A study of pupils’ expectations of their schools responsibility in regards to pupil cyber relations
1. Aims and Purpose of the Study
The exponential growth of technology over the last few decades has considerably changed the way society interacts (Mishna, Saini & Solomon, 2009). This premise and the documented rise in cyber bullying (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2003; Shariff, 2009) has been reviewed in this study and the impact these have on a sample of young peoples’ cyber relations, in a secondary school context. Furthermore what responsibilities these pupils feel their school should have in regards to these relationships.
This research came about after our group of five students, all taking the BPS (British Psychological Standard) route on a Masters of Education, came together to work on the Educational Enquiry Unit. The group organically formed as the five members were all in the first year of study and had interest in common ground. A few topics were examined, but the first topic that arose that everyone felt that they could connect with was bullying. This was due to either personal or professional experience or that somebody close to them had been bullied. Cyber bullying then arose from these discussions as a more current and less inquired over topic, from within the group, and initial assumptions about the topic. Personally bullying in any form has been at the heart of much of my work as a youth worker. Initially I wanted to push for a different topic as this is something I have covered extensively, but then on reflection and in reading some current narrative on this (Shariff, 2009), I realised that a lot has changed since I left work in 2009 (to have a child) and that social interaction in a cyber world had become increasingly difficult to manage.
The group consisted of a Medical Education Manager, a mother – previously Primary School Special Needs Teacher, Physical Education Teacher, Primary School Teacher/Mother and myself a full time mother (previous career youth work). The timeframes and restrictions for the research were pertinent in that we had 4 months to complete the task, a limited budget and considerable ethical frameworks to consider (due to the nature of working with children and discussing a potentially emotive topic). The group all understood the concept of bullying, even if some members were not that knowledgeable about technology, a decision on the topic of cyber bullying was arrived at mutually. At this point through critical discussion with the rest of our class and ongoing debate in the group we begun to accumulate and synthesis all the ideas we had for a hypothesis and possible research question.
We felt that through the investigation of the role of the school, in pupils cyber relations, an initial hypothesis would be that pupils do want the school to engage and respond to negative cyber relations. As bullying is a vastly covered and much documented area of research (Atlas & Pepler 1998; Craig & Pepler 2008; Cowie & Dawn 2008) and as cyber bullying is also reaching new levels of academic interest and high profile agendas (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006; Shariff, 2009), we needed to find a niche. The debated topic of the Law and where institutions stand on disciplining and taking action against cyber bullying is not only a contentious issue (Shariff, 2009) but one that, from our investigations, specifically in regards to the individual secondary schools response, does require more research input.
2. Review of Literature
This review of the literature will consider the growth and dynamism of the cyber world for young people today, the impact negative relationships in this cyber world are having on them and lastly what has been written about the Law and the act of disciplining and commanding these relationships from a schools perspective.
It feels correct to firstly define bullying and what differentiation is caused by it happening in a cyber context. A succinct definition of bullying can be provided by the Department for Education (DfE) in four key characteristic points: repetitive and persistent, intentionally harmful, involving an imbalance of power, causing feelings of distress, fear, loneliness or lack of confidence (2011a). This is confirmed by Olweus (1993) and Stassen Berger (2007). The same DfE (2011a) document highlights that there is a strong relationship between bullying and cyber bullying, but does not give a definition or any detail to the significance of cyber bullying. This is the same for a another government document released at the same time (Department for Children Schools & Families 2010; DfE 2011b). This surprises me as they are current documents and I would have expected the inclusion of cyber relations and detail on how to manage them. It is possible that from the narrative we are expected to take the context and apply it to cyber bullying, but this feels too liberal for government advice, on a seemingly volatile and unstable environment, and I am left feeling unsatisfied.
