CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Melissa Brown B.A.

, California State University of Sacramento, 2002

THESIS

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

at

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

SPRING 2010

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A Thesis

by

Melissa Brown

Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Juliana Raskauskas __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Sheri Hembree ____________________________ Date

ii

Student: Melissa Brown

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator Dr. Sheri Hembree Department of Child Development

___________________ Date

iii

Abstract of CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT by Melissa Brown

Traditional bullying among adolescents has become a common problem; however a new trend of bullying emerging in schools around the world known as cyberbullying. Two hundred and twenty-six students were surveyed about their experiences with cyberbullying, and their connection to school. Results indicated that cyberbullying occurred most often through text messaging and social networking sites. Correlations between academic performance and the different forms of cyberbullying revealed a significant relationship between text-bullying and math performance. There was also a connection between academic performance and connection to school which may suggest a mediating model. Significant differences were found between boys and girls on cyberbullying but no significant differences were found between 8th and 9th graders. Results also indicated that cyber-victims reported significantly more victimization at school than non-victims. _______________________, Committee Chair Dr. Juliana Raskauskas _______________________ Date iv

DEDICATION

To my husband Taylor, my son Evan, and all of my family and friends, thank you for all of the support you have given through this adventure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my sponsor, Dr. Juliana Raskauskas. Without her encouragement, feedback and patience I would have been unable to complete this thesis. I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Sheri Hembree. Thank you both for taking time to work with me to complete my Thesis. Thank you to the Child Development Department at Sacramento State University and all of the staff for making my gradate experience one I will never forget. I am proud to be able to say that my graduate degree is from CSUS. Also a special thanks to the schools for allowing me to come in and work with your students and the participants who took the time to fill out the survey. Without you there would be no study! Thank you to my husband for all of your support through this long process. Without your love and support I would have never been able to get to this point. To my son Evan, you are the most precious gift and we are so blessed to have you in our lives. A big thank you to Elizabeth Sterba for all you have done to help me through this process. Your support and guidance helped me reach a goal I never thought possible. Finally, a big thank you to all of my amazing friends and family who supported me, listened to me, and encouraged me to never stop. You all mean the world to me!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Dedication ..................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................2 Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 3 Methods..............................................................................................................4 Definition of Terms ...........................................................................................5 Limitations ........................................................................................................6 Organization of the Study .................................................................................7 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .........................................................................9 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................10 Traditional Bullying .........................................................................................18 Cyberbullying .................................................................................................21 Relationship between Traditional and Cyberbullying ....................................24 Effects of Cyberbullying ..................................................................................26 Academic Performance in Relation to Bullying/Cyberbullying .....................26 Implications for the Present Study ..................................................................28 3. METHODS ...........................................................................................................29 Design and Research Questions ..................................................................... 29 Participants ......................................................................................................30 vii

Measures ..........................................................................................................32 Procedures .......................................................................................................35 Summary ..........................................................................................................37 4. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................38 Prevalence of Cyberbullying ...........................................................................38 Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement ................39 Gender and Grade Differences ........................................................................42 Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying .....................43 Conclusion ......................................................................................................43 5. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................45 Prevalence of Cyberbullying ...........................................................................45 Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement ................47 Gender and Grade Differences ........................................................................49 Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying .....................50 Implications......................................................................................................51 Limitations ......................................................................................................52 Appendix A. Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation ..................................54 Appendix B. Bullying in Schools Survey ....................................................................57 References ....................................................................................................................64

viii

LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Table 1 Executive Summary School Accountability Report ..........................31 Card from 2008-2009 Table 2 Percentage of Students Reporting Forms of Bullying ........................39 Table 3 Intercorrelations Between Study Measures ....................................... 41 Table 4 Gender Comparisons on Cyberbullying ........................................... 42

2. 3. 4.

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Figure 1 Social Cognitive Theory ....................................................................11

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

During adolescence, peer relationships play an increasingly important role in social and emotional development. These relationships contribute to adolescents social and emotional well-being (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Cowie (1999) argued that peer relationships are critical during the adolescent period, since it is through peer relationships that young children learn about self, others, and the social world around them. If peer relationships are positive experiences for a child, the child will grow up with a positive outlook on life and relationships. However, if peer experiences are negative, they can have a negative long-term effect on a child which later can lead to poor relationships in adulthood (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). This is particularly true in the case of bullying, a hurtful form of social behavior that can have a negative impact on adolescents. Traditional bullying among adolescents has become recognized as a common problem in schools; however researchers are beginning to see a new trend in bullying around the world. Cyberbullying is a fairly new form of bullying which is becoming more common with the spread of social technology. Hinduja and Patchin (2008) define cyberbullying as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on another person by use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. Cyberbullying involves the use of

information and communication using email, cell phone messages, instant messaging, and defamatory personal web sites (Li, 2005).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research study was to investigate the new trend of cyberbullying among adolescents attending middle schools and high schools in the Sacramento area. The aim of the research was to gain a better understanding of how adolescents are affected by cyberbullying and what impact cyberbullying might have on academic performance. The main focus of this study was to investigate bullying that occurs through the Internet with a primary focus on social websites such as Myspace, Facebook as well as through other electronic devices such as cellular phones. The research questions that guided this study were: (a) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic performance among adolescents?; (b) Is there a relationship between involvement in cyberbullying and grade/gender of the child?; and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated?

Statement of the Problem

There is a substantial body of research related to traditional bullying, including its incidence, characteristics and impacts (Fitzpatrick, Akilah, and Piko, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus.1993). However, there is an absence of literature on the relationship

between cyberbullying and academic achievement and what impact cyberbullying might have on adolescents that are faced with this new form of bullying. Therefore research, such as the current study, that investigates cyberbullying and its relationship to school academic and social factors is needed.

Significance of the Study

According to Ybarra and Mitchell (2004), there is a great need to identify youth who have been involved in negative Internet experiences so that effective intervention and prevention programs can be implemented. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) stated that, negative Internet experiences such as cyberbullying can have harmful consequences for youth. For example, MSNBC (2008) reported a story about a young girl named Megan who was a victim of cyberbullying. In October, 2006, Megan a 13-year-old female who battled with depression was found dead in her bedroom after she became a victim of cyberbullying and hung herself. As the Internet is becoming increasingly more accessible to more youth, stories such as Megans are also becoming more frequent. This story is similar to the student stories reported in research by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) and Patchin and Hinduja (2006), these student stories provides evidence of how students can be affected by cyberbullying. Previous research has demonstrated the effects traditional bullying can have on adolescents. Such bullying is linked to depression, suicidal ideation, and running away from home (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). However, less is know about the impact

cyberbullying has on adolescents, therefore a better understanding of this new form of bullying might help save the next Megan that falls victim to cyberbullying. Since cyberbullying is a relatively recent phenomenon, there has been very little research into its characteristics and impacts. In addition, much of the previous research has focused on middle SES adolescents. Further research investigating cyberbullying with lower SES adolescents from a diverse population is needed to gain a better understanding of how adolescents are being affected within these demographic groups.

Methods

The study examined the relationship between cyberbullying and academic performance in school among adolescent age children. This study used a quantitative design and the data were collected as part of a larger study. The study sample included 226 students from four middle schools (8th grade 58%), and three high school (9th grade, 42%) in Northern California. These grades were targeted due to the importance of school transitions to changes in academic performance and the fact that these ages are most at risk for cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). Surveys were administered in classrooms at the various schools. All measures were administered to participating students at the same time. All information regarding the proposed study and forms that explain the survey were read out loud and surveys completed silently and independently by students. Precautions were taken to protect confidentiality of students answers and for their protection no items asked students to

identify specific bullies at their school. Consent to participate in this study was obtained from parents prior to students completing the survey. The survey for this study (Appendix B) included four sections: demographic information such as age and gender, relationships the students have at school with other students, feelings students have regarding their school and the school environment, and the different types of bullying students encounter at school. The section on bullying at schools included questions on different bullying forms such as traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Cyberbullying items were adapted from two instruments: (a) a survey developed by Li (2005) which focused on cyberbullying in schools and (b) a survey used in a study by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007). Frequencies were computed to examine the prevalence of various forms of cyberbullying, Pearson correlations were computed to test relationships between cyberbullying and academic achievement, and t-tests were used to examine gender and age group differences.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of clarity, this thesis used the following terms as defined below:

Bullying According to previous research traditional bullying can be defined as (a) harmful acts done with the intent to harm another; (b) repeated or occurring over a period of time; and (c) characterized by an imbalance of strength or power, such that the victim does not

feel he/she can stop the interaction (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).

