CYBERBULLYING

AT UNIVERSITY IN
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXTS

Cyberbullying is a problem that is being increasingly investigated by researchers;

however, much of the cyberbullying research literature to date has focused on
children and youth. Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts fills the
gap in the research literature by examining the nature, extent, impacts, proposed
solutions, and policy and practice considerations of bullying in the cyber-world at
post-secondary institutions, where reports of serious cyberbullying incidents have
become more prevalent.
This book brings together cutting-edge research from around the world to
examine the issue of cyberbullying through a multi-disciplinary lens, offering
an array of approaches, interpretations, and solutions. It is not solely focused on
cyberbullying by and against students, but also includes cyberbullying by and against
faculty members, and permutations involving both students and faculty, as well as
institutional staff, presenting perspectives from students, faculty, practitioners, and
senior university policymakers. It draws on research from education, criminology,
psychology, sociology, communications, law, health sciences, social work,
humanities, labour studies and is valuable reading for graduate students in these
fields. It is also essential reading for policymakers, practitioners, and university
administrators who recognize their responsibility to provide a healthy workplace
for their staff, as well as a safe and respectful environment for their students.

Dr.Wanda Cassidy (Associate Professor, Faculty of Education), Dr. Chantal

Faucher (Post-doctoral fellow, Centre for Education, Law & Society),
and Dr. Margaret Jackson (Professor Emerita, School of Criminology)
from Simon Fraser University, Canada, have been researching cyberbullying among
youth and young adults for many years. They have published a range of academic
articles, research reports, and policy papers on this topic locally, nationally, and
internationally.
CYBERBULLYING
AT UNIVERSITY IN
INTERNATIONAL
CONTEXTS

Edited by
Wanda Cassidy,
Chantal Faucher, and
Margaret Jackson
First published 2019
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this Book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-73039-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-73044-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-18940-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS CONTENTSCONTENTS

List of tablesviii
Forewordix
Prefacexi
Acknowledgementsxiii
List of contributors xiv

Introduction: context, framework, and perspective 1

Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

PART I
Nature and extent 7

1 Cyberbullying among university students in France:

prevalence, consequences, coping, and intervention strategies 9
Catherine Blaya

2 Relationships among university students/faculty and

cyberbullying in Japan 23
Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

3 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university: the

voices of students 36
Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez
vi Contents

4 MySpace or yours? An exploratory study of homophobic

and transphobic cyberbullying of post-secondary students 52
Aynsley Pescitelli

5 Power in the tower: the gendered nature of cyberbullying

among students and faculty at Canadian universities 66
Chantal Faucher,Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

6 Cyberbullying within working contexts 80

Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

PART II
Impacts97

7 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying:

cybervictimization among higher education students 99
Elisa Larrañaga, Santiago Yubero, Raúl Navarro, and
Anastasio Ovejero

8 “You need a thick skin . . .”: impacts of cyberbullying at

Canadian universities 112
Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

9 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying: the impact

on faculty 126
Lida Blizard

PART III
Solutions139

10 In the e-presence of others: understanding and

developing constructive cyber-bystander action 141
Loraleigh Keashly

11 The fairness lens: a university ombudsperson’s perspective

on building a kinder online culture on campus 157
Natalie Sharpe

12 Designing healthy and supportive campus communities:

an example from Simon Fraser University 162
Tara Black
 Contents vii

13 Preventive measures against cyberbullying at a university

in Japan 168
Kenichi Kanayama and Shinji Kurihara

14 Intervening against workplace cyberbullying 173

Samuel Farley and Iain Coyne

PART IV
Policy179

15 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context: the

shades of harm and implications for law and policy 181
Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

16 What’s policy got to do with it? The focus on

cyberbullying policy at the university level 198
Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

17 Faculty members who are bullies 212

Jon Driver

18 Cyberbullying in the sheltering darkness of

digital anonymity 215
Dov Schafer

Reflections and conclusions 218

Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

Index225
TABLES TABLESTABLES

1.1 Involvement of Students in Cyberviolence and Cyberbullying 12

1.2 The Role of University to Prevent Cyberviolence According
to the Students’ Perceptions 17
3.1 Description of the Sample 40
3.2 Cyberbullying Behaviour Prevalence 41
3.3 Offender Distribution Declared by CB Victim 41
3.4 Platforms and Frequency of CB 42
4.1 Study Participants 55
5.1 Disparities in Gender Participation Among Studies of
Cyberbullying in Post-Secondary Institutions 68
6.1 Definitions of Cyberbullying at Work and Related Concepts 85
8.1 Cyberbullying Impacts as Reported by Victims 114
10.1 Goals for Bystander Action 150
15.1 Frequency of Cyberbullying 183
15.2 The Shades of Harm Associated With Cyberbullying 185
FOREWORD FOREWORDFOREWORD

The study of traditional, or offline, bullying has a history of some 40 years. Thou-
sands of publications have come from what has developed, over that period, into a
very vigorous research program.This has gone along with increased public aware-
ness of the prevalence of bullying; the harm it can cause both in the short and
long term; and the steps that can be taken to reduce the prevalence and the
harm. Progress is only partial. The temptation to abuse power, and attempt to get
status or material advantage, by bullying others, is likely to be present in human
groups, and especially those from which the victim cannot easily depart – families,
schools, colleges, the workplace. It would be foolhardy to imagine that we can
‘eliminate’ bullying. But it is not foolhardy to imagine that we can do a great deal
to diminish the extent to which it occurs and the harm it brings about. Actions
can include improving the climate of human groups, dealing with bullying inci-
dents promptly, empowering bystanders, and supporting victims effectively. There
are indications that rates of traditional bullying are declining – not in all countries
and contexts, but in many. If widely substantiated, this would suggest that the
extensive body of research knowledge has helped feed into awareness and action,
and improved many people’s well-being as a result.
Cyberbullying, or online bullying, has a much shorter history. Although the
phenomenon may go back around 20 years, it is only in the last 10 years that
it has been a noticeable topic of research. However, the flow of publications in
the area has expanded rapidly, with hundreds of articles appearing in the last few
years. Although much of this research has extended methods and concepts from
offline bullying, cyberbullying brings its own particular features and challenges.
These include the possible anonymity of the perpetrator, the 24/7 nature of the
phenomenon, and the extent to which criteria for traditional bullying, notably
repetition and imbalance of power, are useful in the cyber domain. At the time
x Foreword

of this writing, there is also considerable debate about whether cyberbullying is

much less frequent than traditional bullying, and has little extra impact; or by con-
trast, whether it is increasing more than traditional bullying, and has as much or
more negative impact on victims. Another debate concerns whether interventions
against cyberbullying should mainly follow methods used for traditional bullying,
or should use more specific interventions, or both. Not only is research moving
fast in the area, but so also is the phenomenon itself, as new forms of information
and communication technology (ICT) develop, wider age ranges become familiar
with them, and specific laws and policies come into effect.
As with traditional bullying, much of the research in cyberbullying has been on
young people, still at school. The mid-adolescent period generally shows peaks in
bullying and also in involvement with mobile phones and the internet. However,
this may change as the ‘digital natives’ get older and move into early adulthood, as
is happening now. This volume is thus very timely in bringing together a strong
and varied collection of research, on cyberbullying in young adults, usually those
at college or university. Interestingly, this can often also involve faculty, some-
times at the receiving end of anonymous abuse from students, as well as abuse
from colleagues, the latter being an example of workplace cyberbullying. There
are contributions from a number of different countries and indeed continents.
Both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies are represented. There
are descriptive studies, including some discussing risk factors such as gender, and
LGBTQ status. There are chapters demonstrating the negative impact of cyber-
bullying. And, there are a good number of contributions on policy issues and pos-
sible solutions, or at least ways of tackling cyberbullying effectively. The research
presented in these chapters is both a challenge to all concerned to improve cyber
safety in these domains, and also a valuable source of knowledge and practical
actions to help us to do so.
Peter K. Smith
Professor Emeritus
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
PREFACE PREFACEPREFACE