Cyber bullying in comparison is a modern variation of the traditional bullying processes, individuals are using electronic communication as a means and method to pursue their victims (Kowalski et al., 2007; Shariff 2008,2009; Jose et al. 2011). This phenomenon includes bullying through e-mail, instant messaging, in a chat room, on a website, instant messaging or through digital messages or images sent to a mobile phone or devise (Kowalski & Limber 2007). For the purpose of this study we are defining cyber bullying specifically as peer-to-peer cyber bullying. Shariff (2008) makes it very clear that due to the nature of anonymity, lack of clear boundaries and emerging issues with infringing on peoples freedom of expression, that cyber bullying is a very real and very dangerous threat to young people.
Cyber relationships are increasing because of the dramatic growth in technology and information sharing during the last decade (Mishna, Saini, and Solomon 2009). Communication tools are also vastly improving (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Paltrey & Gasser, 2008; Schrock & Boyd, 2008) giving young people access to a virtual world in which the relationships they engage in can be volatile.
From personal experience of working with 11-19 year olds and from various academic papers (Kowalski, Limber & Agatson, 2008; Mishna, Saini & Solomon 2009) it appears that a substantial amount of young people rely on electronic communication as critical apparatus in their social worlds. The internet and prolific communication technology market is providing us all with unlimited possibilities. Young people are often at the forefront of this and benefit from the ‘social support, identity exploration and development of interpersonal and critical thinking skills’, ‘educational benefits generated from expansive access to knowledge, academic support and worldwide cross-cultural interactions’ (Mishna, Saini & Solomon, 2009 p 1222).
Young people have a mostly positive experience with the internet and communication technology, but the potential for negative relationships has been the focus of much research in this area (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2003; Shariff, 2009). My understanding of young peoples relationships online has been quite a negative one; in the seven years I have worked as a Youth Worker I have witnessed much abuse and bullying. This may be because the young people that I have worked with come from an increased risk of deprivation and other social factors that put them at further at risk. But an increasing amount of literature exists on just this type of cyber bullying and its prevalence (Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Lenhart, 2007; Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a,b). Complimentary to this ideology is a theory put forwards by Sopher (2012) that states young people use SNS as an extension of themselves their personalities, physical relationships and interests. He believes that conceptualising the internet and SNS in this manor leads to an important outcome, that young people most often communicate with people they already know offline. This is not to say that they undoubtedly have dialogue with strangers but that the foundations are based closer to home.
Taking it as a given that young people are at risk of negative cyber relations because of the dramatic increase of communication technology available today, which endeavours to provide young people with spaces to actively speak their minds and collectively gather. One must assess these spaces and understand whether they are a negative dilemma that requires an autonomous and possibly punitive approach, or whether they are in fact a different landscape that requires a social cultural approach working alongside our youth to tackle negative issues. Shariff (2008) demonstrates both sides of this coin and from her investigations, and coming from a liberal background that appreciates and respects the empowerment of young people, I stand firmly on the side of the social cultural approach to tackle cyber bullying. Social Networking Sites (SNS) have become such a crucial part of young people’s lives today, because they quite simple are the playing fields of our time. Security and restraint in a fast past dangerous world restricts where our young people can go to be away from watchful eyes. Something that many of us took for granted in our youths. One of the issues for young people using these digital medias to express themselves is that their teenage behaviours are being recorded permanently (digitized) and left behind to scar their future paths (Jenkins & Boyd, 2006).
Most international approaches to combating cyber bullying are positive in their nature, however using punitive and legalistic means is the common bar (Shariff, 2008). In the UK, specifically England, there has not yet been any legislation against cyber bullying. However narrative in the existing legislation may allow for a case to be made; which highlights my concern about the three DfE (2011a; 2011b) and DfCSF (2010) documents and their lack of specific information). This is demonstrated further by Shariff (2008) when discussing a government website ‘Don’t suffer in silence’ which was a website that tackled the issues of cyber bullying (DfCSF, 2007). On this site the government had stated that the ‘law is on your side’ detailing that section 43 of the Telecommunications Act, the Protection from Harassment Act and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 may be used to combat cyber bullying. Disappointingly when I searched for this site it no longer exists and has been replaced only with information on bullying not in a cyber context.