Cyberbullying Cyberbullying has been defined as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on another person by use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Often times this type of bullying occurs through text messaging, picture or video messages, social networking sites, and instant messaging (IM) or email.

Academic Performance For this study academic performance was measured in two ways: (a) with student self-report relative to their peers, and (b) using the STAR performance levels for Math and English. The STAR test is a standardized academic assessment given every year to students.

Limitations

It is important to note the limitations of the current study. One limitation was the use of self-report surveys which can be vulnerable to students misreporting or reporting in a manner that they feel is socially acceptable. Future research should include focus groups and observations. This would allow researchers to gain a better understanding of what is happens when teachers are not present. This would also allow for some students

to verbalize their feels and what they feel is occurring as far as bullying on their school campus. Another limitation in the current study is the relatively small sample size. While this study included 226 total participants from seven schools in the greater Sacramento area, the percentage of those with prior experience with cyberbullying was small. With a small number of participants involved in this total study only a small percentage reported cyberbullying which makes group comparisons questionable. Future research should include a large population of participants in order to ensure that group comparisons are reliable and valid. Finally, the sample was non-random which limits the generalizability of the findings. These findings should not be interpreted to represent the experiences of all adolescents at all high schools.

Organization of the Study

This chapter has provided an introduction to the topic and serves as the overview of the thesis. The next chapter, Chapter 2, presents a review of the literature and examines the history of traditional and cyberbullying research, the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, as well as the impact traditional and cyberbullying has on academic achievement in school. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in this study. It describes methods used to examine two specific research questions: (a) Is there a relationship between

cyberbullying and academic performance among adolescents?; (b) Is there a relationship between involvement in cyberbullying and grade/gender of the child? Chapter 4 presents a summary of the results of the study. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of conclusions reached, the limitations of the study and the major findings of the study in the context of existing and future research.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A significant number of adolescences are becoming victims of bullying, both traditional school-based bullying and bullying through cyber-space. The growing use of technology among youth to bully each other has lead to a recent influx of research focusing on this new form of bullying known as cyberbullying. During adolescence, peer groups form and these relationships with peers play a critical role in adolescents social and emotional development (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). The impact of these relationships is not always positive. Negative forms of peer relationships may include peer pressure, exclusion and bullying. Research has consistently shown that bullying is associated with negative social, emotional, and academic outcomes (Graham, Bellmore, 2003; Graham, Bellmore, & Juvonen, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto & Toblin, 2005). The majority of adolescents today also have access to technology such as cell phones and computers which have become an integral part of their interactions with peers (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Many create web pages through social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter and use them to interact with others. Adolescents also use cell phones to text message friends and social networking sites to post personal information about themselves (Tokunaga, 2010). Due to this constant access, wider

10

distribution of personal information, and anonymity afforded by many cyber-technologies some adolescents today are being faced with cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). This chapter presents a review of the literature pertaining to bullying, both traditional and cyberbullying. The first section reviews Social Cognitive Theory the theoretical framework that guided this study. The second section begins with a discussion of the review of research related to the major components of bullying: the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, the effects of cyberbullying, and finally, academic performance relative to cyber bullying. The second section reviews Social Cognitive Theory the theoretical framework that guided this study. The chapter concludes with a description of the research questions resulting from examination of the literature.

Theoretical Framework

The study of bullying, both traditional and cyberbullying can best be understood using the theoretical perspective of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Proposed by Bandura (1977, 1986), STC provides a framework for understanding, predicting, and changing human behavior. The theory identifies human behavior as an interaction of cognition (personal factors), behavior, and environment (see Figure 1).

11

Figure 1. Social Cognitive Theory SCT explains that human beings learn through observing others behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors. According to Bandura (1977) most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling. From observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and when needed this observation helps in how one responds and reacts in a situation. SCT explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Reciprocal determinism refers to the idea that behavior is not simply the result of the environmental, personal, and behavioral factors independently but the interactions between them (Glanz et al, 2002). Reciprocal determinism describes how the world and a persons behavior cause each other, and that ones environment causes ones behavior, and that behavior causes environment as well (Bandura, 2001). SCT recognizes that some sources of influence are stronger than others and that they do not all occur simultaneously. The interaction between the three factors will differ based on the

12

individual, the actual behavior and the situation in which the behavior is occurring (Bandura, 1986). The interaction between the person and behavior involves the influences of a persons thoughts and actions (Bandura, 2001). The interaction between the person and the environment involves human beliefs and cognitive competencies that are developed and modified by social influences and structures within the environment (Bandura, 2001). The third interaction, between the environment and behavior, involves a persons behavior determining the aspects of their environment and in turn his/her behavior is modified by that environment (Bandura, 2001). These interactions are key for understanding and examining cyberbullying. This theory address the fact that behavior varies from situation to situation, which indicates that behavior is not always controlled by situations but instead that people are interpreting and responding to situations differently (Bandura, 2001). Thus, the same situation can provoke different responses from different people or from the same person at different times. Although not all of Banduras SCT theory is used in this study, reciprocal determinism is helpful for understanding both individual and group behavior and the decisions they make and can aid in understanding cyberbullying.

Constructs of SCT and Cyberbullying In reciprocal determinism the three SCT factors of environment, person and behavior are constantly influencing each other. In the STC model there are three interactions (see Figure 1): (a) Person and Behavior; (b) Person and Environment; and (c)

13

Environment and Behavior. Each of these interactions will be discussed below in terms of cyberbullying. Personal factors. In the STC model, the interaction of person and behavior involves the influences of an individuals thoughts, actions and self-beliefs. What people think, believe and feel affects how they behave (Bandura, 1986). The effects of the individuals actions determine the persons thoughts and emotions. As human beings we are constantly using self-reflection to make sense of what is going on in the world and make sense of experiences through out life (Bandura, 1986). With self-reflection behaviors change and new thoughts and experiences occur. Experiences through out life lead to how they think and choices they make in any given situation. For example, one choice might be whether or not to select technology as a way to bully others. When an adolescent decides to cyberbully a peer, that individual has cognitively thought about his/her actions and decided to act out a behavior or emotion based on previous experiences. With cyberbullying the youth must consider whether bullying or harmful behavior is justified, their options from the use of technology, the relative risk, and harm potential when choosing how they are going to bully the other child. Options often include planning a text message campaign or posting something mean/untrue to a social site such as Myspace (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). For example, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) gave examples of adolescents that were cyberbullied through websites created by peers where other peers were encouraged to visit the site and post hurtful/ degrading comments about the victim. Creating a website and giving it a name takes serious thought and planning on the part of the cyberbully. After a website is created it

14

then takes thought on how to distribute it to other peers to involve them in the bullying (Mishna et al., 2009). Thoughts about bullying and attitudes about the use of technology can be related to cyberbullying. Individual attitudes and beliefs are also related to cyberbullying. In prior research adolescents have been found to have different attitudes and beliefs about bullying, both traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Espealge & Swearer, 2003; Frisen et al., 2008; Mishna et al., 2009). Research has shown that bullies tend to have attitudes that support the use of aggression and tend to have peers that also support bullying (Espealge & Swearer, 2003). For cyberbullying there is less research on attitudes. However, Mishna et al. (2009) discussed the attitudes and perceptions youth have on cyberbullying in focus groups. Children stated that cyberbullies have attitudes that support or justify bullying and cyberbullying as a joke. Many youth also do not consider cyberbullying a form of bullying since it is done within the seemingly anonymous environment of cyberspace. Therefore, it is imperative to continue to examine attitudes and other personal factors in order for researchers and educators to use the information for planning prevention and intervention strategies. Person and environment. This interaction explains how human beliefs and cognitive competencies are developed and modified by social influences and structures within the environment. Behavior is influenced by previous experiences and modeling within social setting. Every individuals attitudes and beliefs are influenced by the environment he/she was raised in (Bandura, 2001). Behaviors are repeated from the

15

modeling which in turn allows for the individual to receive praise from adults and peers in the persons life and allows for repeated behaviors (Bandura, 1986). Through previous experiences and observations within a childs environment one learns what happens when children are aggressive towards one another as well as what it feels like when someone is aggressive towards them. Children cognitively understand bullying at a young age because it is something they have observed in and out of school. At the age of six years old children can already define bullying and what bullying behaviors look like (Frisen et al., 2008). Children learn that through certain behaviors peer relationships are formed and essential (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). When a child is able to understand what type of behavior is appropriate within a social environment, most children choose behaviors that lead to produce positive outcomes and generally discard those that bring unrewarding or punishing outcomes (Bandura, 2001). However, those children that do choose to bully find it rewarding in some way. Some bullies might feel that if they bullying they will be accepted by peers, have some kind of social status or social power, and in some way feel good seeing someone else hurt (Espealge & Swearer, 2003; Mishna et al., 2009; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007). In cases of cyberbullying where the bully is able to remain anonymous the type of feedback students get from cyberbullying is unclear. Often times bullying results in situations where victims are seen as not adhering to the social rules and bullying itself can be been as a violation of social rules. Expectations about social interactions can lead to behaviors that make people more at risk for cyberbullying.