A few years ago, when we (two of the editors) were researching cyberbullying
at the K–12 level, we experienced cyberbullying from undergraduate students
taking courses with us through distance education. At the same time, during our
presentations at conferences, audience members were telling us their stories of
being cyberbullied in the academy, or stories they knew of, encouraging us to
extend our research from schools to the post-secondary environment.
These experiences prompted us to secure funding from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada to investigate the extent to which
cyberbullying was occurring at Canadian university campuses; the impact on stu-
dents and faculty; whether policies, intervention, and prevention practices were in
place to counter cyberbullying; and ways to more effectively address the problems
as identified. We were curious whether the motivation to cyberbully at the post-
secondary level was similar to the reasons younger students gave for targeting a
friend, acquaintance, or stranger, and what the impacts might be on adults and the
wider university culture.
We have since reported on the findings from this research at conferences and
in academic journals (some of which are also included in Chapters 5, 8, and
16 of this volume). Furthermore, in 2014, we co-organized a symposium titled
Cyberbullying at Canadian Universities: Linking Research, Policy, and Practice, where we
shared preliminary findings with various university stakeholders including faculty,
students, staff, and administrators/policymakers gathered for a day of dialogue
on this issue. Participants clearly indicated the need to increase awareness of the
nature and extent of this problem at the university level and for concrete informa-
tion about applicable policies and solutions.
Interestingly, scholars in several other jurisdictions were also curious about
the phenomenon and were undertaking similar research. Many of these scholars,
xii Preface

along with several of the participants from the symposium, are contributors to this
book, adding valuable insights to the discussion, and providing an international
and applied perspective. What is clear is that cyberbullying at the post-secondary
level among students, and towards and among faculty members, is not restricted to
one country; rather, it appears to be a global problem. Higher education environ-
ments are not immune to the online bullying problems identified at the primary
and secondary school levels, nor can they be seen as separate from workplace
cyberbullying.
The aim of this book is to begin to fill that gap in the research literature by
discussing the nature, extent, impacts, proposed solutions, and policy and prac-
tice considerations of bullying in the cyber-world at post-secondary. It is our
hope that the range of international and multi-disciplinary perspectives brought
together in this book will serve to raise awareness regarding this problem and offer
insights into approaches for addressing it in a meaningful way.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are hugely indebted to the thousands of research participants around the

world who took the time and made the effort to share their experiences with the
authors of the various chapters in this book. The wealth of knowledge that has
accrued from their willingness to share their thoughts will contribute to a better
understanding of this phenomenon and, hopefully, a safer and healthier online
environment for all concerned.
We also wish to express our gratitude to Lucy Kennedy, our editor at Rout-
ledge, for her efforts at bringing this book to life, as well as to the two anonymous
reviewers whose feedback helped to shape the book’s final form.
Additionally, we extend our sincere thanks to Alyson Kissner and Cristina
Serverius for their diligent text and copyediting work prior to submission of the
manuscript to Routledge.
The research reported in the three chapters written by the editors was supported
by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant #410–2011–1800.
We also wish to acknowledge the funding provided by the Simon Fraser Uni-
versity Publication Fund towards text and copyediting prior to submission to the
publisher.
CONTRIBUTORS CONTRIBUTORSCONTRIBUTORS

Ikuko Aoyama (PhD, Baylor University) is specially appointed Associate Profes-

sor of Shizuoka University. Her research interests are bullying, cyberbullying, and
prevention, as well as social emotional learning and resilience. She is principal
investigator in a cross-cultural Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)-
funded study on bullying and cyberbullying and is co-Principal Investigator on
several other projects.

Tara Black was, at the time of the writing of her chapter, an Associate Director of
a health promotion program at Simon Fraser University, Canada. She co-chaired
an international group that led to the development of the Okanagan Charter: An
International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges.

Catherine Blaya is Professor in Education Sciences at the Teachers’ University in

Lausanne and Chair of the International Observatory of Violence in Schools. She
has dedicated her academic career to researching issues that might affect young
people, such as dropping out of school, bullying, and cyberbullying.

Lida Blizard completed her doctorate degree in Educational Leadership from

Simon Fraser University in 2014, where she studied post-secondary faculty mem-
bers’ experiences of cyberbullying by students and the impact on targeted indi-
viduals. She is currently employed as a full-time faculty member at Kwantlen
Polytechnic University in Canada.

Wanda Cassidy is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education and Director

of the Centre for Education, Law and Society at Simon Fraser University. She
 Contributors xv

researches and writes in the areas of social justice and law-related education, the
ethic of care, marginalized youth, and cyberbullying at K–12 and post-secondary.

Rayén Condeza (PhD, Université de Montréal) is Associate Professor, Faculty

of Communication (Department of Applied Communication) and Director of
Communication and got her Education Master’s degree at Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile. Her research interests are children and youth experience using
new technologies and Communication and Education studies.

Iain Coyne is Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology in the School of

Business and Economics, Loughborough University. Iain has written numer-
ous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters on workplace bullying/
cyberbullying and previously led a working group on a European COST Action
researching Cyber-bullying in Educational Contexts (2008–2012).

Jon Driver is Professor in the Department of Archaeology at Simon Fraser Uni-

versity, Canada. At the time of the writing of his chapter, he was Vice-President
Academic and Provost, with many years of administrative experience within the
university.

Samuel Farley is Lecturer in Organizational Psychology at the University of

Leeds Business School. He is particularly interested in the ‘dark side’ of workplace
behaviour, including bullying, cyberbullying, and incivility. Within this field, his
interests include the measurement of bullying and how targets attribute blame for
their experiences.

Chantal Faucher (PhD, Criminology, Simon Fraser University) is a post-

doctoral fellow with the Centre for Education, Law and Society at Simon
Fraser University, Canada. She is involved in research projects on cyberbully-
ing at the post-secondary level and teaches criminal justice at Langara College,
Vancouver, BC.

Gonzalo Gallardo (Master’s, Educational Psychology) is Assistant Professor at

the School of Psychology at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and
in the Faculty of Psychology at the Universidad Alberto Hurtado. He is the
Research Coordinator at the Observatorio de la Juventud Universitaria in the
Student Affairs Office.

Mark Giancaspro (PhD, University of Adelaide) is Lecturer at the University

of Adelaide Law School. Mark practices and researches primarily in the fields of
contract law, commercial law, operational commercial law, and sports law, and his
teaching philosophy centres upon student engagement and well-being.
xvi Contributors

Margaret Jackson is Professor Emerita in the School of Criminology at Simon

Fraser University, Director of FREDA, an SFU research centre focusing upon
violence against women, and past Director of the School of Criminology. In addi-
tion to bullying/cyberbullying issues, other research areas include justice policy
and family/criminal law case decision-making.

Kenichi Kanayama (PhD) is Professor of Department of Childhood Education,

Faculty of Human Development and Education, Kobe Shinwa Women’s Univer-
sity. He specializes in clinical and school psychology.

Tomoyuki Kanetsuna (PhD, Goldsmiths, University of London) is Associate

Professor of Kagawa University. He was a research assistant for the Unit for School
and Family Studies, Goldsmiths, mainly involved in research on school bullying.
He is leading a JSPS-funded research project regarding the relationships between
online self-presentation and online misbehaviour.

Loraleigh Keashly is a Professor in the Department of Communication, Wayne

State University, Detroit. Her research and consulting work focus on the quality
of work relationships, particularly the amelioration of uncivil, hostile, and bullying
behaviours. She has recently focused her attention on problematic behaviours in
academic environments, helping universities address these issues.

Shinji Kurihara (PhD) is Professor of the Department of Learning Science,

Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, Japan. He is the President
of the Japanese Association of School Counselling and Guidance.

Colette Langos (PhD, University of South Australia) is a Senior Lecturer at the

University of Adelaide Law School. Colette researches primarily in the areas of
law, technology, and commercial law in a military context. Colette is an interna-
tional expert on the regulation and management of negative online behaviours.

Elisa Larrañaga is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, Uni-

versity of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Social Work. Areas of research include
sexism and behavioural problems, gender, and reading practices.

Raúl Navarro is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, University

of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Education. Area of research include gender dif-
ferences in aggressive behaviour, social factors associated with bullying, cyberbul-
lying, and ghosting.

Anastasio Ovejero is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology,

University of Valladolid, Faculty of Work Sciences. Area of research include
 Contributors xvii

cooperative learning, workplace violence, critical social psychology, bullying, and

cyberbullying.

Aynsley Pescitelli is a PhD Candidate in the School of Criminology at Simon

Fraser University. Her research interests include sexual violence at post-secondary
institutions, sexual violence policy, media representations of crime and crimi-
nal justice, victimology, cybervictimization, gender and crime, minorities and the
criminal justice system, hate crime, and feminist criminology.

Pablo Reyes Pérez (PhD, Psychoanalysis, Université Paris VIII Vincennes-Saint

Denis) studied Psychology at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He is
Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychology, Universidad de Chile, and in
the School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. His research
interests are identity, violence, and psychoanalysis.

Dov Schafer is a PhD student in Educational Technology and Learning Design

at Simon Fraser University. Dov grew up as a citizen of online game worlds; he
views interactive games as tools for enhancing learning and motivation. His work
is focused on leveraging the power of Augmented Reality for instruction and
assessment.

Natalie Sharpe, B.A. (Hon), M.A., has been a practicing ombudsperson at the
University of Alberta for over three decades and is President of the Association
of Canadian College and University Ombudspersons. She has presented nation-
ally and internationally at ombuds professional conferences and contributed to
ombuds journals.

Yuichi Toda (PhD, University of Tokyo) is Professor of Osaka Kyoiku Univer-

sity. He was a visiting fellow at Goldsmiths College, University of London and a
short-time visiting professor at University of Vienna. His research with Dr Dag-
mar Strohmeier received den Hauptpreis des Bank Austria Preises zur Förderung
innovativer Forschungsprojekte 2008 (Bank Austria Prize for the Promotion of
Innovative Research Projects 2008).