Intriguingly the British response is a punitive one, like internationally, however there are no records on the DfCSF website of any cases that have actually been made. It could quite possibly be that the UK are missing a vital opportunity to engage, educate and consult our youth to bring about the best route in tackling cyber bullying. It is after all, more often than not, that young people know more about technology and cyber space than most adults (Chu, 2005; McLuhan 1964; Shariff,, 2008). Lankshear and Knobel (2006) constructed a mindset paradigm that amply describes the difference between adults (with some exceptions) and young people have adapted to new technologies (appendix one).
3. Methodology
This research was gathered specifically for the Educational Enquiry unit within our Masters course, for the University of Bristol. The aim being to conduct a piece of original group deliberated research that could add to the existing body of literature in educational research. Additionally the enquiry was to focus on the variety of methods, key debates and the importance in developing educational policy and improving educational processes.
Interviews, questionnaires and focus groups were all considered as methods of gathering data. The final decision came down to questionnaires, as the time frame would not allow for the examination of a triangulation of data, as suggested is most common in small scale research by Bell (2005). Triangulation of method would have been our preference; interviews with parents of pupils, a focus group of teachers and teaching assistants and questionnaires for a sample of pupils. However as this was not possible we chose to questionnaire just the pupils. This seemed to be the most effective and reliable route to gather what we required in a limited time frame. Young people are at the heart of this study, they are at the forefront of knowledge in communication technology, are most often the ones being affected by the negative side of cyber bullying and I believe hold the answers for the route forwards. The questionnaires were able to be designed and input into GoogleDocs a web based office suit that serves as a group collaboration tool for creating, editing and sharing documents. This made for quick and concise deliberation and dissemination of the questionnaire to all who required it. With the added benefit of the data being collected and displayed in a comprehensible and structured manor.
A male and a female pupil where selected at random from each, out of eight, tutor groups from Year 10, in a secondary school in Bristol (which for anonymity reasons has requested not to be named), and created our sample from which we collected data. This sample group, of 16 young people, came about as the most viable option due to the limited resources and time frame that we had as a group. The school was one of our group members’ employer and the teacher concerned felt that the school would be willing to partake. This made the decision an accessible and obvious choice. Furthermore a secondary school was also preferential due to the organised access to young people of the most common age, 11-16, to be engaging in cyber relations (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006; Mishna, Saini and Solomon, 2009) and to be affected by bullying, 14-16 (Collingwood, Green and Ross, 2010; DfE 2011). It must be pointed out that little research on bullying prevalence of young people below the age of 14 has occurred (DfE 2011). This is disconcerting as my professional experience found 11- 14 year olds just as much at risk as the older category; suggesting that further research is required.
The teacher based at the secondary school arranged for letters to go out to the young people partaking, the details of which included parental consent, opt-out slips, full description of the research and reasons for undertaking it and contact details for further enquires (appendix two). A computer room was booked and pupils were asked to attend on the morning of the 8th December 2011, to complete the questionnaire. School staff were on hand to deal with any requirements or special educational needs that the pupils had. 9 pupils out of the possible 16 completed the questionnaire, which although disappointing did give us enough results to make some comparisons. Issues for pupils not managing to complete the questionnaire include: not enough time, absence, not following the link and stating they would complete it at a later date and then not fulfilling this.
Our questionnaire was piloted by one of our group member’s daughters who was the same age as our sample and attended a separate secondary school. This allowed us to validate our questionnaire structure and check the question and sentence syntax for reliability and comprehension. Suggestions were made around; question structure in regards to flow and response, some of the tick box options needed technical tweaking, also the possibility of duplicating ones response in answering questions A and C in the situations.