16

Expectations about appropriate social behavior within the peer environment can make adolescents vulnerable to cyberbullying. Adolescents expect that cyber interactions are anonymous and that when a cyberbully uses the computer or cell phone to bully he/she will not have to disclose who they are and the victim will not know who the individuals are who are doing the cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2009). It is also an expectation by many youth that when they share personal information with close friends, such as passwords and email addresses, their information is safe. However, much like relational aggression, often times cyberbullying happens within individuals own social group (Mishna et al., 2009). Given that social groups are key forces in creating the educational environment for adolescents, social relationships and connection to school will be examined the in the present study. It is expected that cyberbullying will alter the perception of the environment and be related to less connection to the school. Environment and behavior. This interaction describes how a persons behavior determines aspects of his/her environment, and in turn, how their behavior is altered by that environment. According to Bandura (2001), it is not just the exposure to a variety of stimuli, but the individual exploring, manipulating, and influencing the environment that counts. Cyberbullying can affect both a childs behavior and environment (Bandura, 2001; Ybarra et al., 2007). Previous research has shown that children who are cyberbullied have a higher number of detentions and suspensions, as well as poorer academic performance (Ybarra et al., 2007). If the child is not able to explore the environment and feel safe within that environment, the childs behavior may be affected.

17

Cyberbullying has its own environment which is know as cyberspace. When cyberbullying is used there is a potential for more retaliation and for the rumors, pictures, text messages and negative posting on a social networking site spread among peers much faster than traditional forms of bullying would. For example, when a message is posted on a social networking site such a Facebook, a large number of peers can view the posting in a short period of time. Adolescents who have pages on social networking site and with cell phones place such a high value on the interactions they have on the Internet and through text messaging, which is the reason bullying is so effective within the cyberenvironment (Mishna et al., 2009; Raskauskas 2008). In addition to cyberspace being an environment that can influence and contribute to certain behaviors the school environment has also been found to relate to behavior such as bullying although the relationship between the school environment and cyberbullying has not been established. The school environment can affect academic behavior. Bullying at school has been associated with low connection to school, academic motivation, and poorer academic performance (Graham, Bellmore, & Juvonen, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2005). Therefore, the current study investigated whether behavior in cyberspace is also related to connection to school, academic motivation and performance at school. The relationship of both traditional bullying at school and cyberbullying to academic performance will be investigated.

18

Traditional Bullying

Traditional bullying is defined as harmful acts done with the intent to harm another that are repeated or occurring over a period of time, and are characterized by an imbalance of strength or power, such that the victim does not feel he/she can stop the interaction (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). There are three main forms of bullying: (a) physical bullying which includes hitting, kicking, and shoving; (b) verbal bullying such as name-calling, verbal insults and teasing, and (c) relational aggression which includes both indirect and direct behaviors towards others. Crick and Grotpeter (1995) have defined relational aggression as behaviors intended to harm relationships through exclusion from the group or spreading rumors with the intent to have other peers reject him/her.

Prevalence of Bullying Surveys of traditional bullying in schools indicate that approximately one quarter of students is affected. Fitzpatrick, Akilah, and Piko (2007), investigated the prevalence of bullying among adolescents and the risk factors associated with engaging in bullying behavior using a cross-sectional sample of 1,542 African American 5th 12th grade students. Results indicated that 26% of students surveyed self-reported that they had bullied someone else within the past year. Nansel et al. (2001) measured the prevalence of bullying behaviors among a representative sample of 15,686 adolescents in the United States in grades six through ten to gain a better understanding of how bullying and being

19

bullied impacted social adjustment. Students completed a self-report survey about involvement in bullying and being bullied by others. A total of 29.9% reported involvement in bullying but this was further divided into roles: 13% reported that they bullied others, 10.6% reported being bullied, and 6.3% reported that they had both bullied and had been bullied. Bullying occurred most often between the 6th and 8th grade then declining slowly which is on reason that this study examined middle and high school students experiences (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993). Although the current study has a focus on cyberbullying, the current study involved a similar population to the research by Nansel et al. (2001) research, as well as like surveying tools. Understanding traditional bullying and its affects is imperative to cyberbullying because often times traditional bullying is a gateway to other types of bullying (Li, 2005).

Gender Differences in Bullying Research has consistently found gender differences in bullying form and frequency (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001). Gender differences have been found for bullying behaviors across all ages in grades 5 12, such that boys engage in traditional forms of bullying than girls and girls participate in relational aggression and cyberbullying than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Fitzpatrick, Akilah, & Piko, 2007). Males report both bullying others and being bullied more than females (Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993) and research has shown that boys are more aggressive physically (hitting, pushing, shoving and other physical acts) than girls (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

20

Males report being bullied through more traditional forms of bullying such as being hit, slapped, or pushed; while females report being bullied through rumors or sexual comments (Nansel et al., 2001). However, researchers are beginning to see a rise in aggression and bullying among girls (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Nansel et al., 2001). Rumors, sexual comments and exclusion from a group are classified as bullying through relational aggression. Much like Nansel et al. (2001), Crick and Grotpeter (1995) found gender differences in relational aggression. Participants included 491 thirdthrough sixth-grader males and females. Results of a peer assessment of overt physical and verbal aggression indicated that boys (15.6%) were found to be more overtly aggressive than girls (0.4%). However, when looking at relational aggression, girls (17.4%) were found to be more relationally aggressive than boys. Thus, girls were more likely to attempt to harm or make threats to harm another peer relationship than boys (2.0%). Research by Crick and Grotpeter (1995) would suggest that girls would be more likely to cyberbullying than boys. While there is an immense amount of research on traditional bullying in the field the topic of cyberbullying is still one that is somewhat new with a limited amount of research. The previous research and literature on traditional bullying will guide the current investigation and hypotheses with a focus on cyberbullying. The following section will discuss the current research on cyberbullying including the various forms, gender differences, effects of cyberbullying and the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.

21

Cyberbullying

Adolescents expertise and access to technology has recently given rise to a fairly new form of bullying that occurs through media and not necessarily via face-to-face interactions at school: cyberbullying. Cyberbullying reflects the meeting of the cyberenvironment that has become part of adolescent social relationships and bullying behavior. It has been defined as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on another person by use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Cyberbullying may be done using cell phones by text messaging (text-bullying) or by picture taking, and by using web sites such as Myspace and Facebook, emails, and online slam books (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).

Prevalence of Cyberbullying Cyberbullying occurs through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. However, some forms of cyberbullying seem to be more popular among adolescents including the internet and cell phones. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) surveyed 1,501 participants ranging in age from 10 -17 years who used the internet. Results indicated that 12% were bullying others online and 4% were bullied on the internet. According to Li (2005), victims reported that 22.7% of cyberbully victims were bullied through email, 36.4% in chat rooms, and 40.9% had been bullied through multiple sources which included email, chat-rooms and cell phones. However, when cyberbullies were asked what forms of cyberbullying they had used on victims, over 9% reported they

22

had only used email, 36.4% used only chat rooms, and almost 55% used multiple sources to cyberbully. Smith et al. (2008) found that phone calls and text message bullying were most prevalent among all the ways in which participants were cyberbullied. Instant message was the second most frequent form of cyberbullying found in this study. Although video bullying was rarer, participants found it to be the one form with the most negative impact. Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) found that there is an overlap with victims of one form of cyberbullying being at increased risk for also experiencing other forms. Although the internet is a common way for cyberbullying to occur, text messaging is also a very common form of cyberbullying. Raskauskas (2010) surveyed 1,738 males and females from 11-18 years old from New Zealand and results indicated that 43% had experienced bullying through text messaging at least once. Other research that has compared different forms of cyberbullying has shown that text-message bullying is the most common (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). Based on the previous research, it was anticipated that text-messaging would be reported by participants as a common form of cyberbullying.

