Cyber BullyingResearch and Trends

SPA Conference 2010

Kate Hadwen

Previous CHPRC Bullying

Research

COVERT BULLYING

Solid Kids, Solid Schools Project (2007-08)

Childhood Aggression Prevention Project (2007-08)

Supportive Schools Project (2005)

Friendly Schools & Friendly Families Program Release (2004)

Friendly Schools, Friendly Families (2002 -03)

Friendly Schools (2000-01)

CYBER BULLYING CYBER SAFETY

2007 – 2008Australian Covert

Bullying Prevalence Study(DEEWR)

National Prevalence Study

Developing evidence based policy and practice

Strengthens parent’s capacity to communicate with

children about cyber interactions

Cyber Friendly Schools Projects

2009

Pilot TestCyber Friendly

Schools & Families

SOCIAL AGGRESSION

2010 – 2014Social Aggression Capacity Project

(Healthway)

Collaborative capacity building to

support schools

Overview• Definitions

• Statistics

• Cyber Bullying and the Law

• Social Networking

• Informed Action

• Evidence based indicators to reduce bullying

Relationships, Relationships, Relationships

The problem lies NOT with technology

BUT

With the people using the technology

• TODAY

• Around 200 million young people are being hurt by their peers

What is bullying?

• Repeated and unjustifiable behaviour

• Intended to cause fear, distress or harm to another

• Physical, verbal or relational

• By a more powerful individual or group against a less powerful individual who is unable to effectively resist

Students who reported being bulliedAustralian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS) (Pub 2009, CHPRC)

*all forms - every few weeks or more often

Definition of cyber bullyingSame fleas different dog…Cyber bullying is when, over a period of time, an individual or a group use

Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) to intentionally harm a

person, who finds it hard to stop this bullying from

continuing.

Origins of cyber-bullying• Cassidy et al (2009)

– 64% reported CB most likely to start at school and continue at home

• Brown et al (2006)– CB typically starts at school– F2F methods used at school– Victim retaliates at home using ICT

Correlation between online and offline bullying, ACBPS

Offline bullying Online bullying83% of

students who bully offline also bully

online

Our challenge – prevalence assessment of cyber bullying?

*as proposed by Solberg and Olweus for offline bullying

AND

Who’s at highest risk - according to how these behaviours are measured…?

Ways of measuring cyber bullying

Highest rates of being bullied

Prevalence rate across Grades

4-9

combined global and specific behaviours

Males; Govt schools, metro area

10.3%*

yes to any of the specific behaviours

Females, Non-govt schools and non-metro

area

7.3%*

Global Males, Non-govt schools and non-metro

area

4.5%*

*every few weeks or more often

What’s going on?• Flaming – heated exchange• Harassing and threatening messages eg: “text wars”,

“griefers”• Denigration - sending nasty SMS, pictures or prank

phone calls “Slam books” (websites or negative lists)• Impersonation - Using person’s screen name or

password eg: message to hate group w/ personal details• Outing or trickery sharing private personal information,

messages, pictures with others• Posting “set up” images/video e.g. “happy slapping”• Ostracism - Intentionally excluding others from an

online group eg: knocked off buddy lists• Sexting sharing explicit material by mobile phone

Differences between cyber and offline bullying

• 24/7 access• Broadcast, even

repeatedly• Anonymous• No authority• Not telling – punitive

fears• Nastiness /disinhibition

(Toxic cocktail?)

Cyber bullied – behaviours(every few weeks or more often)

(Public Education Endowment Trust (WA) Study Results, 2008/9)

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

More evidence as to why a whole school approach is needed, ACBPS

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

Transitioning Concerns

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

Students engaging in bullying are in need of support

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

In 2009 students who were cyber bullied were…(Logistic regression*)

6 times more likely to feel disconnected to school

3 times more likely to feel lonely at school

7 times more likely to never feel safe at school

5-6 times more likely to experience greater socio-emotional difficulties and some depressive symptoms

*Controlling for gender, year level, SES, school size

Significant at 0.01 level of significance

In 2009 students who cyber bully others are… (Logistic regression*)

7 times more likely to never feel safe at school

2-3 times more likely to experience greater socio-emotional difficulties and feelings of depression

3 times more likely to feel less connected to school

*Controlling for gender, year level, SES, school size

Significant at 0.01 level of significance

Reactions when cyber bullied (2009)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Male

Female

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

How are young people responding to cyber bullying?

