CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR

Volume 11, Number 4, 2008

© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0042

Rapid Communication

Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Research

into the Perceptions of Youngsters

HEIDI VANDEBOSCH, Ph.D. and KATRIEN VAN CLEEMPUT, M.Sc.

ABSTRACT

Data from 53 focus groups, which involved students from 10 to 18 years old, show that young-
sters often interpret “cyberbullying” as “Internet bullying” and associate the phenomenon
with a wide range of practices. In order to be considered “true” cyberbullying, these practices
must meet several criteria. They should be intended to hurt (by the perpetrator) and perceived
as hurtful (by the victim); be part of a repetitive pattern of negative offline or online actions;
and be performed in a relationship characterized by a power imbalance (based on “real-life”
power criteria, such as physical strength or age, and/or on ICT-related criteria such as tech-
nological know-how and anonymity).

INTRODUCTION lying,” or “bullying via Internet or mobile

phone.”4–6,10 In the second case, the researchers

T HE LITERATURE ABOUT CYBERBULLYING is still rela-

tively scarce and characterized by a lack of
conceptual clarity. The phenomenon is defined in
measure the respondent’s experience with a range
of cyber activities, which are assumed to represent
forms of cyberbullying (e.g., insulting or threaten-
different ways (usually—implicitly or explicitly— ing somebody via e-mail or instant messaging; in-
starting from definitions of “traditional” bully- tentionally sending a virus to someone).11
ing),1–7 and the distinction from other forms of “de- The existing studies about cyberbullying have
viant” cyber activities, such as cyber harassment,4 produced inconsistent results. The estimations for
flaming,8 and cyberstalking,9 is often very vague. the prevalence of cyberbullying, for instance, vary
Different perspectives about exactly what cyber- greatly. These differences seem to be the result (at
bullying is have also led to different kinds of oper- least in part) of the definitions and operationaliza-
ationalizations. Cyberbullying is mostly studied by tions of cyberbullying that are used in different
means of online surveys4,10,11 or school surveys studies. Surveys that rely on both indirect and di-
among youngsters.5,6,12 In these types of surveys, rect measurements of cyberbullying12 further sug-
researchers directly or indirectly measure the re- gest that cyber activities perceived as “forms of cy-
spondent’s experience (as a bully, victim, or by- berbullying” by the researchers are not always
stander) with cyberbullying. In the first case, re- considered cyberbullying by the respondents.
spondents are asked whether (and sometimes how The above-mentioned problems call for the de-
often) they have been the perpetrator of or have velopment of a clear definition of cyberbullying,
been confronted with “online bullying,” “cyberbul- which is congruent with the perceptions of the re-

Department of Communication Studies, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.