Santiago Yubero is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, Uni-

versity of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Education and Humanities. His areas of
research include bullying and workplace violence, gender, and reading practices.
INTRODUCTION WANDA CASSIDY, CHANTAL FAUCHER, AND MARGARET JACKSONINTRODUCTION

Context, framework, and perspective

Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and

Margaret Jackson

For well over a decade now, cyberbullying has been recognized as an issue similar
to, and yet also quite distinct from, traditional forms of bullying that were docu-
mented well before the proliferation of technology in everyday life. The topic of
cyberbullying has increasingly been researched throughout the world, and a better
understanding of the nature, extent, impacts, coping strategies, solutions, policy,
and practice has begun to emerge with respect to cyberbullying among students
at the elementary, middle, and secondary education levels (Cassidy, Faucher, &
Jackson, 2013; Navarro,Yubero, & Larrañaga, 2016; Smith & Steffgen, 2013).
However, cyberbullying is no longer viewed just as a problem faced by the
young. In recent years, the media has highlighted several serious cases of cyber-
bullying between students on university campuses that have resulted in suicide.
As technology increasingly becomes the vehicle of communication on campuses,
faculty members, too, are being subjected to online harassment and demands,
from students, as well as from colleagues. University administrators recognize their
responsibility to provide a healthy workplace for their staff, as well as a safe and
respectful environment for their students.
While no clear consensus exists as far as the definition of cyberbullying, many
researchers have tended to extrapolate some of the defining features from the
accepted definition of bullying: repeated aggressive behaviours, intent to cause
harm, and power imbalance between victim and bully (Olweus, 1993). How-
ever, the way in which those features manifest in the online context has been a
source of interest among researchers. For instance, the self-perpetuating nature
of online posts that can be re-visited and re-circulated transforms the meaning
of repetition in the cyber context (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009; Kowalski,
Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Menesini, 2012). Also, the disinhibition and deindi-
viduation associated with online exchanges, and particularly anonymity in those
2 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

communications, and the wider potential audience that characterize the cyber-
world redefine the common notion of power imbalance (Davis & Nixon, 2012;
Hinduja & Patchin, 2012; Lyu & Zhang, 2017; Suler, 2004).
Cyberbullying is carried out using electronic devices through text messaging,
email, websites (such as rating websites and course websites, in particular, for the
university context), blogs, chats, various online platforms such as Twitter, Snapchat,
Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and other social networking sites, game servers,
YouTube and other video-sharing websites, Skype, and many more. It can include
a wide range of behaviours such as using language or images that can defame,
threaten, harass, bully, exclude, discriminate, demean, humiliate, stalk, or disclose
personal information without consent, or that are offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.
It can also be understood to include online incivility, mobbing, and online harass-
ment. Some of these behaviours may also extend into criminal offences, depend-
ing on the jurisdiction as well as the extent and intent of the behaviours.
Relatively little research attention, however, has been paid to the nature, extent,
and impact of cyberbullying among adults, including what is occurring at the
post-secondary level. Some researchers have suggested that bullying and cyberbul-
lying behaviours exist on a continuum from childhood into adulthood (Cowie &
Myers, 2016; Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, 2015). Recent research has begun to
document an increase in uncivil online discourse at the university (Clark,Werth, &
Ahten, 2012; Lampman, 2012; Wildermuth & Davis, 2012) as well as the preva-
lence, negative effects, coping strategies, and policy and practice implications of
cyberbullying among undergraduate students and faculty members (Blaya, Kaur,
Sandhu, & Sundaram, 2018; Blizard, 2016; Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014;
Faucher et al., 2015; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Orel, Campbell,
Wozencraft, Leong, & Kimpton, 2017; Vance, 2010; Wright, 2016; Yubero, Nav-
arro, Elche, Larrañaga, & Ovejero, 2017).
The aim of this book is to begin to fill that gap in the research literature by
discussing the nature, extent, impacts, proposed solutions, and policy and prac-
tice considerations of bullying in the cyber-world at post-secondary. The research
findings that are discussed in this book have policy and practice implications for
university decision-makers who are increasingly faced with the growing problems
and impacts of cyberbullying on campuses.
This edited volume draws on recent research on cyberbullying at the post-
secondary level conducted by scholars from North America, South America, the
United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Since the editors, as well as the par-
ticipating chapter authors, are rooted in a variety of scholarly perspectives (edu-
cation, criminology, psychology, sociology, communications, law, health sciences,
social work, humanities, labour studies), the book reflects a multi-disciplinary lens
and array of approaches, interpretations, and solutions.
The book is divided into four main parts. In the first part, six contributions
examine the nature and extent of cyberbullying in the post-secondary context. In
Chapter 1, Catherine Blaya discusses her findings from two studies (surveys and
 Introduction 3

interviews) of French university students. These studies examined the prevalence

and consequences of cyberviolence and cyberbullying in light of variables such as
gender, nationality, and year of study. In Chapter 2, Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko
Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda review what is known to date about the nature and
extent of cyberbullying among post-secondary students in Japan. In particular,
they examine how beliefs about online anonymity contribute to moral disengage-
ment and social withdrawal. In Chapter 3, Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo,
and Pablo Reyes Pérez present their findings from an exploratory study of cyber-
bullying among post-secondary students in Chile. The vast extent of exposure
to cyberbullying among students either as bullies, victims, and/or bystanders is
revealed, as are certain beliefs normalizing cyberbullying behaviours among this
population. In Chapter 4, Aynsley Pescitelli from Canada delves into the homo-
phobic and transphobic online experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer, and/or questioning (LGBTQ) post-secondary students. In Chapter 5,
Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson provide an overview of
their research examining the cyberbullying experiences of students and faculty
members at four Canadian universities. These findings advance a gendered inter-
pretation of vulnerability to cyberbullying, which is closely tied to power imbal-
ances among members of the university community. In Chapter 6, Iain Coyne
and Samuel Farley, from the UK, examine the international research literature on
workplace cyberbullying more broadly and its potential implications for under-
standing cyberbullying in universities as workplaces and its impacts on individual
and organizational well-being.
The second part of the book brings together three contributions discussing the
impacts of cyberbullying on post-secondary students and faculty. In Chapter 7,
Elisa Larrañaga, Santiago Yubero, Raúl Navarro, and Anastasio Ovejero exam-
ine a range of research on risk factors for cyberbullying victimization among
post-secondary students and the protective or buffering role social support may
play in mitigating the impacts of cyberbullying. The chapter also reports on the
authors’ recent study of Spanish university students in a teacher education pro-
gram, describing their victimization experiences and the coping strategies they
perceive to be most useful. In Chapter 8, Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and
Margaret Jackson discuss the mental and physical health, relational, self-esteem,
and work-related impacts experienced by students and faculty members who had
been cyberbullied at the four Canadian universities they studied. Participants also
reported frustration with inadequate reporting and problem-solving mechanisms,
which further negatively affected their health and well-being. In Chapter 9, Lida
Blizard discusses the findings from her surveys and interviews with Canadian
faculty members who have been cyberbullied by students. The extent of detri-
mental effects reported by the research participants in this study is long-lasting
and wide-ranging.
The third part of the book turns to solutions to the problem of cyberbully-
ing, with a decidedly practical slant among the five contributions. In Chapter 10,
4 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

Loraleigh Keashly from the United States examines the role of cyber-bystanders
and how to prepare members of the campus community to intervene when they
witness cyberbullying. The chapter explores the unique opportunities and chal-
lenges associated with decision-making processes available for cyber-bystander
engagement. In Chapter 11, Natalie Sharpe, ombudsperson at the University of
Alberta, Canada, describes the role of the university ombudsperson in not only
responding to cyberbullying incidents on campus but also preventing such inci-
dents through education initiatives as well as policy and protocol development. In
Chapter 12, Tara Black discusses inscribing approaches to cyberbullying within a
campus-wide “healthy campus” initiative led by the student services department,
and in particular the health and counselling services at Simon Fraser Univer-
sity, Canada. In Chapter 13, Kenichi Kanayama and Shinji Kurihara discuss one
Japanese university’s approach to the prevention of cyberbullying, combining dif-
ferent levels of support for students, including peer support, mental health screen-
ing, media literacy education, teamwork among professionals at the university,
counselling services, and medical referrals. This comprehensive student support
approach has proven successful. In Chapter 14, Samuel Farley and Iain Coyne pro-
vide insight for post-secondary institutions’ administrators and human resource
personnel looking to limit workplace cyberbullying in universities. They suggest
evidence-based practices for interventions, drawing from the youth cyberbullying
and traditional workplace bullying intervention literatures.
Finally, the fourth part of the book adopts a policy lens for approaching the
problem of cyberbullying. In Chapter 15, Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro
discuss the notion of harm and the ways in which it relates to the legal and policy
contexts of universities in Australia. Survey findings reported in this chapter sug-
gest that not all forms of cyberbullying are perceived to be equally harmful, and
respondents have relatively little knowledge about the laws and policies governing
cyberbullying behaviour. In Chapter 16, Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and
Wanda Cassidy, review the evolution of Canadian post-secondary cyberbullying
policies along with their intents and values. Arguments from differing perspec-
tives and geographic locations are explored for a rights-based policy framework.
In Chapter 17, Jon Driver provides his own observations of how best to handle
faculty members who engage in cyberbullying behaviours based on his years of
experience in the office of provost and other administrative positions within the
university. In Chapter 18, Dov Schafer uses his own experience as a student who
was anonymously cyberbullied to reflect on methods of eliminating anonymity
from cyber-exchanges, such as user reporting and distributed ledger technologies,
in order to reduce some types of cyberbullying such as those he endured.
The concluding chapter summarizes the dominant themes discussed in each
of the chapters, including the nature, extent, and rationale for cyberbullying at
the post-secondary level, the role of gender as a factor, identified impacts on
the health and well-being of student and faculty victims, participants’ frustrations
with the lack of redress, recommended solutions including practical approaches
 Introduction 5

that are being implemented, the need for appropriate policy and policy values to
guide the development and implementation of those solutions, as well as areas
for further research. The editors conclude with a call to action for universities to
make cyberbullying prevention and intervention a priority and to work collabo-
ratively with stakeholders to develop research-based, creative solutions to address
the identified problems.

