Student's Perception of Cyberbullying: How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are bullied

TL;DR

This literature review argues that the growth of social media and technology has contributed to a rise in cyberbullying because it removes the physical intimidation factor that constrains traditional bullying. It synthesizes prior studies on prevalence, bully and victim demographics, effects, coping strategies, and prevention programs, concluding that empathy-building curricula such as Cyberprogram 2.0 and parental/platform monitoring are promising interventions.

Key findings

• Prevalence estimates vary by age: Faucher, Jackson, and Cassidy (2014) found 24.1% of 1,925 students across four Canadian universities had been cyberbullied in the prior twelve months, while Vanderbosch and Van Cleemput (2009) found 11.1% among 2,052 students aged 12–18, suggesting cyberbullying becomes more prevalent as students get older.
• Anonymity is central: Slonje and Smith (2008) found 36.2% of students did not know the gender of their aggressor, and Wegge, Vandebosch, and Eggermont (2014) found 49.6% of bullies targeted people who were not schoolmates (27% same grade, 14.2% different grades).
• Victimization and perpetration are cyclical: Beran and Li (2007), studying 432 middle school students, found just under half had been victims of both cyber and traditional bullying, and reported that students bullied through technology are likely to use technology to bully others; Faucher et al. (2014) similarly found students bullied online because they were bullied first.
• Coping and intervention: Davis et al. (2014) found 74% of participants preferred behavioral coping strategies, and 69% of those found them effective; Garaigordobil and Martinez-Valderrey (2015) found Cyberprogram 2.0 effective in decreasing traditional and cyberbullying and in raising empathy among classmates.

Methods

• Design: a literature review; the abstract states the purpose is to explore variables influencing people to become cyberbullies and to answer how the lack of physical intimidation affects people's inclination to cyber bully.
• Data: no primary data collection is described; the paper synthesizes published studies (e.g., Faucher et al. 2014; Wegge et al. 2014; Slonje & Smith 2008; Beran & Li 2007; Davis et al. 2015; Abeele & Cock 2013; Pieschl et al. 2013; Garaigordobil & Martinez-Valderrey 2015).
• Analysis: narrative thematic synthesis organized around prevalence, types of bullies and victims, bully–victim relationships, effects, coping techniques, and forms of cyberbullying.

Limitations

• The paper states no limitations of its own.
• Evident from the text: as a literature review it presents no original data or direct test of its stated research question about physical intimidation, so the central claim rests on inference from secondary sources.
• Evident from the text: the full text is authored by "Tyler Maxwell, University of West Florida" and does not match the bibliographic record supplied (Igbasi Wilson Obinna, Dr. Odachi, G. N, Ikemelu, C.R.; Texila International Journal of Psychology, 2018), so the summary reflects the text provided rather than the listed record.