Gender Differences in Relation to Cyberbullying Several studies have found gender differences among victims of cyberbullying. Smith et al. (2008) reported that girls were more often victims of cyberbullying and were reported to be cyberbullies over boys. Agarston, Kowalski, and Limber (2007), also examined cyberbullying with 148 middle school and high school students. Results showed that females more than males found cyberbullying to be a problem, though it was

23

rarely discussed at school. According to Smith et al. (2008), peers stated that the reason girls used cyberbullying over traditional forms is because girls hold grudges and boys deal with issues in more of a physical manner than girls. The participants also stated that boys deal with the issue at hand and then move on and get over the problem. Therefore, it was of interest in the current study to investigate the idea that there might be gender differences between traditional bullies and those bullied in traditional ways as well as cyberbullies and those that were cyberbullied.

Cyberbullying Occurs Inside and Outside of School Previous research has investigated the overlap of cyberbullying occurring inside and outside of school. Most school campuses do not allow students to use cell phones on campus, or school computers for personal use. However, some studies have indicated participants have in fact been cyberbullied on school grounds. Smith et al. (2008) conducted two studies of cyberbullying among children 11-16 years old using self-report surveys and focus groups. Results indicated that adolescents who are victims of cyberbullying report being bullied outside of school more often than in school. Participants felt that cyberbullying occurred outside of school more often because, phones are excluded from school, and inside teachers can track them down and take the phone (p.379). Students stated that cyberbullying occurs outside of school because no one is checking on them, which keeps the bully out of trouble with school staff. Similarly, both Agarston et al. (2007), and Raskauskas (2010), found that victims reported that cyberbullying occurred outside of school more often than in school.

24

Raskauskas (2010) found that of those who were text-bully victims 53% were bullied after school around town and 87% were bullied at home. Still, 44% had been bullied by text-messages at school, which may indicate that there is an overlap with some students being bullied both inside and outside of school. Therefore, it is expected that in the current study results will indicate that participants who report being victims of cyberbullying will report being cyberbullied inside and outside of school.

Relationship Between Traditional and Cyberbullying

Because it is a topic debated in the field, the current study examined whether traditional bullying victims are also cyberbully victims. Li (2005) investigated adolescents experiences with cyberbullying, defined in their study as bullying that involves the use of information and communication technologies such as email, cell phone messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal web sites, and defamatory online personal polling web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm other (p.3). Results indicated that 54% of students who were victims of traditional bullying had also been victims of cyber bullying. One in three had bullied other students using traditional forms of bullying and almost 15% had bullied other using different forms of cyberbullying. Similarly, Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007) argued that bullying face-to-face can oftentimes be related to internet bullying. Targets of face-to-face bullying are more likely to be victims of internet bullying (Ybarra et al., 2007). Ybarra et al. (2007)

25

discussed how technology may increase the chances for bullying for those adolescents who might otherwise not be targeted. Such findings suggest that it is important to understand the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Although Ybarra et al. (2007), found there to be little overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) did find an overlap between involvement in cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The study included 84 participants between the ages of 13 and 18 years old. Results for this study indicate that students roles (bully or victim) in traditional bullying predicted the same role in electronic bullying. Results also indicated that being a victim of bullying on the internet, or via text messaging was related to being a bully at school; however victims of traditional bullying were not found to be electronic bullies as hypothesized. Similarly, Smith et al. (2008) found that victims of traditional forms of bullying were also victims of cyberbullying, and traditional bullies were also found to be cyberbullies. Smith et al. (2008) asked participants why they felt that students used cyberbullying over traditional bullying. Students reported that they felt that cyberbullying is done as a form of entertainment and that often times students get bored and use cyberbullying as a way to entertain them-selves. Students also felt that the bully lacked the confidence to face up to the person and might be too scared to do bullying face to face therefore using cyberbullying.

26

Effects of Cyberbullying

With cyberbullying on the rise, it is imperative to investigate the consequences effects of this type of bullying. Ybarra et al. (2007) found that students who were victims of cyberbullying reported being depressed, having more detentions, suspensions, and skipping school, as well as carrying a weapon than those that were not cyberbullied. Students who reported cyberbullying that occurred through the Internet also reported they were more likely to carry a weapon with them for protection. Raskauskas (2010) found that text-bullying both independently and in connection with traditional bullying was associated with increased depressive symptoms among adolescents. Since peer relationships and social acceptance are important to adolescents self-esteem, it is important to understand the psychological, emotional, and social affects that cyberbullying can have (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). It is also essential to understand what role cyberbullying may play in school and on academic performance, therefore the current study focuses on what affects cyberbullying has on academic performance.

Academic Performance in Relation to Bullying/Cyberbullying

Patchin and Hinduja (2006) discussed the importance of peer relationships and social acceptance during adolescents and the influence poor peer relationships can have on children. One of the main influences poor peer relationships in school can have is on academic performance. Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, and Toblin (2005), suggest that

27

peer group maltreatment and bullying during adolescents can lead to a negative influence on childrens academic performance. Children who are distracted in class due to bullying tend to fall behind in class and have a difficult time catching back up, which in turn causes academic problems for years to come. This is an example of how SCT can explain the relationship of bullying to disengagement from school. Research has previously shown that traditional bullying by peers is related to low academic performance and high absenteeism (Graham, Bellmore, & Juvonen, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2005). In a survey of 785 sixth grade students, Graham et al. (2003) investigated bullying and its impact on academic involvement. The participants were largely minority students (primarily African American and Latino) from eight middle schools. Self-report, peer-report, and teacher-reports indicated that victims of bullying and harassment had less engagement in school than nonvictims. Academic performance in relation to cyberbullying is an area that has not previously been examined. However previous research done by Keith and Martin (2004), Li (2005), Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007), Stomfay-Stitz et al., (2007), Nansel, et al. (2001), and Ybarra et al.(2007), suggested that cyberbullying is expected to affect children in ways similar to traditional bullying. The present study seeks to examine whether cyberbullying is related to academic performance. It is anticipated that cyberbullying will be negatively correlated with academic performance.

28

Implications for the Present Study

In summary, research has shown that bullying, both traditional bullying and cyberbullying have become a phenomena that adolescents are facing more often both in school and outside of school. Research has also indicated that there are gender differences when examining traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying, as well the negative affects cyberbullying may have on adolescents that are victims of cyberbullying. Since very few studies have examined the affects cyberbullying has on academic performance the current study was designed to focus on academic performance and what influences it may have on adolescents performance in school. The current study is an extension of previous research on bullying and cyberbullying. The data collected in this study expand the current body of research on the potential effects of this new form of bullying known as cyberbullying. The research questions that are drawn from the literature and the theoretical framework are (a) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement/connection to school, (b) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying incidences/frequency and grade /gender? and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated? It was also of interest to examine the overlap between involvement in cyberbullying and traditional bullying because this issue is surrounded by debate in the field (Raskauskas, 2010; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Ybarra et al., 2007).

29

Chapter 3

METHODS

This study examined the relationship between cyberbullying and academic performance/connection to school among 8th and 9th grade students. This chapter describes the methods that were used in the study. First the research questions are revisited, and then the sample and measures are presented. Finally the procedures and information about the population the sample was drawn from are discussed.

Design and Research Questions

The purpose of the present study was to examine cyberbullying among adolescents. The two specific research questions which guided the analysis were: (a) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement/connection to school?, (b) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying incidences and grade/gender?, and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated. It was hypothesized that students who were victims of cyberbullying would report lower academic performance than those who reported being non-victims. Based on previous research it was also hypothesized that grade and gender would play a role in the number of incidences and the frequency in which cyberbullying occurred in that girls would report more incidents of cyberbullying than boys. The research has been split on

30

whether an overlap between traditional and cyber bullying exists so this research will examine that relationship without making a specific hypothesis.