References
Blaya, C., Kaur, K., Sandhu, D., & Sundaram, S. (2018). Cyberbullying in higher education
in India and France: An empirical investigation. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. Spears,
C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in
schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives (pp. 107–129). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blizard, L. M. (2016). Faculty members’ experiences of cyberbullying by students at one
Canadian university: Impact and recommendations. International Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 1(1), 107–124. doi:10.5430/irhe.v1n1p107
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A compre-
hensive review of current international research and its implications and application
to policy and practice. By invitation, in special international issue of School Psychology
International, 34(6), 575–612. doi:10.1177/0143034313479697
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Clark, C. M., Werth, L., & Ahten, S. (2012). Cyber-bullying and incivility in the online
learning environment, Part 1: Addressing faculty and student perceptions. Nurse Educa-
tor, 37(4), 150–156.
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. A. (Eds.). (2016). Bullying among university students: Cross-national
perspectives (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.
Davis, S., & Nixon, C. (2012). Empowering bystanders. In J. W. Patchin & S. Hinduja
(Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 93–109). New York:
Routledge.
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying:
A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188.
Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Compar-
ing the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the
workplace. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111–125. doi:10.11114/jets.
v3i6.1033
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one
classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital
age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lampman, C. (2012). Women faculty at risk: U.S. professors report on their experiences
with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual attention. NAPSA Journal About
Women in Higher Education, 5(2) 184–208.
Lyu, W., & Zhang, J. (2017). The influence of childhood psychological maltreatment
on Mainland China college students’ cyberbullying: The mediating effect of moral
6 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

disengagement and the moderating effect of moral identity. Eurasia Journal of Mathemat-
ics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7581–7590.
McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia:
A Canadian study. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 20, 77–100. doi:10.1007/
s10672-008-9073-3
Menesini, E. (2012). Cyberbullying: The right value of the phenomenon. Comments on
the paper “Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?” European Journal of developmen-
tal Psychology, 9(5), 544–552.
Navarro, R.,Yubero, S., & Larrañaga, E. (Eds.). (2016). Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender,
family, and mental health. Basel, Switzerland: Springer.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school:What we know and what we can do. New York: Blackwell.
Orel, A., Campbell, M., Wozencraft, K., Leong, E., & Kimpton, M. (2017). Exploring uni-
versity students’ coping strategy intentions for cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 32(3), 446–462.
Smith, P. K., & Steffgen, G. (Eds.). (2013). Cyberbullying through the new media: Findings from
an international network. London: Psychology Press.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
Vance, J. W. (2010). Cyber-harassment in higher education: Online learning environments. Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California.
Wildermuth, S., & Davis, C. B. (2012). Flaming the faculty: Exploring root causes, con-
sequences, and potential remedies to the problem of instructor-focused uncivil online
student discourse in higher education. In L. A. Wankel & C. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior
online in higher education: Cutting-edge technologies in higher education (pp. 379–404). Bing-
ley: Emerald.
Wright, M. (2016). Cyber victimization on college campuses: Longitudinal associations
with suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Criminal Justice Review, 41(2), 190–203.
Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying vic-
timization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and
emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–449.
PART I

Nature and extent

1
CYBERBULLYING AMONG
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
IN FRANCE CATHERINE BLAYACYBERBULLYING AMONG STUDENTS IN FRANCE

Prevalence, consequences, coping,

and intervention strategies

Catherine Blaya

Introduction
In France, as in many countries, concern about cyberbullying has become a soci-
etal issue. Although research in the past focused primarily on teenagers’ use of
the internet and their negative online experiences, it is shifting now towards the
university setting, since recent research in Europe and North America indicates
young adults are also involved (Chapell et al., 2004; Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012;
Smith & Yoon, 2013). Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, and Reese (2012) found
that one out of three college students experienced cyberbullying for the first time
while at college, and that for six out of ten students who had been previously
cyberbullied, the major part of their negative experience occurred when they
attended university. These findings strengthen the necessity for researching and
understanding cyberbullying during post-secondary education.
The main reported types of victimization towards students in post-secondary
education are insults, threats and harassment (Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012) but also
obscene content and grooming (Kennedy & Taylor, 2010; Vance, 2010). Females
are more likely than males to be victims and are at a higher risk of distress (Bau-
man & Newman, 2013). The most used technologies for cyberbullying are social
networks (Walker et al., 2011). Studies examining the characteristics of perpetra-
tors (Doane, Pearson, & Kelley, 2014; Gibb & Devereux, 2016) highlight that as
for traditional bullying, cyberbullies show low levels of empathy for the victims
and favourable attitudes towards cyberbullying.
In terms of negative consequences, victims experience anxiety and/or depres-
sion, tend to consume alcohol and drugs, and their social life is reduced (Kowal-
ski & Limber, 2013; Kraft & Wang, 2010). Victimization also impacts negatively
on victims’ academic achievement. The vast majority of university students need
10 Catherine Blaya

support for developing coping strategies as they do not know how to handle
the situation themselves or where to seek help (Adams, Lawrence, & Schenck,
2008).The most heavily victimized individuals tend to think the solution lies with
seeking legal action and intervention from the university authorities (Crosslin &
Crosslin, 2014).
Recently in France, more scholarly attention has been given to cyberviolence1
and cyberbullying. In this chapter, we present the findings from two research
projects: a written questionnaire survey that was completed at two universities in
the South and East of France (Berthaud & Blaya, 2014, 2015), and a qualitative
study involving face-to-face student interviews completed in the South of France.

Research on cyberbullying at university in France

Measures and sample: first study (survey)

The first study aimed to assess the involvement of higher education students
in acts of cyberviolence as victims and/or aggressors, the consequences of vic-
timization, and subsequent coping strategies.We followed a convenience sampling
strategy, and students were asked if they wished to participate. We collected 1,153
paper surveys (1,125 were valid; 28 were void due to missing values). Seventy
percent of the respondents were female. Just over half of the sample (53%) were
aged 17–20, 39% were aged 21–24, and 8% were 25 or older. Students were
from various faculty departments: Social sciences (44%), Sciences,Technology and
Health (24%), Law, Economics and Management (21%), and Arts, Letters and For-
eign Languages (11%). Forty-five percent of the participants were undergraduates,
35% were Master’s students, and 1% were doctoral students. The gender imbal-
ance noted here is consistent with other studies, with more females participating
(Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014).
The survey used the Smith et al. (2008) and the Blaya (2013) self-report ques-
tionnaires on cyberbullying. These measures were adapted to the university and
French context. The survey included questions on the sociodemographic charac-
teristics of the respondents such as age, gender, ethnicity (born in France or not),
their digital practices (time spent online, equipment), and if they were victims or
authors of cyberviolence. It also asked questions about the reasons for victimiza-
tion. Students answered a behaviour checklist based on the previous 12 months.
They were asked the extent to which they had: received/sent nasty, hurtful, intim-
idating messages; received/sent humiliating, unpleasant photographs of sexual
content; were victims or authors of happy slapping, hacking, impersonation, or
rumours. This behaviour checklist was justified on the basis that it was deemed
more reliable than asking students if they had been victims of cyberviolence or
cyberbullying since these two terms may be open to interpretation. Respondents
were also asked about the support they received: through SMS (short message
service), emails, cell phone calls, on a social network, a blog, a forum, or by chat.
 Cyberbullying among students in France 11

Students completed the survey at the end of their academic year. Using a
Likert-type scale, participants were asked for the frequency of their engagement
with identified behaviours, ranging from: never; once or twice; two or three
times per month; once a week; to several times per week. The scale for duration
included: once; a few days; about a month; six months; the whole year; several
years. The survey also included checklist questions about the victims’ feelings
and coping strategies, as well as some questions about the perceived respon-
sibility of the university and the ways the university could prevent or reduce
cyberviolence.

Measures and sample: second study (interviews)

For the second study, we interviewed 20 students (12 female and 8 male), aged
18–26.They were approached to participate because they had declared on the survey
(described previously) that they were either victims or witnesses to cyberviolence,
and had indicated that they were willing to take part in face-to-face interviews.
A semi-directed interview protocol was designed to investigate the following
aspects: (a) involvement as victim, aggressor, and witness; (b) the online context of
the adverse situation; (c) the reasons why it happened; (d) their reporting and cop-
ing strategies; and (e) their suggestions on how to handle and manage the situation
(both individually and at the university level). Data collection occurred outside the
university in cafés in order to be in a neutral space. Information about the study was
provided before starting the interview, and active consent for recording was sought.
The results presented here focus on the students’ experiences and suggestions for
intervention.