499
500 VANDEBOSCH AND VAN CLEEMPUT

search participants. In this article, we take a first ondary education; 85 respondents (30.5%), techni-
step in this direction by presenting the results of a cal secondary education; and 31 respondents
qualitative research into the experiences and views (11.1%), vocational secondary education.
of youngsters with regard to cyberbullying. Of the respondents, 98.6% said they made use of
the Internet, and 90.3% appeared to have a mobile
phone.
METHOD
Negative aspects of the Internet and mobile phones
To gain deeper insight into the perspectives of In the first part of the focus groups, the young-
youngsters with regard to cyberbullying, focus sters were asked to mention some of the positive
groups were organized. This method was chosen and negative aspects of information and communi-
because it was expected that the interaction among cation technologies. Looking at the number of times
youngsters about a conversation topic that is part that certain negative aspects associated with the In-
of their everyday (social) life—namely, ICT—would ternet and with mobile phones were mentioned dur-
reveal detailed information about their concrete In- ing the focus groups gives us a rough idea about
ternet and mobile phone practices and their indi- the problems and dangers that most concerned the
vidual and group norms and values with regard to youngsters. These were (in order of diminishing fre-
electronic communication. Given the deviant topic quency) being contacted by strangers (mentioned 52
of the research, the interviewers applied a gentle ap- times), computer viruses (49), hacking (38), pe-
proach: starting from youngsters’ everyday (posi- dophilic attempts (22), cyberbullying (20), threats
tive and negative) experiences with ICT, the inter- (17), spam (17), stalking (14), e-advertising (14), sex-
viewers moved on to the topic of cyberbullying and ual intimidation (12), pornographic Web sites (11),
catered for general opinions about and personal ex- people who turn on their webcam unwanted (10),
periences (as a bystander, victim, or perpetrator) the cost of the communication (10), technical failure
with this phenomenon. (10), health-related problems (5), and the content of
Because of the exploratory nature of the study, certain Web sites (3).
the aim was to reach a heterogeneous audience of
youngsters to obtain a wide range of opinions about What is cyberbullying?
and experiences with cyberbullying. To involve stu-
dents from different ages, sexes, and educational General descriptions (cyberbullying is Internet bully-
levels, classes ranging from the last year of ele- ing) versus a summation of Internet and mobile phone
mentary school to the last year of secondary school; practices. When asked to provide a description of
classes from general, technical, and vocational edu- cyberbullying, most students seemed to equate it
cation; and classes with both boys and girls, were with “bullying via the Internet,” or they mentioned
asked for their cooperation. Internet practices they regarded as examples of cy-
The focus group conversations were all tape berbullying. These examples were sometimes ex-
recorded and literally transcribed. The texts were treme cases that had been discussed in the media.
then imported in Atlas-Ti (a program for the anal- More often, however, students had personal or in-
ysis of qualitative data) and coded. The analyses fo- terpersonal experiences with Internet and mobile
cused on the detection of general trends as well as phone uses that in some instances could be consid-
on possible differences in answers between sub- ered forms of cyberbullying.
groups (based on sex, age, and education level). Most of the interpersonal examples of cyberbul-
lying were practices related to instant messaging.
Several students admitted that they (or somebody
they knew) had been the victim of hacking. In those
RESULTS
instances, someone else had broken into their MSN
account, for instance, and changed their password,
Background characteristics of the respondents
deleted their contact list, and sent insulting or
Two hundred seventy-nine youngsters partici- strange messages to their contact persons. The most
pated in the 53 focus groups that were organized in common reaction of victims to hacking was chang-
17 classes of 10 different schools. Of them, 142 ing their e-mail accounts and passwords. Another
(50.9%) were boys, 137 (49.1%) girls. The mean age MSN practice often mentioned by the respondents
of the respondents was 14.1 (the youngest was 10 was being contacted by strangers. These intrusions
years old, the oldest 19), SD  2.098. One hundred were often unwelcome and therefore blocked or
nineteen respondents (42.7%) followed general sec- deleted.
DEFINING CYBERBULLYING: THE PERCEPTIONS OF YOUNGSTERS 501

