Catherine Natal

November 11, 2015

MS2009
Article Review
Mishna et al. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully
victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 63-70.
Introduction
For this article review, I will be describing the main pitfalls of Mishna, Kassabri, Gadalla,
and Daciuks article entitled Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies, and
bully-victims. I will use information from supportive texts, such as Bauman & Bellmores
article entitled New Directions in Cyberbullying Research and Fegenbush & Oliviers article
entitled Cyberbullying: A Literature Review to add evidence to my analysis of Mishna, et al.s
article, thats previously mentioned above. My critical analysis of said article will stem around
the idea that Mishna et al.s experimental study of students who have been the bully/the victim of
bullying/the bully-victims (where students have bullied others while getting bullied themselves),
is simply too vague of a study to fully get pertinent data from.
Summary
Mishna et al.s article consists of an experimental study conducted on students who
originate from various middle schools, and high schools across Canada. The purpose of this
study was to calculate the frequency of cyberbullying among youth by distinguishing among the
three categories of involvement in cyber bullying: victims, bullies, and bully-victims (2012).
The students who participated in this study, were asked to complete self-reporting questionnaires
during their class time. The questionnaires were compiled of socio-demographic questions,
where students had to state their gender, explain their academic achievement in school, as well
as, stating their country of birth, and the language that they spoke at home. The next part of the

questionnaire asked students to detail the amount of technology they use (hours daily), and the
amount of parental involvement/safety of their internet usage. The last part of the questionnaire
asked students to rate the amount of physical and verbal violence they give to other students, on
a daily basis (0=never to 5=everyday). After analyzing the results, Mishna et al. were able to
conclude that over 50% of students in this study identified themselves as [being] involved in
cyberbullying, as victims, perpetrators or both (2012). The study also revealed that boys bully
more than girls, while girls are more likely to be the victim of bullying, while doing the bullying
themselves. In terms of parental supervision, the study was able to reveal that only 23.4% of the
students indicated that their parents/guardians supervise their internet use (2012). In regards to
violence, more than half of the students (56.3%) reported using at least one form of violence
toward their peers (2012). Finally, Mishna et al.s study was able to reveal that, children
whose parents speak English at home were more likely to be victims or to be bully-victims than
to not be involved in cyber bullying (2012). While this study seems to have gathered a fair
amount of data from students that can aid in the understanding of cyberbullying amongst them,
there are a few faults that lie within this experiment that I will be discussing in the next section,
Analysis.
Analysis
As I mentioned above, this experimental study was quite structured, and the data that
Mishna et al. were able to gather from the students leads to a better understanding of
cyberbullying amongst them. Nonetheless, what fails to be recognized in this study, is the
differentiating amount of students who cyberbully during school hours, and students who choose
to cyberbully at home. I questioned whether or not those 23.4 percent of students who do have
parental supervision during their internet usage time at home, choose to cyberbully during the

school day on their phones, where they wont be supervised. As Bauman & Bellmore state in
their article, there are many painful experiences that deserve attention, even if they do not
meet a strict definition of cyberbullying (pg.3, 2015). Since the term cyberbullying has a vague
definition, and can be applied to a multitude of situations, its hard to identify whether or not the
students in Mishna et al.s study know the true definition of cyberbullying. Thus indicating that
the line of comprehension of the term cyberbullying can be somewhat blurred due to the fact
that every student may have a differing understanding as to what that term means. Bauman &
Bellmore also state that, rather than using arbitrary classifications (such as setting minimum
frequency to be considered a bully or victim), empirical methods exist and provide greater
explanatory power (pg.3, 2015). Had Mishna et al. asked students to state whether theyve been
involved in specific cyberbullying scenarios (such as: using degrading propaganda against
another student, ganging up on other peers through a social media platform, creating pseudo
profiles to slander other students, etc.) their findings would be more concrete and pertinent to the
cyberbullying cause. Both Bauman & Bellmores, and Fegenbush & Oliviers articles state that
while studies are important to form pertinent data from, they always lack one thing-a solution to
the cause (i.e. cyberbullying). Bauman & Bellmore state, Despite substantial cyberbullying
research activity, there have been few attempts to evaluate programs designed to prevent or
reduce cyberbullying (pg.3, 2015). While Fegenbush & Olivier state, Most research indicates
that the issue of cyberbullying cannot truly be addressed unless it is approached both proactively
and reactively (pg.2, 2009). That is another pitfall of Mishna et al.s experimental study-while
they were able to prove that cyberbullying occurs amongst middle school and high school
students, they fail to provide a solution to said cyberbullying amongst said students.

As I finished reading the concluding data of Mishna et al.s experimental study, I

questioned whether they took into account cyberbullying that can occur outside of social media
platforms, such as cyberbullying within the gaming world. Bauman & Bellmore state, Games
are popular digital activities, and online games have to potential to be venues for cyberbullying
(pg.4, 2015). While Mishna et al.s experimental study covered all facets of cyberbullying
amongst students, and whether students identified themselves as the bully, victim, or bullyvictim, they neglected to take into account cyberbullying amongst the gaming community.
Studying this particular type of cyberbullying could have come in handy, seeing as how Mishna
et al. studied students from middle schools, and high schools- who are more likely than not, to
have access to at least one gaming console.
Another piece of important information thats inherently missing from Mishna et al.s
experimental study, is the data on what exactly students use the internet for. There is data pulled
from the questionnaires that states the amount of time students spend on the internet, but it lacks
the information of what exact websites students spend their time on. Whether their internet usage
is more social media heavy, more academic heavy, or more gaming heavy. Had Mishna et al.
asked the students to explain what websites they visit during their internet usage times, they
would have been able to pinpoint a specific percentage of students who visit social media sites
daily, as opposed to students who dont visit social media sites at all, and instead use their
internet use for strictly academic, or gaming purposes. This strict percentage could shed some
light as to the amount of students who are easily exposed to cyberbullying, due to websites they
visit during their internet usage time. Fegenbush & Olivier state, 55% of online teens ages 1217 have created a profile on a social networking sites such as Facebook or MySpace (pg.28,
2009). It is safe to say that the students studied in Mishna et al.s experiment fall between these

ages, therefore the majority of them will have social media profiles, thus making them easily
accessible to cyberbullying, whether they choose to be the bully, the victim, or the bully-victim.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mishna et al.s experimental study was able to provide data that can aid the
cyberbullying cause, in some way, shape, or form. However, if I were a journal editor, I would
not publish this article simply based on the fact that its not informative enough. There are key
points missing in this article. The experimental study neglects to cover all facets of cyberbullying
(i.e. cyberbullying within the gaming community; could be very common amongst middle school
and high school students). This study lacks the option of providing a solution for cyberbullying.
It also fails to provide a clear definition of cyberbullying that could have been given to students,
so that everyone comes to general consensus, and fully understands what cyberbullying pertains.
This clear definition would make it to where no students definition of cyberbullying would
differ from the other. Lastly, this study ceases to differentiate the amount of students who
cyberbully at home, and students who choose to cyberbully in a school setting. Due to these
missing key pieces, Mishna et al.s article isnt well rounded enough because it doesnt acquire
all pertinent data on cyberbullying, but merely scratches the surface on said subject.

Reference List

Fegenbush, Buffy S., and Dianne Olivier. "Cyberbullying: A Literature

Review."ullresearch.pbworks.com (2009): 70. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Mishna et al. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully
victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 63-70.
Sheri Bauman & Amy Bellmore (2015) New Directions in Cyberbullying Research, Journal of
School Violence, 14:1, 1-10, DOI:10.1080/15388220.2014.968281