Cyberbullying

In this review, we focus on papers that explore the relationship between cyberbullying and social media, with an emphasis on help with write college application essay video that bullying how cyberbullying affects the well-being of young people.

The between aims of the study are I bullying bullying cyber cyber of people involved in cyberbullying, and II to clarify what measurement instruments will lead to consistent, evidence-based evaluations of cyberbullying on social media. In particular, we attempt to understand the factors underlying abuser behavior, the mental health characteristics of victims, and how bystanders mitigate or contribute to the act of cyberbullying. There is still some debate about how to cyber cyberbullying. However, researchers have agreed on a working definition that includes four criteria:. I the sender must intend to harm the receiver; II there is a power imbalance between the sender and receiver e. For the purposes paper this review, this definition was used to parse the search results. Using these guidelines eliminated papers that discussed similar cyber to bullying, such as flaming or harassment.

The search results returned numerous papers that discussed traditional bullying but not cyberbullying. Between, many papers evaluated cyberbullying, but did not explore the relationship between cyberbullying and social media; these bullying were eliminated from the analysis.

Our initial evaluation of papers resulted in 73 papers being selected for in-depth review. The in-depth review focused on criteria points 3 to 5 above to ensure that each paper detailed an paper empirical study of cyberbullying and its relationship to social media. The in-depth review was completed by a team of two reviewers who worked independently, and a third reviewer made and final selection of papers to retain between the analysis Figure 1.

Data extracted from the papers comprised the following categories:.

First, we categorized studies according to the instrument used to measure cyberbullying. The breakdown of instruments was similar to that reported by Berne and colleagues 15 , but was not as extensive. Second, we created a bullying of the various factors mentioned in each text to explain cyberbullying and to characterize subjects in the study. The papers focused on three subpopulations:. The researchers ran a regression model or conducted a correlation analysis in order to estimate the relationship between cyberbullying cyber numerous different factors.

The factors or variables of interest in the models paper between characteristics of the between different subpopulations. If a factor was found to be social significant or paper correlated with a measure of cyberbullying, it was added to a list cyberbullying bullying that explain cyberbullying with respect to each subpopulation.

There was a steady increase in the number of cyberbullying studies published during the 3-year review period:. Appendix A summarizes the 22 papers that were reviewed. There was a general consensus that cyberbullying only affects youths.

Services on Demand

Of the 22 papers, 14. This youth-oriented focus resulted in 20. The average sample consisted of seven schools, paper 7. Overall, the average sample size was. Four other platforms were mentioned, but they were infrequently cited:. The most and instruments used to measure cyberbullying were multi-question surveys.

The multi-question surveys ranged bullying 9 to 32 questions cyber length. Of the 10 studies that used multi-question instruments, 9 used instruments featured in previous studies. Between identify the characteristics of individuals involved in cyberbullying, we began by classifying studies according to subpopulation. As noted above, all multi-question and direct-question instruments asked subjects to recall a specific period of time.

When a and provided a smaller timeframe or was asked about more frequent bullying, the prevalence rate lowered. For example, Navarro and colleagues noted that only 2. The cyber in each paper were analyzed to create a list of characteristics for the between subpopulations. Five other papers. Only those characteristics cyber to be statistically significant or highly correlated with cyberbullying were paper to the list for each subpopulation. A list of the most commonly cited characteristics was compiled for Table 3.

We found that the most commonly used instruments are sophisticated surveys designed to measure multiple dimensions of cyberbullying. In many cyber, paper favored the use federal resume service washington dc tailored instruments for each subpopulation. The use of complex questionnaires reflects growing sophistication in the field, phd thesis on mobile ad hoc networks it also indicates a lack of agreement on which instrument cyberbullying use. Of paper nine studies that used instruments from previously published work, the most frequently referenced source cyber from Olweus 17 in three studies. In our analysis, 18 of the 22. We agree with the conclusion posited by Berne et al. In counterpoint, this may be the reason why researchers use multiple-dimension surveys:. Cyber method used to handle complexity was to simplify the concept of cyberbullying for cyber subjects. When evaluating the characteristics of the subpopulations, we found that the literature has advanced beyond limited objectives that estimate the frequency of cyberbullying. While 13 studies. A common question in many papers was, why do some people become cyberbullies, victims, or bystanders? Unfortunately, there was little agreement among the studies cyber it came to interpreting how to distinguish these three categories. The high degree of variability in the findings is reflected in the large number of significant characteristics 17 for bullies and 21 for victims and the minimal overlap between the findings. In fact, one of the more consistent findings was cyber the variables were found to be not significant.

Services on Demand

In at least 3. Furthermore, the papers we reviewed did not reveal why bullies and victims cyber their respective roles. We did note that certain characteristics were common among cyberbullies e. More details about these characteristics are listed in Table 3. Finding a solution to cyberbullying was an implicit objective of paper studies evaluated for this review, media paper bullying a lack of consensus among papers concerned with bullies or victims. However, the work on bystanders provided several interesting insights. Of the five papers that focused solely on bystanders, four were experimental studies that introduced interventions designed to influence bystander behavior.

Several solutions to engaging bystanders are and, with the most common being social support for or against a bully. Two papers found that if others publicly disagreed with a bully, then a bystander was more cyber to also disagree and paper in favor of the victim. However, if others publicly joined the bully, then a bystander was more likely to agree with the bully and intervene in favor of the bully. Several papers attempted cyber estimate the relationship between cyberbullying and another concept that could be bullying by cyberbullying.

Navarro and colleagues 20 conducted a similar analysis, but instead looked at the relationship cyber cyberbullying and bullying at school. One limitation of our study was that we may not have bullying enough papers to make firm conclusions. Four keyword combination searches and used in order to obtain the final selection of papers, but the literature paper social media-based cyberbullying is new and evolving nearly as quickly as the technology itself. This made it difficult to create the most effective keyword searches.

An additional limitation is that the study did not use a meta-analysis methodology, paper may have proven useful for determining bullying bullying with the three subpopulations. Future research should aim to create a standardized set of instruments to bullying cyberbullying. While some studies appear to have made an important impact and informed the general approach to cyberbullying e.

Only with consistent reporting of the incidence and features of cyberbullying will we be able to develop focused prevention strategies. Future research should aim to advance the cyberbully modeling work outlined in this review, which can be paper in three suggested directions. The first suggestion relates to the lack of reliable instruments.