Computers in 
Human Behavior 69 (2017): 268-274. Whittaker, Elizabeth, and Robin M. Kowalski. "Cyberbullying
via social media." Journal of 
School Violence 14.1 (2015): 11-29. Zych, Izabela, et al. "Are children involved in cyberbullying low
on empathy? A systematic 
review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles." Aggression
and violent behavior (2018).
 1.       http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/annual-reports/childline-review-under-pressure.pdf
2.       http://www.saferinternet.org.uk/news/press-release
3.       http://www.childnet.com/ufiles/Have%20your%20Say%20Report.pdf
4.       http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr14/2014_UK_CMR.pdf
5.       https://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report_2012%282%29.pdf
6.       http://redballoonlearner.co.uk/includes/files/resources/261298927_red-balloon-natcen-research-
report.pdf
7.       http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/far-from-being-harmless-the-effects-
of-bullying-last-long-into-adulthood.html
8.       http://www.ditchthelabel.org/uk-bullying-statistics-2014/
9.       http://www.ditchthelabel.org/downloads/the-annual-cyberbullying-survey-2013.pdf
10. http://diana-award.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Research-Summary-The-Diana-Award-Anti-
Bullying-Ambassadors-Programme-Bullying-at-School-pdf.pdf
Tagged: diana award, anti bullying ambassadors, bullying facts, bullying statistics, number of
people who are bullied, bullying, bullied, online, safety, homophobic, social media, cyber
bullying, childline, stonewall, research

Bowes L, Johnson C, Wolke D, Lewis G.

Peer victimisation during adolescence and its impact on depression in early adulthood: prospective cohort
study in the United Kingdom.
BMJ. 2015; 350: h2469

Fisher H L, Moffit T E, Houts R M, Belsky D W, Arseneault L, Caspi A.

Bullying victimisation and risk of self-harm in early adolescence: longitudinal cohort study.
BMJ. 2012; 344: e2683

Ofcom
Children and parents: media use and attitudes report.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/research-publications/childrens/children-parents-
nov-15/
Date: 2015
(accessed May 25, 2016).

Slonje R, Smith P K.
Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?
Scand J Psychol. 2008; 49: 147-154

Sticca F, Perren S.
Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity,
and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying.
 52

J Youth Adolesc. 2013; 42: 739-750

Landstedt E, Persson S.
Bullying, cyberbullying, and mental health in young people.
Scand J Public Health. 2014; 42: 393-399

Messias E, Kindrick K, Castro J.

School bullying, cyberbullying, or both: correlates of teen suicidality in the 2011 CDC Youth Risk
Behavior Survey.
Compr Psychiatry. 2014; 55: 1063-1068

Sampasa – Kanyinga H, Roumeliotis P, Xu H.

Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and
attempts among Canadian schoolchildren.
PLoS One. 2014; 9: e102145

Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP.

The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional Bullying.
J Adolesc Health. 2015; 56: 483-488

Vazsonyi AT, Machackova H, Sevcikova A , Smahel D , Cerna A

Cyberbullying in context: direct and indirect effects by low self-control across 25 European countries.
Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012; 9: 210-227

Wolke D, Lee K, Guy A

Cyberbullying: a storm in a teacup?
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017; (published online Feb 10.)10.1007/s00787-017-0954-6

Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC.

Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying.
J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. 2014; 55: 602-611

Rivers I , Smith PK.

Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates.
Aggress Behav. 1994; 20: 359-368

Patalay P, Fitzsimons E.
Correlates of mental illness and wellbeing in children: are they the same? Results from the UK
Millennium Cohort Study.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016; 55: 771-783

Parkinson J.
Establishing a core set of national, sustainable mental health indicators for adults in Scotland: Final
report.

http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/5798-Adult%20mental%20health%20indicators%20-
%20final%20report.pdf

Date: 2007

(accessed June 1, 2016).

Mascellino A.
Children are “more likely to be bullied online than in the playground”.
Mirror (London). Jan 30, 2017; (accessed May 19, 2017).
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/your-children-safe-online-parents-9720544
 53

Della Cioppa V, O'Neil A, Craig W.

Learning from traditional bullying interventions: a review of research on cyberbullying and best practice.
Aggress Violent Behav. 2015; 23: 61-68

Reijntjes A, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, Telch MJ.

Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies.
Child Abuse Negl. 2010; 34: 244-252
Shakoor S, Jaffee SR, Andreou P , t al.
Mothers and children as informants of bullying victimization: results from an epidemiological cohort of
children.
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2011; 39: 379-387

Olweus D
Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon?
Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012; 9: 520-538

Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P.

Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment.
JAMA. 2001; 285: 2094-2100

Tippett N, Wolke D, Platt L. 

Ethnicity and bullying involvement in a national UK youth sample.

J Adolesc. 2013; 36: 639-649