Cyber Bullying Essay Example

middle school students have met face to face with a stranger from the internet who was not their own age.

Of those dents, 7% have been asked by the internet strangers to keep their relationship a secret (Colt, 2007). Over 1 3,000 students were polled and 22% of students know someone who has been bullied online while 19% admitted to saying something harmful or hurtful to someone else online (Colt, 2007). Examining accessibility and its role in a school setting is becoming an increasingly significant issue to address. Review of the Literature Accessibility definitions Bullying has been an issue within schools for a long time but there is a new threat that needs to be addressed, accessibility (Hindu & Patching, 2007).

Many researchers have come to define accessibility in a few different ways all varying in degree and intensity of the accessibility.

Hindu et. Al. (2007) described accessibility as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text. Sheriff and Gouging (2007) have a similar definition but gets more specific. They stated accessibility consists of covert, psychological bullying, conveyed through the use of electronic mediums such as cell phones, web-logs and web-sites, on-line chat rooms.

Manses and his colleagues asserted that bullying is aggressive behavior or intentional harm y one person or a group, generally carried out repeatedly and over time that involves a power differential (Manses et al. , 2001 IL (2005) stated that accessibility involves the use of information and communication technologies such as email, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online Accessibility 9 polling Web sites, to support deliberate repeated and hostile behavior

by an individual or group that is intended to harm others.

As technologies have expanded so has their use by children worldwide. Types of accessibility There are many different types of accessibility flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, tricking exclusion, cabinetmaking, and cybernetics (Willard 2007). According to Nancy Willard (2007), Flaming is online aggression with the use of vulgar language between two parties (Willard, 2007). Harassment is repeatedly sending offensive, rude, and insulting messages (Willard, 2007) (sexual harassment would fall under this category).

Sexual harassment can be broken down into three categories- gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion (Willard, 2007). According to Bark (2005), gender harassment is defined as sexual messages, offensive nicknames, and pornographic material. Unwanted sexual attention is defined as uninvited behaviors that explicitly communicate sexual desires or intentions toward another individual (Bark, 2005). Sexual coercion relates to threats of force that are implied that can be misconstrued by the victim (Bark, 2005). These definitions are applicable to on-line and real-life interactions.

Sending of explicit pictures via computers or phones is occurring all too Often (Willard, 2007). "Denigration" is sending or posting cruel gossip or rumors bout a person to damage his/her reputation or friendships (Willard, 2007). "Impersonation" is breaking into someone's account, posing as that person, or sending messages to make that person look bad, get that person in trouble or danger, or damage that person's Accessibility 10 reputation or friendships. (Willard, 2007). "Outing", according to Willard, is sharing someone's secrets or embarrassing information or images online, while "tricking" is similar but a person is tricked into revealing secrets or embarrassing information which is then shared (Willard, 2007). "Exclusion" is intentionally excluding

someone from an online group or leaving out of an online conversation (Willard, 2007). Storm and Storm (2005) stated some cases may involve more than one bully and a single victim. Others could involve a gang of bullies that persecute multiple parties. The latter occurs when students respond to online trash polling sites.

These web sites, which are growing in number, invite students to identify individuals by unflattering characteristics, such as the most obese person at their school, the boys likely to be gay, and the girls who have slept with the most boys Storm & Storm, 2005). One example of this type of website is campuses. Com. "Cabinetmaking" is repeatedly sending messages that are highly intimidating, engaging in other online activities that make a person afraid for their safety, and use of a technology to control another person (Willard, 2007). "Cybernetics" are either direct threats or distressing material that raises concerns or provides clues that the person is emotionally upset and may be considering harming someone, harming them, or committing suicide (Willard, 2007). Willard further ascertained that real power is exerted n the virtual world in multiple ways. It is expressed in various electronic mediums through controlling topics available for discussion, posting inflammatory messages, and flaming (Willard, 2007).

Types of Сybernetics

Art Wilkinson of Hairdresser.Erg defines five different types of cybernetics: Inadvertent, mean girls, revenge of the nerd, power hungry and vengeful angel. Inadvertent cybernetics may not view themselves as cybernetics, they often have alter egos online and tend to react to hateful messages and lash out as a reaction rather than an intentional harm.