The respondents also reported other forms of In- The way in which Internet or mobile phone prac-
ternet bullying, such as sending huge amounts of tices were actually perceived by the victims ap-
buzzers or winks to someone, copying personal con- peared to depend on the kind of practice and the
versations and sending them to others, spreading relationship between the individuals involved.
gossip, manipulating pictures of persons and send- Some respondents mentioned, for instance, that re-
ing them to others, making Web sites with humili- ceiving computer viruses (especially those sent by
ating comments about a student, sending threaten- strangers) was not really bullying, but being threat-
ing e-mails, misleading someone via e-mail, ened, scared, or insulted was. The degree to which
humiliating someone in an open chat room, and the individuals felt personally attacked thus seemed
sending messages with sexual comments. to play an important role. On the other hand, the
On the other hand, several respondents (espe- line between what was and what was not perceived
cially the older ones) seemed to have negative ex- as a personal attack was often very vague. One girl
periences with mobile phones (e.g., getting calls in said, for instance, that being called “ugly” on MSN
the middle of the night, being threatened through was acceptable to her, but being called “a whore”
the telephone). Some also admitted they had done was certainly not. The relationship between the per-
this to others. petrator and the victim also played an important
These Internet and mobile phone practices were role in the way messages were interpreted. Getting
given as examples of cyberbullying. The respon- a message from a friend that might be considered
dents noticed, however, that the same practices an insult (and a form of cyberbullying) by a third
could be interpreted in other ways, depending on party was often regarded at as a joke, a sign of com-
the precise circumstances. Following are a few “cru- mon understanding, or a kind of playful interaction
cial” characteristics of cyberbullying that were sug- between friends.
gested by the respondents and indeed seem to over-
lap to a high degree with criteria used to define Repetition
traditional bullying.
Another aspect that students mentioned sponta-
neously when describing the difference between cy-
Intended to hurt by the perpetrator (and perceived as
berbullying and cyber-teasing was that cyberbully-
hurtful by the victim). According to the respondents,
ing implied repetition. However, this criterion did
cyberbullying was clearly different from teasing via
not necessarily imply several instances of electronic
the Internet or mobile phone. One huge distinction,
bullying. A single negative act via Internet or mo-
according to the youngsters who participated in the
bile phone that followed on traditional ways of bul-
focus groups, was that the perpetrator of cyberbul-
lying was also considered cyberbullying.
lying really wanted to hurt the feelings of another
person. Cyber jokes, on the other hand, were not in-
Power imbalance
tended to cause the victim negative feelings—they
were meant to be funny. The respondents ac- The interviews showed that the respondents who
knowledged, however, that there might be a differ- admitted they had done things via the Internet or
ence between the way things were intended and the mobile phone that might be hurtful to others indi-
way things were perceived. What some perpetra- cated that they had mostly operated anonymously
tors considered an innocent joke might be consid- or disguised themselves and that their victims were
ered an aggressive attack by the victim (or even the often people they also knew in the real world. In
other way around). real life, these victims were perceived by the per-
Asking students why they did things via Internet petrator as weaker, of equal strength, or stronger.
or mobile phone that might be perceived as hurtful The weaker victims were usually also the target of
by others revealed a wide range of motives. In some traditional bullying. These students were described
instances, the perpetrator’s intent to harm was quite as “strange,” “shy,” “small,” and so on. Cyber ac-
clear. Some said, for instance, that they took revenge tions aimed at these youngsters were almost unan-
on those who had bullied them (in real life or in cy- imously considered cyberbullying. On the other
berworld) or attacked and harassed another person hand, there were people whom the perpetrators
via Internet or mobile phone because they had an considered equals. These could be friends or former
argument with or just couldn’t stand the person. In friends. The same Internet or mobile phone actions
other instances, things were done just for fun be- that were considered cyberbullying in the case of
cause the youngsters felt bored or because they the more vulnerable targets were in the latter in-
wanted to display their technological skills and stances more often described as “cyber-teasing,”
power. “cyber-arguing,” or “cyber-fighting” (although a
502 VANDEBOSCH AND VAN CLEEMPUT