Analyses
The way we define and measure violence and online aggression does influence
the quality of response and analyses (Corcoran, McGuckin, & Prentice, 2015). For
both studies, therefore, we did not propose a set definition of cyberbullying to the
students. Instead, we drew a distinction between students who were victimized
several times and those who reported only one negative experience. We labelled
behaviour as cyberviolence when it involved occasional victimization and as
cyberbullying for repeated victimization. We did not use “cyberbullying” as the
umbrella term to avoid confusion as to what was being measured and to reduce
opportunities for intra-national and cross-national comparisons. We completed
logistic regression analyses to check the predictive power of the independent
variables (socio-demographics, digital practices, etc.) with the following profiles:
victims, authors, and victims/authors.
The 20 interviews were then transcribed and analysed using content analysis
and inductive open coding to identify emerging themes, the prevalence of these
themes, and to check for potential patterns.
12 Catherine Blaya

Prevalence and reasons for victimization

Prevalence
Cyberviolence is not an issue that is restricted to secondary education students,
as previously demonstrated in other countries (Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012; Walker
et al., 2011; Zacchilli & Valerio, 2011). As shown in Table 1.1, over 50% of the sur-
vey respondents were victims of cyberviolence at least once during the academic
year, 41% were victims only, 14% were authors only, and 12% (or just over 1 out
of 10) were both victims and authors.
In contrast, repeated victimization, labelled here as cyberbullying, involved 10%
of the students as victims only, 0.5% as authors only, while 1% of the respondents
declared they were both victims and authors.
These results show that university students in France are affected by cybervio-
lence and cyberbullying, and that occasional online violence is more frequent
than cyberbullying. As in other research (Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012), the most
common forms of aggression are nasty or intimidating messages via SMS (26%),
the sharing of personal information without previous consent (15%), unpleasant
or nasty emails (16%), and sexting (10%).
The findings from the logistic regression analyses to check the predictive
power of the independent variables (socio-demographics, digital practices, etc.)
in relation to the following profiles – victims, authors, and victims/authors –
show that gender is strongly associated with being a victim/author (OR = 1.83,
p < .001), as well as a perpetrator of cyberviolence (OR = 2.28, p < .001). These
results echo studies conducted by Chapell and colleagues (2006) and Faucher
et al. (2014), which showed that male students at university were more likely to
be involved as perpetrators. However, according to our results, being a female is
not significantly associated with victimization. This contradicts previous research
by Francisco, Veiga Simão, Ferreira, and Martins (2015) in Portugal; they found
that females were more involved as victims and as perpetrators. MacDonald and
Roberts-Pittman (2010) in the United States, on the other hand, did not find any
difference between genders. As a result of these conflicting findings, the issue of
gender needs further investigation.

TABLE 1.1 Involvement of Students in Cyberviolence and Cyberbullying

Victims only (%) Authors only (%) Victims/Authors (%)

Cyberviolence 41 14 11
(one aggression)
Cyberbullying 10 0.5 1
(repeated victimization)
Total 51 14.5 12
 Cyberbullying among students in France 13

Regardless of gender, victims are 3.6 times more likely to become authors
(OR = 3.60, p < .001), and authors are equally more at risk to become vic-
tims (3.62, p < .001), thus confirming other research findings (Zacchilli &
Valerio, 2011). These findings support the lifestyle theory, where certain behav-
iours such as delinquent lifestyles elevate one’s odds of being victimized: the more
one offends, the higher the risk of being victimized (Henson,Wilcox, Bradford, &
Cullen, 2010). As in other research, our analyses show evidence that the amount of
time spent online (5 hours and more, OR = 1.71, p < .01) and to a lesser extent,
the involvement in online social networking (OR 1.52, p < .05), increases the
odds of being a victim. The other variables most associated with perpetration are
to be very active online, as the respondents who declared eight or more different
activities are more likely to be authors of cyberviolence (OR = 2.19, p < .05),
and to be both victim/authors (OR = 3.10, p < .01).

Reasons explaining victimization and perpetration

Among the main reasons for victimization from the victims’ point of view,
friendship disputes predominate (54%), followed by being different (4%), physical
appearance, country of origin (2.1%), and religion (2.1%). The last two reasons
confirm that there may be a higher risk of victimization for ethnic minority stu-
dents, as previously shown by Näsi et al. (2014). As for perpetrators, 40% stated
they cyber-aggressed their victims because they were annoyed with him/her, and
1 out of 10 said it was because they wished to get revenge on an ex-partner.
Interviews show that friendship disputes were mostly based on rivalry between
protagonists, with the individuals involved intent on finding their own place and
status. This reasoning is explained by one of the interviewees:

Disputes you can have when you are young, due to the difficulty to find
your place, to get included into a group or not. I cannot remember some-
thing specifically; they were mainly unpleasant and nasty messages about
her dress code and behaviour.
( female, undergraduate)

Males reported being generally more excluded online compared to females,

contrary to what happens offline. Some research has shown that being involved
in online gaming increases aggressive behaviours (Anderson et al., 2010; Hasan,
Bègue, Scharkow, & Bushman, 2013; Yang, 2012). Several male respondents con-
firmed these conclusions:

I was on a game and someone ridiculed and excluded me from the game
because I was not performing well enough.
(male, undergraduate)
14 Catherine Blaya

I had problems with an online game. We disagreed, he insulted me. We

sorted it out with a challenge and I won. The problem is over.
(male, undergraduate)

When I started playing online, they picked on me and called me names

because I was not good and I was not scoring enough. They can be very
violent and they insult you or throw you out if you are not competitive
enough, but it is part of the game. If you are a gamer, you have got to be
able to stand it.
(male, Master’s student)

These responses reinforce the centrality of competence and performance in decid-

ing who is victimized, as well as the inability on the part of some of the aggressors
to manage frustration, echoing the work of Przybylski, Deci, Rigby, and Ryan
(2014). Research on social relations in online games shows that players are often
excluded when not matching the established community’s expectations. As indi-
cated, males are predominantly involved in multi-player games (Anderson et al.,
2010). As a consequence of this heavy involvement, they are more at risk to be
excluded than they are in their offline life (Blaya, 2013). However, as one respond-
ent noted: “Women are regularly subjected to discrimination in video games,
which gives the feeling that all the males are morons”. A female gamer stated that
when playing online, she used a male pseudonym and avatar so that males do not
discriminate against her.Therefore, while males are the most frequent participants
in online gaming communities, and thus more frequently abused, females are still
subjected to acts of exclusion.

Consequences and coping strategies

As is the case with traditional bullying, cybervictimization brings about negative
consequences regarding the psychological well-being of young people: anxiety,
low self-esteem, and depression are part of the negative effects that were identified
among victims (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011; Kubiszewski,
Fontaine, Hure, & Rusch, 2013). Cybervictimization also affects a student’s social
life and academic achievement, as expressed in the following sections.These nega-
tive impacts may be why over half of the participants (54%) chose not to answer
the questions on the impacts of cybervictimization.

Impact on socio-emotional well-being and

on social relationships
Survey responses showed that 7.9% of victims felt depressed (Chi2 = 1040.46,
df = 1, p < .001), and 7% indicated that it had altered their relationships with
 Cyberbullying among students in France 15

others (Chi2 = 169.00, df = 2, p < .001). As explained by some of the interviewees,

the experience can be very upsetting:

It started with a photograph that was taken during a party and uploaded on
Facebook. Boys started making unpleasant comments about my appearance.
They were 5–6 and I found it particularly upsetting. I was living on my
own, so I was quite lonely. I wanted to stop seeing what they wrote but at
the same time, I wanted to know, I could not help it. I started feeling very
low and depressed.
( female, undergraduate)

The term “shame” or “ashamed” were terms commonly used by interviewees,

particularly among female students (6 out of the 12 female respondents):

I was not really depressed. It is just that I was so ashamed; I was more and
more ashamed of myself. I felt ugly and useless because they were criticizing
me permanently. I felt I had to change everything in me. I thought I was
ugly. I started being obsessed with my physical appearance and every detail
was of great importance so that they could not post any degrading com-
ment anymore. I was in a state that made me reject what I was, I could not
accept myself anymore so it was really difficult from a psychological point
of view.
( female, undergraduate)

This student was not only ashamed: her comments show how she became very
anxious about her physical appearance – how the domination of the group of
other girls overpowered her life. It affected her self-esteem, reflected her need to
be accepted by the dominant group, and the impact and importance of having a
positive reputation both online and offline (Coutant & Stenger, 2010).

Impact on academic achievement

Among the victims, 2.8% of the respondents to the survey (Chi2 = 208.83, df = 1,
p < .001) stated cybervictimization had negative effects on their exams and 2.6%
(Chi2 = 211.32, df = 1, p < .001) on the marks they received. Two of the vic-
tims stated they had to repeat their academic year. Nine of the students (1.9% −
Chi2 = 226,23, df = 1, p < .001) reported they debated leaving university. Four
of the 20 students interviewed considered dropping out of university, as indicated
by these quotations:

I felt like crap. Everything I was saying was picked on, everything I was
wearing was criticized by this group of girls. The only thing they were
16 Catherine Blaya

interested in was gossiping and boyfriends. I thought I could not cope any-
more and that the only solution was to go for an online course.
( female, undergraduate)

I was new in the city and I knew no one, the other students had attended
the same high schools and had known each other for a while. As I was not
from the same region, they picked on me because of my accent. It carried
on online and they started sending nasty comments on my accent and the
way I dressed or talked.They picked on me continuously. I was not invited to
parties and no one would sit next to me in the lecture theatre. I felt so lonely,
I thought there was no way I could carry on like that and I wanted to leave.
( female, Master’s student)

In the examples described here, the victimization was both online and offline,
impacting the victims’ motivation to stay in school. A similar impact on victims’
levels of concentration (abilities), motivation, and academic achievement was pre-
viously documented for secondary school students (Kowalski & Limber, 2013).
However, we did not expect this to be a major factor among a more mature
student population.