Inadvertent cybernetics re often misunderstood in their messaging (Wilkinson, 2006).

Mean girl cybernetics are usually girls but can be boys and it can be a group activity. Girls do this to promote social status and participate in this behavior out of boredom. Mean girls are extremely immature, are offline bullies, and usually are not anonymous (Wilkinson, 2006).

Revenge Of the nerd cybernetics are typically a victim to off-line bullying, stays anonymous, is technically advanced, and acts tough online but is timid face-to-face (Wilkinson, 2006). Power hungry cybernetics want to exert their power, brag to others, and may e victims to face-to-face bullying (Wilkinson, 2006). The vengeful angel superbly is a vigilante, doesn't see themselves as a bully, and work alone but may share activities with close friends (Wilkinson, 2006).

Superbly demographics IL (2005) did a study of 1 77 middle school students in Canada where 23% of the respondents were bullied by email, 35% in chat rooms, 41% by cell phone text messaging, 32% by known school-mates, 1 1 % by people outside of school, and 16% by multiple sources including school-mates. Not surprisingly 41% did not know the identity of their perpetrators (IL, 2005).

According to Chug (2005), a study of 3,700 middle choler's found that 18% of students reported being cybernetics. 90% of middle school students have ad their feelings hurt online (Wilkinson, 2006). 65 % of 8-14 year-olds have been directly or indirectly involved in a accessibility incident, 50% have heard of a bashing site directed at student in their school, and 75% have visited a bashing site (Wilkinson, 2006).

According to a survey by the National Children's Home Charity and Tests Mobile (2005) of 770 youth, ages 11-19, 20 % of respondents revealed

that they had been bullied by electronic means. The survey revealed that 73% knew the bully and 26 % did not know the offender.  10 % reported that another person took a picture of them by Amerada phone, consequently making them feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, or threatened (National Children's Home, 2005). 24 % of victims told parents, 14 % told a teacher and 28% did not tell anyone, while 41% told a friend (National Children's Home, 2005).

Hobart & Mitchell (2004) did a study of 1498 adolescence from age 10-19 in 2000. 84% of offenders knew their victim, while 31% of victims knew their harasser. This fact is noteworthy; it appears that power and dominance are exerted online through the ability to keep offenders identity unknown (Hobart & Mitchell, 2004). Hobart and Mitchell (2004) also found that youth ho are victims Of bullies in offline environments are significantly more likely to harass others in online environments (51%).

Hindu and Patching did a study of 1378 students under the age of 18. 0% of their respondents were Caucasian and were randomly picked to have an equal number of males and females (Hindu & Patching, 2007). In this study 32 % of boys and 36% of girls reported being victims of accessibility while 18% boys and 16% of girls reported harassing others online (Hindu & Patching, 2007). Thus there is no statistical significance in relation to gender ND accessibility as a victim or offender. Girls did report being victimized more then boys (13%-10%) (Hindu & Patching, 2007).

Hindu and Patching (2007) found statistical significance in offline maladaptive behaviors related to accessibility. Respondents who reported recent school problems, assault behaviors,

and substance use were more likely than their counterparts to experience accessibility, both as a victim and an offender (Hindu & Patching, 2007). Also, youth who reported bullying others in real life.... In addition, youth who were victims of traditional bullying were more than 2. 5 times as likely to be victims of accessibility (Hindu & Patching, 2007).

Hindu and Patching (2006) also did a study of 384 students that were under the age of 18. Most of their respondents were female and Caucasian mostly due to the fact that they gather data on a website related to a female pop star (Hindu & Patching, 2006). In this study almost 11% of youth reported bullying others online, more than 29% reported being a victim of bullying, and more than 47% have witness bullying online (Hindu & Patching, 2006). Accessibility was most prevalent in chat rooms, then computer texts messages, and emails (Hindu & Patching, 2006).

How students were cybernetics was broken down, as noted, 60% of respondents have been ignored by Accessibility 14 others while online, 50% reported being disrespected by others, 30% been called names, and 21 % have been threatened by others (Hindu & Patching 2006). In addition, 20% of youth were picked on by others, 19% were made fun of, and 19% had rumors spread about them by others (Hindu & Patching, 2006).