Participants

The present study sample included 226 students from four middle schools (8th grade 58%), and three high school (9th grade, 42%) in Northern California. One hundred and thirty-three 8th graders and 93 9th graders completed the survey. The age of participants ranged from 13 to 16 years (M = 14.17, SD = .83), with 37% male and 63% female. Participants included all students who returned consent forms. . The population of each school was diverse, both ethnically and economically. Unlike previous samples, schools with high percentages of Hispanic students and students receiving free and reduced lunch were well represented in this study. More information about the schools from which the sample was drawn is provided in Table 1.

31

Table 1 Executive Summary School Accountability Report Card from 2008-2009.

Percentage of Student Enrollment African American Receiving free/reduced lunch

Caucasian

Asian

Hispanic

School A (MS) School B (MS) School C (MS) School D (MS) School E (HS) School F (HS) School G (HS)

5%

24%

27%

39%

99%

8%

15%

38%

35%

94%

6%

18%

18%

47%

90%

6%

26%

40%

22%

91%

12%

17%

30%

37%

76%

42%

22%

8%

23%

50%

17%

23%

32%

21%

48%

Note. MS = Middle School, HS = High School

32

Measures

In this study students were asked to complete a self-report survey. The survey was part of a larger study being conducted by the researchers thesis sponsor and included several sections and measures (Appendix B). This investigation included the following sections: (a) Demographic information, (b) Traditional and Cyberbullying, (c) Academic Performance/Connection to School.

Demographic Information Students self-reported information on age, gender, grade, and access to cyber technologies. 100% of students had access to both cell phones and the internet and therefore were included in this sample.

Cyberbullying Students were asked five questions about their cyberbullying experiences. Cyberbullying items were adapted from two instruments: (a) a survey used by Li (2005) which focused on cyberbullying in schools and (b) a survey used by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007). Questions included items about cyberbullying that occur by textmessaging, webpage, posting pictures, chat rooms, social networking sites such as Myspace, email or instant message, and picture or video phone. Items asked how often each event had happened from January to the survey completion date at the end of the Spring semester, a period of five months. Students were given possible responses on a 5-

33

point scale that included: (0) Not at all, (1) Only once, (2) 2 to 3 time a week, (3) Once a week, and (4) More than once a week. Since Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007), found differences between different forms of cyberbullying the cyberbullying forms were examined separately for incidence and frequency and not collapsed into a single scale.

Traditional Bullying Traditional bullying was assessed using the Peer Relations Questionnaire Short Form (PRQ; Rigby & Slee, 1993). This self-report measure is commonly used in the field of bullying and has been found to be valid and reliable with students across this wide range of ages. Participants were asked 15 PRQ questions which divide across three subscales: Victimization, Bullying Behavior, and Prosocial Behavior. These included questions such as, I like to make new friends, and others leave me out of things on purpose. Students were given a 4-point scale to answer all questions in this section. Response selections s consisted of: (1) Never, (2) Once in a while, (3) Petty often, and (4) Very often. A mean is taken across the items in each subscale to create a subscale score. All three subscales had acceptable reliability: Victimization (M = .56, SD = .49, Cronbach alpha = .81), Bullying Behavior (M = .31, SD = .41, Cronbach alpha = .65), Prosocial Behavior (M = 1.86, SD = .55, alpha = .64).

Academic Performance Academic performance was assessed in two ways. First, students self-reported their own academic performance. A single item asked them to rate their performance relative

34

to their peers as below average (0), average (1), or above average (2). In this sample, 9% of the participants rated themselves as below average, 65% rated themselves as average, and 26% rated themselves as above average. The overall mean for this scale was 1.17 (SD = .57). Second, Standardized Test and Report (STAR) performance levels in English and Math were obtained from the district for participating students. The STAR test is a standardized academic assessment given every year to students. The STAR test results allowed for the researcher to gain a better understanding of whether and how cyberbullying was associated with academic performance. The district required name, year of birth, school, teacher, and gender to be collected to provide STAR test scores. Therefore, every effort was made to protect the subjects right to privacy. The consent forms and identifying information was kept separate from the surveys. Math and English STAR test measures were used because these are given to both grades but they test different content. Because the students came from different grades, performance level scores rather than raw scores were analyzed. Performance levels are standardized and indicate performance compared to others in the same grade, whereas raw scores are not necessarily comparable. STAR test performance levels are as follows for both English and Math: Far below basic (English, 7.5%; Math, 8.0%), Below Basic (English, 12.4%; Math, 25.7%), Proficient (English, 25.7%; Math, 22.1%), and Advanced (English, 15.0%; Math, 8.8%).

35

Connection to School Scales used by the University of Colorado to conduct a state-wide study of school violence were included to assess connection to school (Elliott, 2000). Participants were asked ten questions in this section, including items concerning feelings towards school such as, I like school, and my teacher really cares about me. Students were given a 4point Likert scale on which to answer questions: (1) Never true, (2) Sometimes true, (3) Mostly true, and (4) Always true. A mean was taken across the items for each student (M = 1.79, SD = .42) to create a composite score. This scale had acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach alpha of .76.

Procedures

At the beginning of this study, the researcher met with the school district, and obtained consent to recruit participants from several different school within the district. At the districts request schools that were taking part in the California Healthy Kids survey at this same time were excluded from consideration. Elementary, middle and high schools within the district were matched for recruitment because the larger study from which the current sample was drawn was examining behavior across school transitions. Middle schools were paired with elementary schools that fed into them and a high school they feed into. Middle schools were selected randomly from the list and then the middle school and the matched elementary and high schools were invited to participate. Schools were contacted by email and invited to participate.

36

The student sample for this study was recruited from participating middle schools and high schools. Only the 8th and 9th grade students are included in the present study because previous research has shown this to be a critical time period in adolescents social and emotional development and the peak of cyber bullying and bullying in schools (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Three co-occurring classrooms were randomly selected from 8th and 9th grade and invited to participate. Approximately two weeks before the survey administration the researcher passed out consent letters describing the purpose and nature of the study for students to take home for parent signature and return to their classroom teacher (Appendix A). Consent letters were available to students in English, Spanish and Hmong to ensure that parents/guardians were properly informed about the nature of the study and asked parents to choose yes or no for participation. Surveys were provided only in English so inability to read English was an exclusion criterion for students. All students who returned their consent form were given a piece of candy or a glow-in-the dark silicone bracelet even if parents declined to participate; this was done to encourage return of consent forms. Of the consent letters sent home with students, 226 completed the surveys, which is a 29.4% return rate across the schools. Surveys were administered in classrooms at the various schools by the researcher. All measures were administered at the same time and all participating students in each classroom completed the survey at the same time. Students were given as much time as they needed in order to complete the survey. All information regarding the proposed study was given orally before the administration then surveys were completed silently

37

and independently by students. Only those students who returned consent forms participated in the survey; those who did not return consent forms were asked to complete an alternate assignment quietly at their desks while surveys were being completed. Precautions were taken to protect confidentiality of students answers and for their protection no items asked students to identify specific bullies at their school. The cover sheet of the survey asked students for identifying information so that STAR scores could be obtained from the district. Upon collection of the completed surveys, the cover sheet was separated from the survey ensuring that survey responses were kept confidential and separate from any identifying information. The researcher assigned numbers to match the identifying information and surveys. Student information was sent to the district as an excel file and STAR test information for the same school year was returned to the researcher. At no point did the school or district office have access to student survey responses.

Summary

This chapter described the methods used to conduct a study of bullying, cyberbullying, and relationships to academic performance and connection to school. The analysis of these data is reported in the following chapter. The following chapter will look at frequencies of cyberbullying, look for gender and grade differences using t-tests and chi square and look for relationship between bullying, cyberbullying, and school factors such as academic performance, STAR tests, and connection to school.

38

Chapter 4

RESULTS

This chapter reports the results of a survey designed to investigate links between cyberbullying and academic achievement. The research questions that guided the analyses focused on: (a) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement/connection to school?, (b) Is there a relationship between the number of cyberbullying incidences/frequency and grade /gender?, and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated?