Coping strategies
The victims were asked about their coping strategies. Most respondents said that
they ignored the problem, while just over 1 out of 10 tried to solve it (11.9%).
Among the other strategies: 8.8% of the victims said they tried to ask the aggres-
sor to stop the behaviour; one out of four shared it with someone else (a friend,
their partner, parents); and only two students reported the problem to university
staff – perhaps reflecting the lack of trust in the university staff to handle the situ-
ation, or a perception that it is not up to the university to manage cyberbullying.
Just over 24% of the victims stated they had tried to seek support from friends.
Moreover, 6 out of the 20 interviewees said they tried to find some distance from
the situation:

Relativize maybe. When you have done nothing wrong, there is no reason
you should be belittled.Talk to friends so that they help you to put the situ-
ation into perspective and to find a solution if you do suffer because of it. It
is very important not to keep it to yourself.
(male, undergraduate)

I tried to sort it out on my own and then I waited. I did not ask for any help
to start with. Later, when my friends started putting me down on MSN also,
I asked a friend to give me support and that did help me.
( female, undergraduate)
 Cyberbullying among students in France 17

Both the survey and the interview responses showed that students tended to avoid
or ignore the problem, while only a minority tried to take an active approach to
solving the situation. As a second step, victims tended to seek help from acquaint-
ances or friends rather than family, which might be explained by the fact that they
are young adults.

Intervention: what can be done at the university level?

In order to understand the students’ expectations in terms of intervention at the
university level, we performed a content analysis of the responses to the following
open-ended question: “What do you think your university could/should do to
prevent cyberviolence?” Only 39% of the students answered, and findings show
(Table 1.2) that 1 out of 10 respondents think that it is not part of the responsibili-
ties of the university to prevent cyberviolence.
Very few students stated that universities should punish cyberbullying
behaviour or impose sanctions (2%), with the majority suggesting prevention
and greater dialogue. Students wished to be actively involved in some form of
peer mediation and support. This is confirmed by the fact that 38% of students
think that young people are the ones who can find solutions to cybervio-
lence because they are the digital natives. In terms of direct intervention from
the university, 7% of students would like the institution to set up prevention
activities such as information campaigns and conferences. Raising awareness
could contribute to developing a collective anti-violence ethos. Moreover,
7.6% of the respondents suggested that the university should strengthen and
facilitate offline communication between students, but also between staff
and students. The feeling of a lack of communication reflects a need for a
stronger social bond – social bonding being one of the most protective factors
against violence in schools (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterie, Fleming, & Hawk-
ins, 2004) – but also against preventing drop-outs (Wang & Fredricks, 2014).
Similar processes may be considered within the college environment. Most of

TABLE 1.2 The Role of University to Prevent Cyberviolence According to the Students’

Perceptions

What university could/should do to prevent cyberviolence Number of citations Frequency

It is not the university’s responsibility 117 10.4%

Nothing 94 8.4%
Improve relations between individuals offline 85 7.6%
Prevention and awareness-raising activities 79 7%
Organize peer mediation and support groups 53 4.7%
Sanctions 23 2.0%
I do not know 40 3.6%
18 Catherine Blaya

the students who asked for an improvement in communication were freshmen

(43%), and all were undergraduates (100%). Once enrolled in a Master’s degree
program, students are more likely to have developed friendship networks, and
therefore less likely to require support. Many students expressed loneliness
during their beginning years at university, and thought the university should
provide more support.

Preventing cyberviolence should be one of the priorities of the univer-

sity because college is often a place where you feel lonely, mainly for
undergraduates.
(male, Master’s student)

To create forums for students to help each other and not only on the inter-
net, but also face-to-face.
( female, undergraduate)

To set up discussion groups where students could get to know each other
better, including with university staff.
( female, undergraduate)

One of the challenges in bullying and cyberbullying is to get victims and wit-
nesses to speak up, as they tend to keep quiet for fear of retaliation or because of
the lack of spaces where they can share their concerns and negative experiences.
The majority of the participants in the study (60.8%) stated that they would
report problems if there was a means of doing so anonymously and if they knew
how and to whom they could report:

It would be useful to spread information and to have identified potential

referees in case a problem emerges. This should be free and available to the
whole community.
(male, undergraduate)

Quite a few students advocated for the creation of spaces for dialogue in the form
of forums, conversation groups, and support groups. The porosity between offline
and online spaces is a common response among those who recommend increasing
communication offline to reinforce positive values (Doane et al., 2014). There is
a growing trend towards counter-speech or rather “positive speech”, as a way to
prevent assaultive discourse, mainly in relation to increasingly hateful discourse
targeting some specific communities. Even as early as the beginning of the 20th
century, Brandeis (1927) was arguing for education over censorship, noting that
the best remedy for harmful speech “is more speech, not enforced silence” (as
cited in Richards & Calvert, 2000, p. 1). Learning to handle and contest hate
 Cyberbullying among students in France 19

speech through education is perceived by many as being a powerful and useful

part of one’s education.

Try and develop models of counter-speech so that the students know that
the internet can also be a place where you care for the others; show students
how to write positive messages.
( female, Master’s student)

This last point supports the idea that colleges and universities have a prevention
role to play in providing their students with the social and communicative skills
required to build a better community, as well as to foster more positive social
relationships.
Our findings highlight that students think they can play an active part in the
prevention and intervention against cyberbullying and that a greater culture of
caring and dialogue would contribute to a healthier learning environment. Stu-
dents stress the need for greater information and raising awareness. As noted by
the students themselves, universities should offer curriculum content (aware-
ness raising, information on how to cope with the issue, consequences of online
aggression, how to behave in an ethical way when online, writing and managing
counter-speech), as well as organizational aspects (more space and time for dia-
logue, specific referees and adapted means for reporting incidents, a more caring
attitude as a collective value).

Conclusion
This study sought to assess the extent of cyberviolence or cyberbullying in French
universities. Findings show that cyberviolence is indeed of concern, since more
than 50% of the respondents had been victimized, 14% were authors, while 12%
declared a double status as both authors and victims. The more students are active
on the internet (time spent online, multiple activities, social network activities),
the higher the odds of becoming a victim, thus replicating conclusions from pre-
vious studies (Kubiszewski et al., 2013). Victims are more at risk to be offenders,
and offenders are equally as likely to become victims. Gender is also strongly asso-
ciated with cyberviolence, as males declared a greater involvement as both per-
petrators and victim/authors. More specifically, online gamers seem to be at risk
of victimization. As the interviews demonstrated, underperforming in the gaming
community is linked to insults, humiliations, and exclusion – echoing findings by
Przybylski and colleagues (2014).
Cyberviolence can have deleterious effects on some victims’ academic careers
(Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, this volume; Crosslin & Crosslin, 2014; Kowalski &
Limber, 2013). It is, therefore, of paramount importance that university leaders
take the issue seriously and that guidelines be included in students’ portfolios
20 Catherine Blaya

when entering university – since, at present, nothing is being done to coun-

ter this issue at the university level in France. Students indicated the need for
greater awareness and information, support services, and clear policy. Moreover,
students expressed their wish to be actively included in the prevention process,
which should be a first step towards success (Cross, Lester, Barnes, Cardoso, &
Hadwen, 2015). As stressed by some of the participants, the two predominant
aspects in terms of prevention are increased communication between individuals
and a stronger culture of care and bonding. These demands clearly point out that
beyond electronic communication and its ethical use, the social climate of the
university is at the heart of deterrence of cyberviolence.

Note
1 We refer to cyberviolence as any type of violence perpetrated through electronic media
of communication. Cyberviolence is different from cyberbullying in the sense that
cyberviolence is not repeated violence and can be an occasional incident.