Results were given on negative effects associated with online bullying f victims (Hindu & Patching, 2006). 43% of victims were frustrated, 40% felt angry, 27% felt sad. 2% reported the feelings effected them at school and 27% stated that it effected them at home (Hindu & Patching, 2006). 22% reported

not being bothered by being bullied and 43% reported that bullying online did not affect them (Hindu & Patching, 2006). Data was taken on youth as to how they responded to online bullying. Respondents answered as 20% Of victims stayed offline, 32% removed themselves from the environment in some capacity, and 56% confided in an online friend, and fewer than 9% of cities informed adults (Hindu & Patching, 2006).

According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (ANTI) in 2002, 90% of youth between the ages of 12-17 use computers. 20 Million kids between the ages of 2-12 logged onto the Internet in July of 2002, and 1 1. 5 million used instant messaging programs (Entreating, 2002). America Online (AOL 2002, 2003) the most popular Internet service provider with more than 35 million users state that members join in on more than 16,000 chat sessions and send more than 2. 1 billion instant messages per day across their network.

49% reported being ignored online, 43% being disrespected, and 1 1 % were threatened online (Prosecutors et al. , 2005). These behaviors most often occurred in internet chat rooms, 26%, by computer text message, 22%, and by email 14% (Burgess-Proctor et al. 2005). 21% of the girls reported that they never knew their superbly (Burgess-Proctor et al 2005). 1 % reported that being bullied online was done by a friend at school, 36% by someone else at school, and 28% by someone from a chat room (Burgess-Proctor et al. , 2005). 27% responded to accessibility by becoming a superbly themselves, 13% informed their parents, told another adult (Burgess-Proctor et al. , 2005). Most girls (47%) told an

online friend and 18% told another friend (Burgess-proctor et al. , 2005). 17% of the girls stayed offline for a period of time, 35% did not port their factorization to anyone, and 25% did nothing at all (Burgess- proctor et al., 2005).

Each of these studies exemplifies the findings that accessibility has a prominent effect on the emotional, physical, and psychological well-being of adolescents. Adolescents most-often confide in friends when cybernetics, however, not all adolescents feel comfortable and safe reporting a accessibility incident to anyone. It is important to recognize that accessibility does not have the same boundaries that real-life bullying has and many electronic avenues may be used to violate adolescents. Distinctiveness of accessibility Accessibility differentiates itself from regular bullying in many ways.

The individual performing the act does not have to be bigger than or more powerful than the victim (Storm & Storm, 2005). Cybernetics can be anonymous and therefore may be clueless on the effect they have on their victims (Schneider, 2003). With accessibility, Accessibility 16 nothing is private. It is for everyone to see and experience if they have the ability to access the information. Thus, this puts private matters in the public arena and may have a more significant effect on the victims (Storm & Storm, 005).

According to Cooper (2005), the fact that cybernetics can remain anonymous, for the most part, allows them to avoid any type of retaliation or significant consequence to their actions. Patching and Hindu stated that individuals can set up temporary email accounts, pseudonyms In chat rooms, instant message programs, and other internet venues and can make it difficult for adolescents to identify their aggressors

(Patching & Hindu, 2006). Another issue of accessibility is supervision of chat rooms and emails. While there is no "policing" of emails, some chat rooms do monitor their chat rooms or any forms of accessibility.

However, most of the time this is monitored by reports from users, after the act of accessibility has already been committed (Patching & Hindu, 2006). Patching and Hindu sum this issue up by stating electronic devices allow individuals to contact others (both for proboscis and antisocial purposes) at all times and in almost all places (Patching & Hindu, 2006). Adolescents, it seems, are equating legal behavior with ethical behavior online, and consequently feel unrestrained within that "culture of deception" to engage in online harassment (Person et al, p. 6, 2002). Patching and Hindu write that the elements of perceived anonymity online, and the safety and security of being behind a computer screen, aid in freeing individuals from the traditionally constraining pressures of society, conscience, morality, and ethics to behave in a normative manner (Patching & Hindu, 2007). Willard defines this as distribution, where students use technologies for Accessibility 17 communication and do not feel emotionally connected to the person they are communicating with (Willard, 2007).