Ethical Issues arose from the very start of our study, initiating with a group discussion in our class. It was highlighted that as we were dealing with a very emotive topic and one that young people may have current issues with, the wording of our questionnaire would need to bear this in mind. Incorporated into this was the possibility of disclosure and how we were going to tackle it if it arose. We decided that confidentiality and anonymity was essential for the pupils, however they were all given a number connected with their name at the start, so that if a disclosure was to arise we would have access to the young persons name to make the necessary referrals. Pupils were told at the start of the questionnaire that if they disclosed anything that we felt put them at risk of harm we would have to disclose it to the relevant professionals. All the data from the questionnaires was stored in my personal Google account, which is protected by passwords. Pupils were only recognisable from their number from the point of filling in the questionnaire, through storage and dissemination. An issue that the Caldicott Committee (1997) on the review of patient-identifiable information highlighted, and that our study felt was important to protect pupils information whilst being transferred.
The general ethics for this study, fell in line with a suggested checklist by Bell (2005), this alongside the monitoring of our progress by fellow students and tutors, personal review and satiation of requirements and consent agreed by the school and governor’s, allowed the study the flexibility but correct parameters for anabasis. The questionnaires were reviewed thoroughly, in fact a capacious amount of time was spent on the examination of open ended and closed, leading and other potentially coerce questions and issues. The desired statements in our question were designed so that pupils could review a situation, whether they had been through it or not. This then did not request directly any disclosure but allowed them to narrate their understanding of the situation. The situations had characters, which were given names so that the pupils could relate to the situation in a social way. We felt that this also took the emphasis off the pupil directly relating to the subject and having a negative reaction or emotional response.
4. Statement of Results
| All the results can be found in appendix three for further perusal, due to the limited word count. |
5. Analysis and Discussion
Out of the nine students that participated, five were female and four were male. With the most popular location to live in being Westbury.
Situation one looked at an anonymous text message saying ‘I hate you’ that was received during school hours. The pupils felt that they would like to find out who sent the message but because of the anonymity of it that they couldn’t really do anything about it. All the students indicated however that they would want to try and find out whom it was and that they would report it in some manor. The most popular person to inform was a friend with parents/carers closely following; teachers and the pastoral team also were a preferred contact. All students indicated that they felt the school should get involved with this scenario, firstly with it being in school hours and secondly to help ‘give advice’ and help the person ‘feel safe’.
Situation two reviewed an issue of a negative post on a SNS that is seen by a pupil on his personal phone during school hours. A punitive action seemed to be the favoured method here, with the pupils mostly agreeing that the young person taking the negative action should be tracked down and reported to the ‘Facebook security team’. Again the most favoured person to inform about this was a friend and then parents/carers. However in comparison to the first question less students felt they would talk to a teacher or the pastoral team about this issue, which is interesting as its still within school hours but on a SNS that possibly signifies that they feel it is more of a personal space? The pupils felt divided on whether the school should respond or not. Half felt that the school should offer support, guidance ‘look into it and talk about cyber bullying’. Whilst the other half felt that no action should be taken, unless there was a possibility of the pupil being at risk in school hours. I perceive this to display a request from pupils for a space at the school that offers support for cyber bullying, that they could attend of their own will, such as a drop in clinic or advice board.
Situation three discussed another SNS negative post specifically related to behaviour in school; however it was read out of school hours. I felt a confidence within the answers for this situation that was not displayed in the first two. Pupils have indicated here that they ‘wouldn’t take any notice’, ‘wouldn’t take any action because it wouldn’t offend them’ and also ‘I would tell them to respect people for what they are’. This was a very positive response and demonstrated the power of self confidence when tackling cyber bullying. Obviously it may just be a confidence in answering the question rather than an actual action taken if faced with the dilemma. The most popular person to inform alternated to parents/carers with friends and teachers on an equivalent result. Punitive action was quite favourable here, but talking to the victim and persecutor, social-cultural approach, was also an affirmative action to take. The main feature for this situation was that even though it happen outside of school, as it was related to school pupils felt the school should take responsibility and assist with action.
Situation four looked at the hacking of a young person’s personal account (SNS) out of school hours at the premises of a local youth club, possible by young people that they knew. Punitive action and specifically actions that can be taken to resolve this was outlined by pupils, such as ‘click forgot password and delete the account’. The answers were very action orientated and the pupils seemed to know exactly what they would do in this example. Parents/carers were the most popular choice to inform about this situation with friends coming up second and interestingly siblings (a variable not chosen till now) in third place. Pupils also indicated they would tell another person in the ‘other’ option, I believe this may be a representative of the SNS due to their response in question A; ‘let Facebook know’. None of the pupils, bar one who felt that a communicative process might be helpful, felt that the school needed to be involved in this situation.