References
Adams, F. D., Lawrence, G. J., & Schenck, S. (2008). A survey on bullying: Some reflections
on the findings. NASCD News & Notes, 8, 1–7.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . &
Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial
behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173.
Bauman, S., & Newman, M. L. (2013). Testing assumptions about cyberbullying: Perceived
distress associated with acts of conventional and cyber bullying. Psychology of Violence,
3(1), 27–38.
Berthaud, J., & Blaya, C. (2014). Premiers résultats de l’enquête française Cyberviolence à
l’université. Adjectif, Analyses et Recherches sur les TICE. Retrieved from www.adjectif.net/
spip/spip.php?article279
Berthaud, J., & Blaya, C. (2015). Pratiques numériques, perception de la violence en ligne
et victimation chez les étudiants. Recherches en éducation, Hors série 7, 146–161.
Blaya, C. (2013). Les ados dans le cyberspace, prises de risque et cyberviolence. Bruxelles: De
Boeck.
Blaya, C., & Fartoukh, M. (2015). Digital uses, victimization and online aggression: A com-
parative study between primary school and lower secondary school students in France.
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 285–300.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume).“You need a think skin . . .”: Impacts of
cyberbullying in Canadian universities. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 112–125). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterie, S., Fleming, C. B., Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The
importance of bonding to schools for healthy development: Findings from the social
development research group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252–262.
Chapell, M., Casey, D., De la Cruz, C., Ferrel, J., Forman, J., Lipkin, R., . . . & Whitaker, S.
(2004). Bullying in university by students and teachers [Electronic Version]. Adolescence,
39, 53–64.
 Cyberbullying among students in France 21

Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L.
(2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41, 633–648.
Corcoran, L., McGuckin, C., & Prentice, G. (2015). Cyberbullying or cyber aggression?
A review of existing definitions of cyber-based peer-to-peer aggression. Societies, 5,
245–255.
Cross, D., Lester, L., Barnes, A., Cardoso, P., & Hadwen, K. (2015). If it’s about me, why do
it without me? Genuine student engagement in school cyberbullying education. Inter-
national Journal of Emotional Education, 7(1), 35–51.
Crosslin, K. L., & Crosslin, M. B. (2014). Cyberbullying at a Texas university: A mixed meth-
ods approach to examining online aggression. Texas Public Health Journal, 66, 26–31.
Coutant, A., & Stenger, T. (2010). Pratiques et temporalités des réseaux socionumériques:
logique de flux et logique d’archive. Mémoires et Internet – Médiation et Information, 32,
125–136.
Doane, A. N., Pearson, M. R., & Kelley, M. (2014). Predictors of cyberbullying perpetration
among college students: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Computers in
Human Behavior, 36, 154–162.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International,
2014, 1–10.
Francisco, S. M.,Veiga Simão, A. M., Ferreira, P. C., & Martins, M. J. D. D. (2015). Cyberbul-
lying:The hidden side of college students. Computers in Human Behaviour, 43(0), 167–182.
Gibb, Z., & Devereux, P. G. (2016). Missing link: Exploring repetition and intentionality
of distress in cyberbullying behaviors within a college population. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 2(3), 313–322.
Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J.Y. (2011). The impact of cyber-
bullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal Child
Health Journal, 15, 1282–1286.
Hasan,Y., Bègue, L., Scharkow, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). The more you play, the more
aggressive you become: A long-term experimental study of cumulative violent video
game effects on hostile expectations and aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 49(2), 224–227.
Henson, B.,Wilcox, P., Reyns, B.W, & Cullen, F.T. (2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and
violent victimization: Implications for Routine Activity Theory. Victims & Offenders,
5(4), 303–328.
Kennedy, M. A., & Taylor, M. A. (2010). Online harassment and victimization of college
students. Justice Policy Journal, 7(1), 1–21.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Reese, H. (2012). Cyberbullying
among college students: Evidence from multiple domains of college life. In C. Wan-
kel & L. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 293–321). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(Suppl.), S13–S20.
Kraft, E., & Wang, J. (2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and cyberstalking
experiences and factors related to victimization of students at a public liberal arts col-
lege. International Journal of Technologies, 1(4), 74–91.
Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Hure, K., & Rusch, E. (2013). Le cyber-bullying à
l’adolescence: problèmes psycho-sociaux associés et spécificités par rapport au bullying
scolaire. L’Encéphale. 39(2), 77–84.
22 Catherine Blaya

MacDonald, C. D., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among college students:

Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,
2003–2009.
Molluzzo, J. C., & Lawler, J. (2012). A study of the perceptions of college students on cyber-
bullying. Information Systems Education Journal, 10(4), 84–109.
Nagelkerke, N. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination.
Biometrika, 78, 691–692.
Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Keipi, T., & Holkeri, E. (2014). Association
between online harassment and exposure to harmful online content: A cross-national
comparison between the United States and Finland. Computers in Human Behavior, 41,
137–145.
Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding
electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 106(3), 441–457.
Richards, R. D., & Calvert, C. (2000). Counterspeech 2000: A new look at the old remedy
for “bad” speech. BYU Law Review, 2000(2), 553–586.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, N., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-
bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.
Smith, J. A., & Yoon, J. (2013). Cyberbullying presence, extent, & forms in a Midwestern
post-secondary institution. Information Systems Education Journal, 11, 52–78.
Vance, J. W. (2010). Cyber-harassment in higher education: Online learning environments.
Ed.D. dissertation. Retrieved from University of Southern California Digital Library
(usctheses-m2954).
Wang, M.-T., & Fredricks, J. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement,
youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development,
85(2), 722–737.
Yang, S. (2012). Paths to bullying in online gaming: The effects of gender, preference for
playing violent games, hostility, and aggressive behavior on bullying. Journal of Educa-
tional Computing Research, 47(3), 235–249.
Zacchilli,T., & Valerio, C. (2011).The knowledge and prevalence of cyberbullying in a col-
lege sample. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 3, 11–23.
2
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS/FACULTY
AND CYBERBULLYING IN JAPAN TOMOYUKI KANETSUNA, IKUKO AOYAMA, AND YUICHI TODASTUDENTS/FACULTY AND CYBERBULLYING IN JAPAN

Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and

Yuichi Toda

Current issues and brief history of research on bullying,

cyberbullying, and other online problems in Japan

Brief history of research on bullying and cyberbullying, and

current situation among school children
The history of ijime, the Japanese term most similar to the Western concept of
bullying, can be traced back to the 1980s. The first research studies followed a
tragic chain of suicides of children, who claimed in their suicide notes that being
victims of ijime had led them to take their own lives. These suicides shocked Japa-
nese society and called attention to the ferocious nature of ijime, which came to
be seen as one of the biggest social problems in Japan. In the three decades since
then, the government, local boards of education, schools, and academics have
conducted numerous studies aimed at uncovering the nature, prevention, and
intervention of ijime (Toda, 2016).
Actions against cyberbullying or net-ijime in Japan roughly started around
2006, following the rapid increase in mobile phone use and internet access among
children and adolescents. According to the latest survey on internet use among
youth in 2015, more than 27% of primary school students, 45% of junior high
students, and 93% of high school students reported using smart phones. Among
those, approximately 19% of primary school, 42% of junior high, and 92% of high
school students reported having access to the internet from their mobile devices
(Cabinet Office, 2016). As for the prevalence of cyberbullying, 1.4% of primary
students, 7.8% of junior high students, and 18.7% of high school students reported
being victimized online in some way (MEXT, 2016).
24 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

Internet-related problems among university students

Until recently there has not been much concern about cyberbullying at the post-
secondary level, although other internet-related problems have been in the spot-
light. Early studies focused on the negative effects of the rapid popularization of
mobile phones on interpersonal relationships and living environments. From a
study of 259 university students, Kohara (2004) argued that because many stu-
dents possessed their own mobile phones, they could easily locate each other on
large university campuses, which enabled them to actively decide with whom to
spend time. As a result, students became less likely to pursue new friendships, while
existing friendships tended to become increasingly limited and fixed. In contrast,
Watanabe, Kubota, Ishizaki, and Oyanagi (2008) studied 271 university students
and found that about 25% of them felt that their stress levels had increased by
using mobile phones, while about half of them felt that having mobile phones
improved their general enjoyment of life. Watanabe et al. (2008) argued that such
stress was the result of mutual surveillance among friends exchanging excessive
emails and short messages, which led to high levels of anxiety and concern about
the lack of instant responses from friends.
These early studies clearly indicated both positive and negative consequences
of the popularization of mobile phones and the internet. Around 2010, the spread
of mobile phones and smart phones had increased further, with these mobile
devices becoming one of the essential lifelines for university students.This led to a
study of the repercussions of students’ excessive use and their tendency to depend
on mobile devices for their daily lives and mental health. Kamihama, Shimizu,
Sawamura, and Shimizu (2013) studied 278 university students and found that
female students used their mobile phones, emails, and the internet significantly
more than males, and were more likely to become dependent on their mobile
phones. They further found that such tendencies negatively impacted their daily
lives, causing issues such as lack of sleep, decreased learning efficiency, and dimin-
ished academic achievements. Okamoto et al. (2014) examined the general usage
of the internet among university students (N = 343) and found that about 3% of
them reported that their time spent on the internet increased by more than eight
hours per day since they entered university, and about 4% of them claimed that
they used the internet more than 10 hours per day. These students clearly showed
the strong tendency to depend on, or even to become addicted to the internet,
claiming that “they cannot stop thinking about the internet” and “they cannot
imagine life without it” (p. 9). Okamoto et al. (2014) further reported that those
with high levels of dependency on the internet showed significantly higher levels
of various mental health problems including depression, anxiety, loneliness, and
poor interpersonal relationships.
Another internet-related problem among university students was the unofficial
syllabus known as “Ura-Syllabus” in Japanese. Similar to rating sites such as “Rate
my professors.com” (www.ratemyprofessors.com), students post information
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 25