Prevalence of Cyberbullying To examine the prevalence of the various forms of cyberbullying, the researcher computed frequencies for students responses related to each form of bullying. These frequencies are reported as percentages in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, most participants did not report being cyberbullied since January. The majority of participants that did report bullying reported only one occurrence. Text messaging and social networking sites were the most frequent forms of cyberbullying identified. In this study 24.3% of students had been a victim of cyber-bullying at least once during the current semester and these students were assigned to the cyber-victim group. Students were classified as victims of cyberbullying if they had been bullied 2 or more times by any of the cyber means assessed (N = 55). These victim and non-victim groups were used for comparisons in subsequent analyses.

39

Table 2 Percentage of Students Reporting Forms of Bullying

Text Message n= 226 Not at all Only once 2 or 3 times Once a week or more 88.1 7.5 4.0 .4

Webpage n= 225 89.8 6.2 4.0 0.0

Social Sites n= 223 87.9 7.6 3.6 0.8

IM/Email n= 222 90.5 5.4 3.2 1.0

Pictures/Video n= 224 93.3 4.0 1.3 1.3

Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement To examine the relationship between types of cyberbullying and academic achievement, correlations were conducted between each form of cyberbullying, the selfreport measure of academic achievement, STAR performance levels, and the related factor of connection to school (Table 3). The majority of correlations between academic achievement and the different forms of cyberbullying were low, ranging from .02 to .13, none of which were significant. The exception was STAR Math performance level which showed a low to moderate relationship with text-message cyberbullying, r = -.22, p < .01. This negative correlation indicates that students reporting more text-message bullying had lower levels

40

of performance in Math, but this was not the case for English performance levels or selfreport academic performance. When looking at connection to school scores there were no significant relations with cyberbullying forms, but there was a moderate correlation between academic achievement and connection to school. This was true for self-reported academic achievement (r = .27, p < .01), STAR Math (r = .17, p < .05), and STAR English (r = .18, p < .05). This indicates that the higher the reported connection to school the higher the students academic performance. A comparison of cyberbullying victims (N = 54, M = 1.69, SD = 1.16) and non-cyber-victims (N = 151, M = 2.09, SD = 1.10) showed that they differed significantly on the STAR Math Performance level, t(203) = 2.262, p = .03, d = .35, but not on STAR English or self-report of academic performance. All forms of cyberbullying were shown to be significantly correlated with each other. As shown in Table 3, the highest correlations were between social networking sites and IM/emails, r = .69, p < .01. Webpages and Pictures/Video bullying also showed a higher correlation, r = .60, p < .01 and webpages and IM/Emails r = .50, p < .01. It was also of interest that most correlations were positive correlations with very few negative correlations found between the different forms of bullying. This indicates that the various forms of cyberbullying may co-occur, which is consistent with Raskauskas and Stoltzs (2007) findings.

41

Table 3 Intercorrelations between Study Measures

1 1 S.A.R.P. 1.00

2 English 3 Math

.41**

1.00

.32**

.65**

1.00

4 Text Message 5 Web-page

-.02

-.05

-.22**

1.00

.04

-.03

-.01

.18**

1.00

6 Social Sites 7 IM/Email

-.05

-.01

-.03

.20**

.37**

1.00

.02

-.08

-.03

.25**

.50**

.69**

1.00

8 Pictures/ Video 9 Connect to School

.13

-.08

-.04

.22**

.60**

.28**

.41**

1.00

.27**

.18*

.17*

-.11

-.06

.01

.04

.01

1.00

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01; S.R.A.P = Self Report Academic Performance, English = STAR English Performance Level, Math = STAR Math Performance Level.

42

Gender and Grade Differences To gain a better understanding of the differences of incidence and frequency between boys and girls, they were compared on cyberbullying scores. First, a Chi Square analysis was conducted to compare boys and girls on whether or not they had been victims of cyberbullying. The Chi Square indicated a significant difference with girls (74%) making up more victims than boys (26%), 2 (1, N = 226) = 4.271, p < .05. Nonvictims meanwhile were 41% boys and 59% girls. Independent t- tests were used to compare boys and girls on the frequency of different forms of cyberbullying (Table 4). Significant differences were found between boys and girls on cyberbullying by webpage with girls reporting being cyberbullied more by webpages than boys. Other comparisons failed to reach significance.

Table 4 Gender Comparisons on Cyberbullying

Males M Text Webpages Social Sites IM/Email .13 .05 .11 .08 SD .53 .27 .35 .32 .27

Females M .20 .20 .22 .19 .16 SD .52 .52 .63 .61 .65 t .91 2.87 1.71 1.64 1.83 df 224 218 219 217 205 p .36 .01 .09 .10 .07 d -0.13 -0.38 -0.22 -0.24 -0.24

Pictures/Video .05

43

Chi square and t-tests were also conducted done to examine grade differences among victims and frequency of cyberbullying forms; however there were no significant differences between eighth and ninth graders on incidence or frequency of cyberbullying.

Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying It was also of interest to examine the relationship between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The two groups; cyber-victims (n = 55) and non-victims (n =171) were compared on the subscales of the PRQ. For comparison on the victimization subscale findings indicated that cyber-victims (M = .87, SD = .56) reported significantly more victimization at school than non-victims (M = .47, SD = .43), t (224) = -5.53, p = .000, d = 0.81. T-tests comparing cyber-victims and students who had not been cyberbullied on traditional bullying behavior and prosocial behavior were not significant.

Conclusion

As discussed above, most participants did not report being cyberbullied during the time period this study focused on. However, participants who did report cyberbullying indicated that text messaging and social networking sites were the most common forms of cyberbullying. The correlations between academic achievement and the different forms of cyberbullying failed to reach significance, except for STAR Math. There was, however, a moderate correlation between academic achievement and connection to school. A relationship between traditional victimization and cyberbullying was found.

44

When comparing gender and age there was a significant differences found between boys and girls on cyberbullying by webpage with girls reporting more bullying. This study found no significant differences between 8th and 9th grade students and cyberbullying. The following chapter discusses the results of this study in further detail.

45

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

This study investigated cyberbullying that occurs through the internet and through other electronic devices such as cellular phones. The aim was to gain a better understanding of how serious and frequent a problem cyberbullying is for 8th and 9th grade students. This research contributes to the existing research on cyberbullying and provides a better understanding of how cyberbullying varies by gender, and how cyberbullying relates to academic performance and students connection to school. The following chapter discusses the findings of the research with a focus on, (a) the prevalence of cyberbullying; (b) the relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement; (c) gender and grade differences; and (d) relationship between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Finally, limitations, recommendations, and areas of future research are discussed.

Prevalence of Cyberbullying

Students in this study did not report frequent cyberbullying. A total of 24.3% of students had been cyberbullied at least once in the present semester, but the majority of participants reported only one occurrence. As found in previous research text messaging and social networking sites were the most frequent forms of cyberbullying identified

46

(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Picture and video messaging was reported most by those that were cyberbullied more than once a week. According to Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) and Patchin and Hinduja (2006), this may be due to the fact that cell phones have become popular among adolescents, are easily available, are perceived as a status symbol, and allow for conversation with friends in different physical space, making it a common way for adolescents to communicate and bully one another. It is interesting to note that pictures and video message bullying has not been identified as a common form of cyberbullying in previous studies however in the current study it was reported most by those that reported cyberbullying more than once a week. According to Smith et al. (2008), it is expected that this form of cyberbullying can be chosen by students because it can be sent to a wide audience in real time from cell phones with photo and email capabilities. Li (2005) discussed an important point about why cyberbullying, specifically text bullying and picture/video bullying, occurs most often. Text bullying and picture/video bullying allows for anonymity and children are less afraid that they will be caught, therefore making it a common form of cyberbullying. Another reason for the higher number of students reporting this type of bullying is most likely due to the age of the participants. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) stated that middle school and high school aged children tend to use forms of cyberbullying that allow for anonymity. The cell phone also allows adolescents to communicate through picture and video messaging. This allows for inappropriate pictures, videos of students fighting and other forms of bullying to circulated among adolescents - which in this study was a common way in which bullying occurred.