The following situations fell in line with the premise that if the negative cyber issue has happened in school hours or on school premises or about something or someone related to the school, that the school should become involved with the management and often punitive nature of the issue. However pupils did not feel that the school had a responsibility if it was an offsite, non pupil related issue. A communicative, advice and pupil friendly approach was sought in all cases. Pupils’ confabulated a requirement for guidance and a space to discuss these matters with appropriate people in and out of school. A higher amount of pupils revealed they would discuss these issues with parents/carers than what I had postulated. But the overall intellectual level of communicative technology comprehension was highly evident.
Only one pupil had not read the Anti-Bullying Policy, but three more were not sure if they had come across it. Only two pupils stated that knew how to get support for cyber bullying issues at their school, which is curious considering that overall pupils had a good understanding of how to approach these issues. I believe that this shows a positive outlook for these pupils as hopefully it indicates they would be motivated and confident enough to seek out advice. Only one pupil knew what a peer mediator was, or where to access them. It appears, from the limited evidence we accumulated, that the school needs to do some work on promoting their policy and making it more accessible for their pupils; this includes advocating and the development of their peer mentor scheme, particularly as this is exactly the kind of service that the pupils in this report have requested.
The limitations of this study are clear. With only a few months to complete the research it is a small scale piece of research that has not aloud for the number of participants and triangulation of methods required. This has reduced reliability and validity. Numerous issue arose around time management and group structure, such as; large distances between each group member, only really being able to communicate by email, limited time together in lectures, transport, unable to meet up due to other commitments and part time nature of the course, communication barriers in regards to different professional backgrounds and dissimilar motives for wanting the topic and desired outcomes. However the results should not be dismissed because they still demonstrate a vital functioning in young people’s cyber relations. That pupils at this school, need more input from their school and that as a matter of course without this suggested improvement to tackling bullying young people may go on feeling unsupported and without a voice. Big steps start with small steps in the right direction, and as a study this shows us how one school could make a difference for its pupils.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion this study has demonstrated that pupils do want the school to become involved in their cyber relations if they become negative and have a direct link to either the site or school community. A punitive approach was favourable all the way along, however alongside this and with just as much expression was the social-cultural approach of communicating, deliberating and resolving issues as a community. Young people seem quick to suggest punitive resolutions, here and when I have discussed this in a youth work setting. I think this is because our society is quick to suggest punitive measures. But then when considered further and situations are unpacked I get the distinct impression that young people sway to more preventative, discussion based, empowering and participatory measures. This is the same approach that Shariff (2008) discusses explaining that criminologists advocate the preventative avenue and a range of security measures. This engagingly is what pupils in this study also highlighted. For example the suggestion of active participation in PSHE lessons to learn about the impact of negative cyber relations and comments such as: ‘prevent young people accessing certain websites during school hours’, ‘make sure all of your SNS are secure and make sure no one knows your password’.
The theories reviewed by Shariff (2008) and Lankshear & Knobel (2006) on the difference between autonomous and social-cultural approaches to cyber bullying are complimentary to the answers of the pupils in this study. The media framing and loss of control of the internet as being fraught with danger, invites the desire to regain control through the only mean familiar to adults, through discipline, punishment, legalized and forceful means if necessary. This approach has been the favourite method of approaching these issues in schools (Shariff 2008). The opposite therefore, a promotion of ethical guidelines in cyber space, conflict resolution, training of staff and pupils and the monitoring of the internet are the overall suggestions that have come from this study and are being suggested as a way forwards for this school and others. It also hopes to join the existing body of research in a social-cultural approach in tackling cyber bullying within schools.
