Estonian students’ Perceptions of the Nature of Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Approach
Author(s):
Karin Naruskov (presenting / submitting) Piret Luik
Conference:
ECER 2012
Network:
05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

05 SES 08 A, Urban Education & Children and Youth at Risk

Parallel Paper Session

Time:
2012-09-20
09:00-10:30
Room:
ESI 2 - Aula 6
Chair:
Ruth Leitch

Contribution

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.

Method

Two mixed gender focus group interviews were conducted separately with 12-year-old and 15-year-old students in a secondary school located in South-Estonia largest city Tartu. The two focus groups were gathered so that they both consisted of 10 students (5 boys and 5 girls). The participating school was selected using convenience sampling. Scenarios for focus group interviews were developed in the European project COST ACTION IS0801 working group 1 (Nocentini et al., 2010). In total, 10 scenarios were created mixing the presence and absence of 5 cyberbullying criteria (intention, imbalance of power, repetitiveness, anonymity, publicity/privacy). Furthermore, the final 4 scenarios of the 10 covered the 4 types (written-verbal, visual, exclusion, and impersonation) of cyberbullying behaviour. During the focus group interviews, 10 scenarios were presented to the students. A moderator and a recorder carried out interviews at the school, during the school day. Both interviews were held using the same interview guide, and the guidelines of Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1988) were followed. Focus group interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. The focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used in order to analyze the data gathered with focus groups.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary findings of this study indicated that the best term to label cyberbullying, for Estonian students, was „bullying.” In the context of different cyberbullying behaviours, students considered the impersonation and visual cyberbullying behaviour as the most serious, and exclusion as the least serious. Students explained that it is serious if a perpetrator finds out or steals someone`s password to gain access to the accounts because the bully can cause big trouble for that person. According to the cyberbullying criteria, it seemed that the imbalance of power was the most serious. In short, it was important to the students how the victim reacted to the bullying (whether the victim didn’t care or was upset). In addition, if the bullying action was public instead of private, then it was considered more severe. Students explained that in that case of public cyberbullying there is a large audience involved, and therefore, the victim’s reputation may become damaged. The main reaction to the situations described in the scenarios suggested by students was blocking or ignoring the bullying action. In almost all scenarios, students raised the question about the content of text-messages, and intention lying behind the perpetrator’s act.

References

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.

Author Information

Karin Naruskov (presenting / submitting)
University of Tartu
Faculty of Social Sciences and Education, Institute of Education
Tartu
Piret Luik
University of Tartu, Estonia

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • 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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.