47

Results also indicated that all forms of cyberbullying were significantly correlated with each other. The highest correlations were between social networking sites and IM/emails. Webpages and Pictures/Video bullying also showed a higher correlation as well as webpages and IM/Emails. This indicates that there was a relationship between the various forms of cyberbullying such that victims of one type were more at risk for others. The various forms of cyberbullying may co-occur and victims may experience cyberbullying through more than one form at any given time. These findings are similar to those of previous studies that also found there to be an overlap between various forms of victimization by cyberbullying (Raskauskas, 2010; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008).

Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement

Previous research has shown that children who are cyberbullied have issues in the school environment with negative behaviors such as a higher number of detentions and suspensions (Ybarra et al., 2007). According to SCT, the environment and the individuals behavior determines aspects of their environment, and in turn, how their behavior is altered by that environment. Therefore it is important to understand how cyberbullying affects the school environment in terms of academics. This is the first study to examine the relationship of cyberbullying to academic performance and connection to school. In this study results indicated few connections between academic achievement and the different forms of cyberbullying. Neither self-reported academic performance nor

48

STAR English performance level were significantly related with any form of cyberbullying. STAR Math performance level was negatively associated with cyberbullying, specifically text-message bullying. It is possible this is spurious due to Type I error, and may be because an additional variable was influencing one or more of the variables. There is a chance that STAR Math performance level and cyberbullying were associated because people who are comfortable and score high in math tend to also be people who use technology more often, which gives greater opportunity to be cyberbullied. Previous research on traditional bullying has not looked at differential associations between cyberbullying and different areas of academics so there is no research to guide speculation. Future research should further explore the relationship of bullying and cyberbullying to different areas of academic especially among middle and high school students. Future research should also attempt to replicate these findings with different samples and including objective measures such as student grade point average (GPA). Interestingly, there was what may be an indirect relationship between academic performance and cyberbullying through connection to school. A moderate correlation between all measures of academic performance and connection to school was found, as well as connection to school and cyberbullying which may indicate a mediating relationship. According to Schwartz et al. (2005), children fall behind in class when they are distracted by unpleasant experiences with peers which in turn, lead to low academic performance. Further research is needed to test such mediating models of the relationship between connection to school and academic performance, with the use of more objective

49

measures. The fact that this study used self-report may be masking effects on academic performance.

Gender and Grade Differences

Based on previous research it was also hypothesized that grade and gender would play a role in the number of incidences and the frequency in which cyberbullying occurred. More specifically, it was expected that girls would report more incidents of cyberbullying than boys. Consistent with previous research, the results of the current study indicated that more victims of cyberbullying were girls than boys. Significant differences were found between boys and girls on frequency of cyberbullying but only by webpage with girls reporting more bullying than boys. It was not a surprise to find that more girls reported bullying through webpages and other forms of cyberbullying. Girls also reported cyberbullying by social networking sites and pictures/videos over boys. Smith et al. (2008) had similar finding and stated that girls are more involved in indirect and relational bullying than boys. It is unclear why gender differences were not found for the other forms. Future research should try to replicate and explain these differences. In the current study there were no significant differences between eighth and ninth graders on incidence or frequency of forms of cyberbullying. However, previous research has indicated that 6th through 8th grade students report higher numbers of incidents of bullying and victimization than 9th and 10th grade students (Smith et al., 2008). Similarly, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) and Smith et al. (2008), found that older children (15 and

50

older) were more often found to be using the internet and other forms of cyberbullying. Younger children tend to use more traditional forms of bullying such as hitting and pushing and move towards the indirect and relational forms of bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Ybarra and Mitchell found that youth who were 15-17 years old where more likely than youth 10-12 year old to report engaging in cyberbullying. It is not clear why these findings differ, results of the current study may have shown differences in age had there been a larger sample size population surveyed or if a larger percentage of students had reported cyberbullying. Future research should continue to investigation these relationships with larger samples and samples with larger representation of cyber victims to increase the statistical power to identify differences and trends.

Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying

Findings from the current study indicated that cyber-victims reported more traditional victimization at school than non-victims. According to Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007), bullies and victims often carry their roles across context, with those who are bullies in school through traditional forms also engaging in cyberbullying, and those who are victims of traditional bullying also experiencing cyberbullying. Smith et al. (2008) had similar findings in that many victims reported being both cyberbully victims as well as traditional victims, and those that were cyberbullies were also found to be traditional bullies. These findings are not consistent with Ybarra et al. (2007) who showed no significant overlap with cyberbullying and traditional bullying. However, their definition

51

of cyberbullying was more limited than the one used in the current study which may account for the different findings. However, the nature of this overlap is a topic still debated in the field. Therefore, future studies need to take a deeper look at the relationship between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.

Implications

Although the current study reflects a small population of adolescents that are being affected by cyberbullying, this study and its finding are beneficial to both parents and school staff. Many schools have a no bullying policy which is enforced when the bullying becomes known. However, much cyberbullying occurs off school campus (Raskauskas, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). Schools then imagine that it is not their problem. However this research indicates that it is the responsibility of schools because (a) it is related to bullying at school, and (b) it is associated with poorer academic performance both directly and indirectly through connection to school. Therefore, schools need to consider including cyberbullying in school polices and training staff to be aware of it and its possible effects. Using the framework of SCT teachers and school personnel may also gain a better understanding of how behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors can interact to show how cyberbullying can potentially affect a child academically.

52

Limitations

It is important to report the limitations of the current study for those interested in doing future research. One limitation was the methods used to collect the data. Self-report surveys were used to collect data for all variables, except the STAR test. This may introduce bias either by using the same format for all variables or by students reporting incorrectly or in a manner that they feel is socially acceptable. Future research should include focus groups, and playground and classroom observations. This will allow researchers to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the classroom as well as on the playground when teachers are not present. This would also allow for some students to verbalize their feels and what they feel is occurring as far as bullying on their school campus. A second limitation was the way academic performance was measured. The use of self-report and Standardized STAR Test performance levels for Math and English gives a limited academic picture. Future research should use more objective measure, such as GPA or other related factors such as whether they go to college or complete high school, participation in school activities, academic motivation or attitudes to school. The current study was correlational in design. As such, no cause can be inferred, therefore future research should look longitudinal to see whether cyberbullying is causing reductions in academic performance or whether those with poor performance are targeted at a higher rate for bullying.

53

A final limitation concerns the relatively small sample size. Previous research on bullying has included a much larger number of participants. This study however included 226 total participants but they were from across seven schools in the greater Sacramento area and only represented 29% of eligible students. With a small number of participants involved in this total study only a small percentage reported cyberbullying which makes group comparisons questionable and may have contributed to small effect sizes. Future research should include a larger and more diverse population of participants. Despite these limitations, these findings add to our understanding of cyberbullying and its potential consequences for academic achievement.

54

APPENDIX A Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation

55

Bullying And Academic Performance At School PARENT INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILD PARTICIPATION

Researcher Introduction My name is Dr. Juliana Raskauskas and I am an Assistant Professor of Child Development at Sacramento State Universitys College of Education. I am interested in bullying in schools, specifically how it affects students feelings about school and performance on standardized tests. All of the students in your childs class are being invited to participate in this research. Importance of the Research Understanding the relationship between bullying and academic achievement may help in the formation of bullying prevention programs. It is important that participants represent all students experiences and include those who have been bullied, those who bully others, and those who have not been bullied. Participant Recruitment Eight (8) schools in the Sacramento area have been selected to participate in this study (elementary, middle school, and high schools). At the elementary schools all students in 5th grade are being invited to participate. A random selection of 6th and 8th grade classrooms at the middle schools, and 9th grade classrooms at the high schools are being invited to take part. Approximately 800 students across all of the schools are eligible. Project Procedures If your child takes part in this study, he or she will be asked to complete a confidential questionnaire. Questions ask about their experiences with bullying at school, their perceptions of their school climate, and their academic motivation. No questions ask your child to identify specific bullies. You may request to see a copy of the survey from the researcher, please email or call using the contact information at the end of this letter. A copy of the survey is also available in the school office for you to review. To examine the relationship of bullying to academic performance your childs STAR test scores in Mathematics and English/Language Arts will be obtained from the school district office and matched with their scores on the survey. Your childs name will be used to obtain STAR test scores but will not be associated with the surveys they complete. The STAR scores and survey responses will be entered into a password protected data file on my office computer for analysis and surveys will be stored in a filing cabinet at the University. Students will be assigned identification (ID) numbers and their scores will not be associated with their name in the data file. After five years the surveys will be destroyed. This research will be used for scholarly journal articles and presentations; however no child or school will be identifiable. Scores will be reported as a group and not individually.