(Public Education Endowment Trust (WA) Study Results, 2008/9)

Bullying

All(N-1,976)

Telephone (N=1,575)

Online(N=401)

Seeking information or concerned for a friend

3.4% 3.7% 1.8%

Reporting an isolated instance of bullying

11.4% 13.0% 5.0%

Experiencing episodic incidents of bullying

34.6% 34.2% 36.3%

Experiencing frequent incidents of bullying or continual harassment

50.6% 49.1% 56.9%

Total 100% 100% 100%

Kids Helpline (2010). Kids Helpline 2009 Overview. Retrieved on 22 September 2010 from http://www.kidshelp.com.au/upload/22862.pdf

Question: Do students who are regularly bullied find it easier to talk about their problems in an online environment???

So does telling work?

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

Asking an adult for help (2009)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Male Female

Asked adult for help

Got better

Didn't get better

(Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study, 2009)

BYSTANDERS….

‘Observing bullying at school predicted risks to mental health over and

above that predicted for those students who were directly involved in

bullying behaviour as either a perpetrator or victim.’

‘The current findings indicate a need for school principals, teachers,

and school psychologists to be aware of the possible impact that

witnessing bullying can have upon the mental health of their students.’

Rivers, Noret, Poteat, Ashurst, 2009. (2002 – 12 to 14 year olds. United Kingdom)

Mobilise bystanders our best chance…

- The majority of peer interventions are effective, with the bullying stopping within 10 seconds of peer intervention (Hawkins et al., 2001)

- Reconciliation occurred when bystanders intervened and less when teacher intervened. (Fujisawa et al, 2005)

- Students who are ‘defended’ are better adjusted, and report less peer-reported victimisation one year later (Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, & Salmivalli, 2009)

Teachers need more training to discuss covert bullying with students, staff responses

Teachers need more training in discussing covert bullying with students

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Government

Non Government

Broadly agree Neither agree nor disagree Broadly Disagree

The extent to which staff felt they were skilled to deal with cyber bullying by State

Pair and Share Activity

• What is the number one statistic which will

serve to inform change in your school?

Cyber Bullying and the Law

Civil Law

Criminal Law

Should the school take precautions against a risk of harm?

Michael Winram (Associate at Emil Ford & Co Lawyers, Sydney)

Students who were bullied through technology:

Percentage bullied through

technology only

Percentage bullied through technology and in other ways

By gender Male 8.1% 91.9%Femal

e 16.3% 83.7%Total 11.9% 88.1%

Percentages of students involved in technology-based only and both forms of bullying, by gender (2009)

Be aware of the high correlation – online bullying is an indicator of offline bullying and vice versa.

The risk factors

www.howstuffworks.com

Web 2.0 101…Where are they going?

Do you know where young people ‘hanging out’ these days?

Use of Social Networking Services(SNS)Click and Connect Report (2009) n=819

Age ( of Child)

8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17

Sample 106 87 182 222 222

Bebo 3% 7% 21% 34% 30%

Clubpenguin 21% 25% 15% 6% 2%

Facebook 11% 13% 36% 59% 63%

MSN 20% 42% 64% 80% 83%

MySpace 4% 9% 42% 66% 78%

Any other site like these

3% 4% 6% 4% 6%

Never used a SNS

63% 36% 20% 6% 3%

Social Networking Sitese.g. MSN, Facebook, Twitter

• Post personal information, photos, music and blogs (web logs)

• Communicate with people they know, their friends or others

• Some instant messaging capabilities• Some believe adding large number of

contacts to ‘buddy lists’ increases social statusFacebook has 400 million active users

500 billion mins per month are spent on Facebook

F8 location based SNS servicesTwitter, foursquare, facebook (can opt in now – only 25% do)

Managing yourDigital Reputation

• Search different sites• Search in different ways• Search regularly

ChatrouletteAbout half of all Chatroulette spins connects you with someone from the USA. The next most likely country is France at 15%.

Of the spins showing a single person, 89% were male and 11% were female.

You are more likely to encounter a webcam featuring no person at all than one featuring a solo female. 8% of spins showed multiple people behind the camera.

1 in 3 females appear as part of such a group. That number is 1 in 12 for males.

1 in 8 spins yield something R-rated (or worse) You are twice as likely to encounter a sign requesting female nudity than you are to encounter actual female nudity

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/16/chatroulette-stats-male-perverts/#ixzz0nmEe3LZq

Emphasis on whom?

Informed ActionNow that you are informed...

How do you take action?

Davis, S. & Nixon, C. (2010). The Youth Voice Project. Retrieved on 22 September 2010 from http://www.youthvoiceproject.com/YVPMarch2010.pdf

Overall reported helpfulness of adult actions