1. References
Atlas, R.S., & Pepler, D.J. (1998) Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research. 92 (2), pp86-99
Bell, J. (2005) Doing your Research Project; A guide for first time researchers in education, health and social science. (4e) Maidenhead. Open University Press
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J.M. (2002) Emerging Risks of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online study of adolescent girls in the United States. Meridian: A Middle School Technologies Journal, 5(2), 1-32
The Caldicott Committee (1997) Report on the review of patients-identifiable information. London. Department of Health
Chu, J. (2005) You wana take this online? Cyberspace is the 21st century bullys playground where girls play rougher than boys. Time, Canadian Edition, 8 August: 42-43
Collingwood, A., Green, R., & Ross, A. (2010) Characteristics of Bullying Victims in schools. London. National Centre for Social Research. DfE
Cowie, H., & Dawn, J. (2008) New perspectives on bullying. Maidenhead. The Open University Press
Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D.J. (2008) Introduction: Understanding and addressing bullying; And international perspective. In D, Pepler & W, Craig. (eds) Understanding and addressing bullying; An international perspective (ppxix-xxvi). Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse
Department for Children Schools & Families. (2007) Don’t suffer in silence. Website. Retrieved 23 August 2007 from www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying/. In: Shariff, S. (2008) Cyber-bullying: issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. London. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
Department for Children Schools & Families. (2010) The Characteristics of Bullying Victims in Schools; Research Brief., London. National Centre for Social Research. DfE
Department for Education (2011a) Reducing bullying amongst the worst affected. London. National Centre for Social Research. DfE
Department for Education (2011b) Behaviour and Discipline in Schools A Guide for Head Teachers and Schools Staff, London. National Centre for Social Research. DfE
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009) Bullying beyond the school yard: Preventing and responding to cyber bullying. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage
Jenkins, H. & Boyd, D. (2006) Discussions: MySpace and deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) [electronic version] Digital Divide Network. Available at: www.didgitaldivide.net/articles/view.php?ArticleID=592 [Accessed on January 04, 2012]
Jose, P.E., Kljakovic, M., Notter, O., & Scheib, E. (2011) The Joint Development of Traditional Bullying and Victimization With Cyber Bullying and Victimization in Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. pp1-9 Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00764.x [Accessed December 28, 2011]
Kowalski, R.M. & Limber, S.P. (2007) Electronic bullying among middle school students. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 41(6 Suppl 1), pp.S22-30. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18047942 [Accessed July 19, 2011].
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006) New Literacies: Everyday practises and classroom learning. (2e) Maidenhead. Open University Press.
Lenhart, A. (2007) Cyber bullying and online teens. Pew Internet & American Life Project Online at: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/216/report_display.asp
Li, Q. (2006). Cyber bullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157– 170.
McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The exentions of man. New York. Mentor
Mishna, F., Saina, M. & Solomon, S. (2009) Ongoing and Online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Elsevier, Children and Youth Services Review 31, pp1222-1228
Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003) Victimization of youths on the internet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8 (1/2), pp1-39
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008) Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books
Schrock, A., & Boyd, D. (2008) Online Threats to youth: Solicitation, harassment, and problematic context: Literature review prepared for the internet Safety Technical Task Force. Retrieved March 25, 2009 online at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/RAB_Lit_Review_121808_0.pdf
Shariff, S., 2008. Cyber-bullying: issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home (Google eBook), Taylor & Francis. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=2wYlg0O2rSUC&pgis=1 [Accessed November 5, 2011].
Shariff, S. (2009) Confronting cyber-bullying: What schools need to know to control misconduct and avoid legal consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press
Smith, P. et al., (2006) An Investigation into Cyber bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyber bullying., London.
Sopher, C/Younger Thinking (2012) Why young people use the internet. The internet and young people. Available at: http://www.youngerthinking.com/?page_id=162 [Accessed on 09/01/2012]
Stassen Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review, 27,90–126.
UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future Year Three. Available at: http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/InternetReportYearThree.pdf [Accessed January 2, 2012]
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004a) Youth engaging in online harassment: with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004b) Online aggressor/target, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7) 1308-1316