56

Participant Involvement As stated above, if your child takes part in this research they will be asked to complete a confidential questionnaire. This will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your child will complete the questionnaire in their classroom with the researcher, while students who do not participate will work with the classroom teacher on another task. Risks and Benefits Some children are uncomfortable or distressed by answering questions about bullying, especially if in a classroom that includes the child bullying them. Questions ask about specific bullying incidents however no questions will ask them to name specific bullies. Children have the right to skip any questions they do not want to answer or to stop at any time. Your child will be reminded of the school counseling services and school procedures for reporting bullying prior to the survey in case they wish to use these resources. A school counselor will be on site the day of the survey to talk to any children who are upset by survey items. You or your child will not receive any direct compensation for participating in this study. However, a summary of results will be made available to participating schools and parents. Findings will be pooled across schools and no individual classrooms or students will be identified. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of results please provide your mailing information below. Participant Rights Participation is completely voluntary; you and your child are under no obligation to participate. Refusal to participate will not disadvantage your student in any way. Your child has the right to decide not to answer any particular question and to stop the survey at any time. If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Dr. Juliana Raskauskas at (916) 278-7029 or by e-mail at jraskauskas@csus.edu. Your childs participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Your signature below indicates that you have read this consent form and agree to allow your child to participate. YES I give permission for my child, _____________________________ to complete the survey. I also authorize Sacrament Unified School District to release information on my childs STAR test scores for 2008 to researchers at Sacramento State University. ________________________________ Signature of Parent/Guardian ____________________ Date

NO, I do not give permission for my child to participate in this study.

If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of findings at the conclusion of this research, please provide your mailing address below: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

57

APPENDIX B Bullying in Schools Survey

58

Bullying in Schools Survey Thank you for agreeing to complete our survey. Before you begin the questions please complete the personal information below. This information will be removed from your survey and stored in a separate place. This information is important for matching your survey with your STAR test scores. Remember that all information you provide here and on the survey will be kept confidential. Your full name ____________________________________________________ Your school ______________________________________________________ Your teachers name_______________________________________________ Year you were born _________________________ How old are you now:_______ years old What grade are you in school (Circle one): What is your gender (Circle one): 5 Boy 6 7 Girl 8 9 10

How are you doing in school? Would you say your grades are Above average Average Below average Which of the following electronic devices do you have access to? (check all that apply) Computer with email Webpage (Myspace, Facebook, Classmate) Cell phone with text-messaging capabilities Cell phone with picture taking capabilities Cell phone with video recording capabilities

59

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Please choose the best response to each item below. The questions will ask about your relationships at school, bullying at school, and your attitudes to school. Tell Us About Your Relationships At School Written below is a list of things that some people do at school. For each statement you need to decide how often this is true of you. To do this circle one of the answers underneath each statement. 2. I get called names by other kids. Never Once in a while 3. I like to make new friends. Never Once in a while 4. I get picked on by other kids. Never Once in a while

Pretty Often

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

5. I am part of a group that goes around teasing other kids. Never Once in a while Pretty Often 6. I like to help people who are being harassed. Never Once in a while Pretty Often 7. I like to make others scared of me. Never Once in a while

Very Often

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

8. Others leave me out of things on purpose. Never Once in a while Pretty Often 9. I get into fights at school. Never Once in a while

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

10. I like to show others that Im the boss. Never Once in a while Pretty Often 11. I share things with other kids. Never Once in a while 13.

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

I like to get into a fight with someone I can easily beat.

60

Never

Once in a while

Pretty Often

Very Often

14. Others make fun of me. Never Once in a while

Pretty Often

Very Often

15. I get hit and pushed around by other kids. Never Once in a while Pretty Often 16. I enjoy helping others. Never Once in a while

Very Often

Pretty Often

Very Often

61

Tell Us About Your School Now you will be given some statements of how some kids feel about school. Please circle how true each statement is for you. 17. I like school. Never True Sometimes True

Mostly True

Always True

18. Most days I look forward to going to school. Never True Sometimes True Mostly True 19. I try hard in school. Never True Sometimes True 20. My teacher tells me when I do a good job. Never True Sometimes True

Always True

Mostly True

Always True

Mostly True

Always True

21. My teacher listens when I have something to say. Never True Sometimes True Mostly True 22. My teacher really cares about me. Never True Sometimes True

Always True

Mostly True

Always True

23. I like my teacher. Never True Sometimes True 24. I feel lonely at school Never True Sometimes True

Mostly True

Always True

Mostly True

Always True

25. I have a friend my age at school who cares about me. Never True Sometimes True Mostly True 26. I have enough friends at school. Never True Sometimes True

Always True

Mostly True

Always True

62

Bullying At School The following questions will ask about bullying that occurs at school. Please choose the best answer for each item. Bullying means that these things happened more than once, that the action hurt you, either physically or so that you felt bad, and that they were hard to stop. Bullying can include hitting, kicking, or the use of force in any way. It can also be teasing, making rude gestures, name-calling, or leaving you out. It is not considered bullying if people of equal strength fight or fighting are done in a playful manner. 27. This year how often have you been picked on by kids at school? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 28. This year how often have you been pushed around or hit at school? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 29. This year how often have kids said mean things to you at school? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 30. This year how often have kids say mean things about you to other kids behind your back? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 31. This year how often have you picked on other kids? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 32. This year how often have you pushed around or hit kids at school? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 33. This year how often have you said mean things to kids at school? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week 34. This year how often have you said mean things about other kids behind their back? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week

63

35. This year how often have you been bullied by text-messages? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes No b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes No c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes 35. This year how often have you been bullied online by creating webpages or posting pictures? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes No b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes No c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes 36.

No

No

This year how often have you been bullied in chatrooms or group sites like MySpace? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes No b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes No c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes

No

37. This year how often have you been bullied by email or instant messaging? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes No b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes No c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes

No

38. This year how often have you been bullied by picture or video phone? Not at all Only Once 2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes No b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes No c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes

No

64

REFERENCES

Agatston, P., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students perspective on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S59-S60. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychology Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective, Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 1-26. Card, N. & Hodges, E. (2006). Shared targets for aggression by early adolescent friends. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1327-1338. Cowie, H. (1999). Children in need: The role of peer support. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Making Sense of Social Development, 137150). New York, Routledge. Crick, N. & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological Adjustment. Child Development, 66, 610-722. Elliott, D.S., Grady, J.M., Shaw, T. E., & Beaulieu, M. T. (2000). Safe Communities, Safe Schools planning guide: A tool for community violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. Espelage, D. & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned & where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), pp. 365-383. Fitzpatrick, K., Akilah, D., & Bettina, P. (2007). Not pushing and shoving: School bullying among adolescents. Journal of School Health, 77(1), 16-22. Frisen, A., Holmqvist, K., & Oscarsson, D. (2008). 13-year-olds perception of bullying: definitions, reasons for victimization and experience of adults response. Educational Studies , 34(2), 105-117. Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.

65

Graham, S., Bellmore, A., & Juvonen, J. (2003). Peer victimization in middle school: When self- and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 117 137. Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156. Keith, S. & Martin, M. (2004).Cyber-Bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 33(2),137-157. Li, Q. (2005). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777-1791. Miller, P.H. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology, fourth edition. New York: Worth Publishers. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youths perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222-1228. MSNBC (2008). Cyberbullying Death. MSNBC Online News. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id.21844203. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell. Patchin, J.W. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2): 148-169. Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575. Raskauskas, J. (2010). Text-bullying: Associations with traditional bullying and depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 9, 74-97.

66

Rigby, K. & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children and their implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33-42 Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamota, J., & Tobin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the peer group and childrens academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3) 425 435. Smith, P., Mahavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49:4, 376-385. Stomfay-Stitz, A. & Wheeler, E. (2007). Cyberbullying and our middle school girls. Childhood Education, 83(5), 308. Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287. Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. (2007). Examining the overlap in the internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S42-S50. Ybarra, M. & Mitchell, K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressor, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316.