05 SES 08 A, Urban Education & Children and Youth at Risk
Parallel Paper Session
The primary focus of this paper is students’ perception of the cyberbullying. According to Vandebosch and Cleemput (2008) it is necessary to investigate students’ perception of cyberbullying because there is a lack of conceptual clarity of the phenomenon. Therefore, this study aims to examine how Estonian students label cyberbullying behaviour, and how their perception of cyberbullying is affected by the 5 criteria of cyberbullying (imbalance of power, intention, repetition, anonymity, and publicity/privacy), and also by the type of cyberbullying behaviour (written, verbal, visual, exclusion, and impersonation). According to Smith et al. (2008), “cyberbullying is an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly, and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself" (p. 376). This definition refers directly to the definition of conventional bullying because it includes three criteria that are important in order to define bullying behaviour (intentionality, repetition, and imbalance of power), excluding the use of new communication technologies (Menesini and Nocentini, 2009; Olweus, 1999). Several authors have pointed out that in cyberworld settings Olweus’s three criteria are not always easily distinguishable, recognizable, and sometimes maybe not even be sufficient (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Shariff, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2008). In addition, it is assumed that there are new cyber-specific criterions that make it possible to represent cyberbullying more adequately (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Nocentini, Calmaestra, Schultze-Krumbholz, Sheithauer, Ortega & Menesini, 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008).
In the context of this presentation it is also important to focus on different behaviours that represent cyberbullying. According to Nocentini et al. (2010) there are four main types or typologies of cyberbullying: written-verbal behaviours, visual behaviours, exclusion, and impersonation. Impersonation refers to situations when the perpetrator finds out or steals the victim’s password to gain access to his or her accounts in order get that person in trouble or to damage that person’s reputation or friendship (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatson, 2008). The written-verbal type of cyberbullying includes written or verbal forms of behaviours or communication that takes place through electronic mediums. Visual behaviour takes place if the perpetrator posts, sends or shares compromising pictures/videos in the cyberworld (Nocentini et al., 2010)
Several qualitative studies have focused on the issue of students’ perceptions of cyberbullying in order to clarify the concept of the phenomenon (Mishna, Saini & Solomon, 2009; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2008). Still, the investigation of cyberbullying is at early stage, and in order to perform a more valid measure of the phenomenon in future studies it would be necessary to learn what term Estonian students are using, in order to label cyberbullying and the ways by which cyberbullying criteria and different cyberbullying behaviours affect Estonian students’ perception of cyberbullying.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin J. W. (2009). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Corwin Press. Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber Bullying. Bullying in the Digital Age. Blackwell Publishing. Kowalski, R.M., & Limber S. P. (2007). Electronic Bullying Among Middle School Students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22-S30. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth`s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Service Review, 31, 1222-1228. Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Menesini E., & Nocentini A. (2009). Cyberbullying Definition and Measurement; Some Critical Considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologi, 217(4), 230-232. Nocentini A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Sheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviors and definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 129-142. Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7-12). London: Routledge. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-Bullying. Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. USA & Kanada: Routledge. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 147 – 154. Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/pdf/CyberbullyingreportFINAL230106.pdf Vandebosch, H., & Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Research into the Perceptions of Youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499 – 503.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.