Definitional issues

There is currently no universal definition for cyberbullying (see Table 2.1 for definitions). Young people and teachers may have different ideas as to what constitutes bullying or cyberbullying behaviours (Naylor et al., 2006).

Additionally, young people of different ages may also have different ideas about what bullying specifically involves (Smith et al., 2002). This difference in

understanding between ages can impact investigations into bullying and cyberbullying (Naylor et al., 2006; Craig and Pepler, 2007).

Deschamps and McNutt (2016) stated, that defining cyberbullying is compounded by “issues of measurement around prevalence, predictors, and outcomes” (p.

46). In this vein, Tokunaga (2010) argued that without a universal definition, studies and their results are left open to question and debate, as each study may be investigating something different, depending on the definition or

interpretation of the definition used. Moreover, Notar et al. (2013) state, absence of a single definition can lead respondents astray and invalidate

subsequent findings since most people lack an even rudimentary understanding of cyberbullying and conclusions and eliminates the possibility of drawing

meaningful cross-study comparisons”(p. 2, 2013). Table 2-1 explores the various differences found in the conceptual definitions of cyberbullying from 2000 onwards, demonstrating that studies using different definitions may have been measuring different experiences.

Table 2-1 Differing conceptual definitions of cyberbullying adapted from Tokunaga (2010)

Study (by year) Definition Finkelhor et

al., (2000)

Online harassment: Threats or other offensive behavior (not sexual solicitation) sent online to the youth or posted online about the youth for others to see (p. x)

Ybarra and Mitchell (2004)

Internet harassment: An overt, intentional act of aggression towards another person online

Patchin and Hinduja (2006)

Willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text (p. 152)

Slonje and

Smith (2008) Aggression that occurs through modern technological devices and specifically mobile phones or the Internet (p. 147)

Willard (2007) Sending or posting harmful or cruel texts or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices (p. 1)

Juvoven and Gross (2008)

The use of the Internet or other digital communication devices to insult or threaten someone (p. 497)

Li (2008) Bullying via electronic communication tools such as e-mail, cell phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), instant messaging, or the World Wide Web (p. 224)

Smith et al., (2008)

An aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly or over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself (p. 376)

Besley (2009) The use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others

All of the definitions listed have one similar component, which is the use of the Internet or electronic means in which to instigate harm. There have been

changes over time, as technology has advanced. Initially, Finkelhor et al., (2000) included youth in their definition, whereas the other authors do not include an age demographic as part of their definitions, as it is not only youth who involve themselves in cyberbullying behaviours. Moreover, only three of the nine

definitions listed mention that the cyberbullying act needs to be repeated in order for it to be considered cyberbullying. This is an important distinction, as repetition has often been found to play an integral role in cyberbullying and is discussed further on in this chapter.

Again, it may be that the speed of technological development is outpacing research output in this field (Kessel Schneider et al., 2012) and there is a gap between definitions and understandings. Similarly, Law et al., (2011) argued that as the construct of bullying is not fully understood or defined, it is difficult to conceive of the entire scope of the term.

There are other issues that are still being explored when it comes to both the widely accepted definition of bullying by Olweus and the definition of

cyberbullying, as given by Tokunaga at the beginning of this section. The issue of repetition is one such issue. In instances of traditional bullying the repetition is easily pinpointed, whereas in cyberbullying the repetition may not be occurring by the initial perpetrator. According to Slonje, Smith and Frisen (2013), “a single

act by one perpetrator may be repeated many times by others, and experienced many times by the victim. If the repetition is not carried out by the perpetrator, is this still cyberbullying?” (p. 27).

An important part of the former definition states that it occurs “over time”

(Olweus, p. 10, 1999). Interestingly, it has been argued that long-lasting anxieties over a bullying incident may make it feel repetitive (Tattum, 1989).

Additionally, it was found that young people did not consider the frequency when deciding whether or not a bullying act had occurred, and that once or twice was enough (Guerin and Hennessy, 2002) to be thought of as bullying.

This is increasingly important when applied to the pervasive and repetitive nature of cyberbullying; even if young people turn off their computers or mobile devices, when they are turned back on, the victimisation begins anew, or

continues on from where it left off (Kowalski et al., 2008). It has been suggested that young people who are cyberbullied suffer from an increase in symptoms of anxiety and depression over those who have not been similarly victimised

(Kowalski and Limber, 2013). In order to further explore the damaging, pervasive and repetitive nature of cyberbullying, it is necessary to investigate the online media through which young people engage in these activities.