considerable number of students thought of the last CONCLUSION

phenomenon as “cyberbullying”). In some in-
stances, persons who were perceived as more pow- The focus groups reveal that youngsters can name
erful in real life were the target of cyber attacks. The (and have experience with) a wide range of negative
anonymity of the Internet and mobile phone and Internet and mobile phone practices. On top of their
knowledge of ICT applications13 indeed seemed to list is being contacted by strangers. Other, less fre-
empower those who were unlikely to become real- quently mentioned aspects are receiving viruses, be-
life bullies or who were even victims of traditional ing hacked, pedophilic attempts, and cyberbullying.
bullying. The term cyberbullying is often familiar to youngsters
From the side of the victim, not knowing the per- via the media and is usually equated with “bullying
son behind the cyber attacks was often frustrating via the Internet.” When referring to bullying that oc-
and increased the feeling of powerlessness. Know- curs via electronic means in general, it might therefore
ing the individual(s) behind a certain action, on the be worthwhile to consider the use of a more appro-
other hand, made it possible to put the action into priate term (e.g., electronic bullying, digital bullying).
perspective (and to perceive it as negative or not) On the other hand, the question What is cyberbullying?
and to react accordingly. The focus groups showed often leads to a numeration of media and interper-
that in the case of friends, the initial anonymity was sonal experiences that might be considered examples
often given up by the perpetrators themselves. of cyberbullying. The direct and indirect ways of mea-
suring cyberbullying behavior used in most of the sci-
entific cyberbullying studies so far thus seem to be
Familiar persons versus strangers, individual, or
closely related to the natural descriptions of cyber-
group attacks
bullying by youngsters. However, the focus group in-
While many Internet and mobile phone practices terviews also make clear that measuring youngsters’
that might be hurtful to others were directed to peo- experiences with a range of activities, without taking
ple whom the perpetrators also knew in person, into account the context in which these activities take
other practices were aimed at total strangers. Some place, is not an adequate method. To be classified as
students mentioned, for instance, that they dialed a cyberbullying, these Internet or mobile phone prac-
random mobile phone number and started insult- tices should be intended by the sender to hurt; part of
ing the person who picked up the phone. Others a repetitive pattern of negative offline or online ac-
took on another identity and misled persons whom tions; and performed in a relationship characterized
they met in chat rooms or sent insulting or threat- by a power imbalanced (based on real-life power cri-
ening messages to the e-mail address of an un- teria such as physical strength or age and/or on ICT-
known person. The victims, in these cases, func- related criteria such as technological know-how and
tioned as an individual but random target. In some anonymity). These criteria help, for instance, to dis-
instances, the perpetrators made a more strategic se- tinguish cyberbullying from cyber-teasing (not in-
lection (which resembles the way traditional bullies tended to hurt, not necessarily repetitive, and per-
choose their victims) based on the (presumed) real- formed in an equal-power relationship) and cyber
life characteristics of the persons they met online. In arguing (intended to hurt, not necessarily repetitive,
these instances, they targeted weaker strangers (e.g., and performed in an equal-power relationship). Cy-
younger, inexperienced persons, girls). berbullying often occurs within the context of existing
From the part of the receiver, the anonymity of social (offline) groups and is mostly aimed at one in-
the sender often made it difficult to know whether dividual. In this way, cyberbullying also differs from
the person was someone they actually knew or a forms of harassment by strangers aimed at one well-
stranger. But in many instances, the victim did have chosen target (e.g., pedophilic acts) or at a group of
a clue about the identity of the perpetrator (e.g., be- people (e.g., sending viruses or spam).
cause of the content of the messages, the way oth-
ers in their environment behaved) or was informed
of the identity by the perpetrator or a third party.
REFERENCES
Furthermore, the focus group interviews showed
that certain Internet and mobile phone practices
1. Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Bullies move beyond the
were not only aimed at individuals or groups but schoolyard: a preliminary look at cyberbullying.
also performed by individuals or groups. This as- Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2006; 4:148–69.
pect, however, does not seem to be unique to cy- 2. Belsey B. www.cyberbullying@org (accessed Oct. 2006).
berbullying. Teasing or arguing via the Internet, for 3. Wired Safety. Cyberbuulying, Flaming and Cyberstalk-
instance, can also imply multiple senders and re- ing. www.internetsuperheroes.org/ cyberbullying/
ceivers. summit_8feb05_2.html (accessed March 2007).
DEFINING CYBERBULLYING: THE PERCEPTIONS OF YOUNGSTERS 503

4. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. Online aggressor/targets, ag- lar Internet users. CyberPsychology and Behavior
gressors, and targets: a comparison of associated 2004; 7: 247–57.
youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology 11. Qrius. (2005). Online pesten: Geintje of kwetsend?
and Psychiatry 2004; 45:1308–16. www.planet.nl/planet/show/id761788/contenti
5. Li Q. New bottle but old wine: a research of cyber- 546528/sc3eb360 (accessed Oct. 2006).
bullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior 12. Vandebosch H, Van Cleemput K, Mortelmans D, et
2007; 23:1777–91. al. (2006) Cyberpesten bij jongeren in Vlaanderen–onder-
6. Li Q. Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender zoeksrapport. Brussel: viWTA(available at www.viwta.
differences. School Psychology International 2006; be/files/Eindrapport_cyberpesten_(nw).pdf
27:157–70. 13. Jordan T. (1999) Cyberpower: the culture and politics of
7. Baruch Y. Bullying on the Net: adverse behavior on cyberspace and the Internet. London: Routledge.
e-mail and its impact. Information and Management
2005; 42:361–71. Address reprint requests to:
8. O’Sullivan PB, Flanagin AJ. Reconceptualizing “flam-
Dr. Heidi Vandebosch
ing” and other problematic messages. New Media &
Society 2003; 5:69–94.
Department of Communication Studies
9. Spitzberg BH, Hoobler G. Cyberstalking and the tech- University of Antwerp
nologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media and Sint-Jacobstraat 2
Society 2002; 4:71–92. Antwerpen, Belgium 2000
10. Ybarra ML. Linkages between depressive symptoma-
tology and Internet harassment among young regu- E-mail: [email protected]