about the ease of obtaining credits in specific subjects, as well as complaints and
rumours concerning faculty members and lecturers. The problem with this unof-
ficial syllabus is that not all posted information is written fairly or impartially,
and some posts are simply slanderous. Many universities have now started offi-
cial evaluations of lectures and of students’ daily lives at university, which gives
students an opportunity to comment on lectures and university life in general,
including services and facilities, club activities, and relationships with lecturers and
staff. Such formalization of the evaluation process can be a good countermeasure
to control and prevent students from inappropriately posting online about their
university experiences, which may prevent the escalation of cyberbullying cases.
Flaming posts on the internet are another recent problem among university
students. Since 2013, there has been a significant upsurge in the posting of pic-
tures and videos of students exhibiting deviant and inappropriate behaviour via
Twitter and other Social Networking Service (SNS) sites. Many of these pictures
and videos seem to be posted in an attempt to attract attention and/or to be
enjoyed by a limited group of friends. However, due to lack of proper knowledge
about the internet and an absence of insight into how such a posting might affect
others, these are often posted without restrictions and, therefore, can be circulated
quickly and widely. As a consequence, in many cases, the person who posted the
information is not only accused of deviant behaviour but also suffers verbal abuse
from unspecified internet users. Furthermore, such accusations of deviant postings
often do not remain on the internet, but they also impact the person who posted,
revealing their offline identity. Many of those who post end up facing severe sanc-
tions, including arrest and/or expulsion from their universities. Although many
Japanese consider such an end to be the reasonable outcome of the person’s own
deed, sometimes the individual identified as the perpetrator and accused of the
offences is innocent. Such unjust victimization is another serious online problem
that can occur, unless due diligence is undertaken to fully investigate the situation.
Recently, tragic news about the suicide of a university student due to revela-
tions of secrets on the internet shocked Japanese society (Sasagawa, 2016). A male
student plunged to his death after one of his friends disclosed his homosexuality
through SNS.The student’s parents filed a complaint for compensation against the
university for insufficiently protecting him, and against the person who exposed
the secret online without his consent. The legal counsel of the parents claimed
that because there is much discrimination and prejudice against LGBT individuals
in society, their son must have felt great fear and anxiety, and the university did not
take any measures to protect him from the classmate’s exposure, but only to deal
with the perceived problem that the student himself was homosexual (Sasagawa,
2016). Although the verdict of this trial is still pending, this news, along with other
internet-related incidents covered by the media, is prompting Japanese society to
rethink what it considers responsible online behaviour.
Tashiro (2012) raised an alert over these series of problematic online behaviours
by university students, claiming that inadvertent dissemination of information on
26 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

the internet caused serious problems including suspension, expulsion from uni-
versity, and withdrawal of job offers.

Anonymity and issues related to cyberbullying

and other online problems

Perceived online anonymity

Many of these internet-related problems were said to occur due to students’ lack
of foresight into what other people may think about their behaviour, insuffi-
cient consideration for how others may feel if they are attacked online, or limited
awareness regarding having their secrets disclosed to many unknown people. One
example is the tendency of students to wrongly assume their online audience.
Many of the students who posted inappropriate content later stated that they
merely intended to play a silly prank and to have fun among peers; they did not
intend to offend a broader unknown online community (Tashiro, 2012). Unfortu-
nately, they did not foresee how many people would view their online posts and
what those people might think of their behaviour.
One reason for such thoughtless acts of university students is the commonly held
belief about anonymity on the internet. Use of social media such as the online Bul-
letin Board System (BBS), weblogs, and various kinds of SNS has rapidly increased
during the last decade, especially among adolescents and university students. Among
those using such online social media in Japan, about 70% said they prefer anony-
mous communication (Internet White Paper, 2008). The MEXT (2008) claimed
that anonymous communication on the internet makes it easy for youngsters to
become both victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying. Aoyama, Saxon, and Fearon
(2010) pointed out the difficulty for cyberbullying victims to seek social help, due
to anonymity. They argued that because perpetrators can remain anonymous, the
victims cannot identify who the bullies are in the first place. Furthermore, when
hurtful gossip and rumours are spread on SNS, it is highly possible that the entire
class or school are witnesses to the harassment, making it hard for the victims to
seek help from peers (Aoyama et al., 2010). Ono and Saito (2008) also note in their
study that due to anonymity on the internet, victims of cyberbullying often become
highly suspicious, even with their close friends.
Orita (2009) argues, however, that the idea of being anonymous on the inter-
net may be based on false beliefs. In other words, it is not too technologically
difficult for a site administrator of a particular BBS or SNS, or for an internet
service provider to identify by whom, when, and where a particular comment was
posted (Orita, 2009). Furthermore, the latest survey of 3,000 primary, junior high,
and high school students, and their parents using the Internet Literacy Assess-
ment indicator for Students (ILAS) revealed that the majority of participants were
aware that the internet is not fully anonymous (JISPA, 2016). If primary school
students have been informed of knowledge about the anonymity of the internet,
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 27

then it may be assumed that university-level students have the same knowledge.
Yaguchi (2013) studied 315 university students and found that for those who had
previously learned about the risks of the internet, 70% knew that anonymity on
the internet is limited, while less than 60% of those who had not learned about
the risks had appropriate knowledge about anonymity on the internet. Takeuchi,
Toda, and Takahashi (2015) argue that even if it is merely a belief, strong beliefs
about anonymity on the internet could lead to “Moral Disengagement” (Bandura,
1999) of people online, and this in turn may trigger the possibility of them easily
becoming perpetrators.

Effects of the belief of anonymity on deviant online behaviour

The effects of anonymity on deviant online behaviour have been studied in the
field of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) for the last two decades.
Sproull and Kiesler (1986), for example, claimed that lack of nonverbal cues and
attribute information, including the person’s age, gender, and occupation, make it
difficult for people to infer the other person’s intention or their response to their
own behaviour. As a result, people are more prone to act aggressively and exhibit
disinhibition online. Sato, Hibino, and Yoshida (2010) also pointed out the nega-
tive effects of perceived online anonymity, arguing that the belief in anonymity
reduces the fear and anxiety of being identified, and this, in turn, leads to more
aggressive comments and behaviour.
Besides the influence of perceived anonymity on online behaviour, Chiba
(2011) claimed that, in order to understand the cause of online flaming and
aggressive behaviour, we must see it as a group phenomenon. The concept of
“deindividuation” is defined as “the absence of self-awareness and self-evaluation
following from certain situational conditions, and a resultant increase in the prob-
ability of uninhibited behaviour” (Diener, 1977, p. 144).While Zimbardo exposed
the powerful effect of deindividuation with his famous Stanford Prison Experi-
ment (www.prisonexp.org), CMC can also be said to deindividuate through its
(albeit false) anonymity and the difficulty to distinguish between users. If we
regard CMC as communication in a context of deindividuation, various problem-
atic online behaviours can be traced back to a dilution of group norms caused by
a belief in online anonymity (Chiba, 2011; Coyne & Farley, this volume).
In contrast, Reicher (1984) pointed out that the high level of anonymity on
the internet does not lead to an unregulated state due to the dilution of group
norms, but rather that it makes the transition from personal to social identity.This
idea was later theorized by Postmes, Spears, and Lea (1998) as the Social Identity
Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE model). According to this model, dein-
dividuation led by online anonymity enhances the social identity of individuals,
and this in turn strengthens the conformity to group norms. Taking this perspec-
tive, Chiba (2011) argued that the internet tends to create bonds between people
with similar values and thoughts, who then tend to exclude those who think or
28 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

act differently. This process often escalates arguments and enables people to reach
biased consensus (Chiba, 2011).This perspective could explain why a person who
publicly posts an inappropriate piece of information tends to believe that people
who share the post will also share their amusement. It also explains why people
with common values join forces to accuse an outsider’s post as inappropriate
and unacceptable. Regarding such group behaviour, Toda, Strohmeier, and Spiel
(2008) argued that perpetrators of bullying often embrace the illusion that they
are the majority force and think the victims are deserving of being bullied. Toda
et al. further argued that such illusions of being a majority force could increase
their motivation to bully and escalate the attack on the victims.

Anonymity and moral disengagement

Bandura (1999) theorized moral disengagement as the process of convincing one-
self of being exempt from moral standards in a particular context by separating
moral reactions from inhumane conduct and by disabling the mechanism of self-
sanction. Such disengagement of moral self-sanction from inhumane conduct can
manifest at both individual and collective levels. The dilution of individual and
group norms due to deindividuation led by a belief in online anonymity discussed
previously can be seen as a form of moral disengagement. Studies that examine
the relationship between Bandura’s collective moral disengagement and bullying
have found that classroom-collective moral disengagement is positively correlated
with perpetration and negatively with defending behaviours (see, for example,
Gini, Pozzoli, & Bussey, 2015; Kollerová, Soukup, & Gini, 2017).
The study done by Gini and colleagues (2015), cited earlier, focused on the
relationship between classroom-collective moral disengagement and involvement
in traditional bullying at school. At the university level, however, this concept of
“classroom collectivity” is weakened as classrooms are not configured in the same
way as at school. While perpetrators and victims may not share the same social
group in the case of cyberbullying at university, there is similarity with traditional
bullying in the way a group of perpetrators collectively attack a targeted victim.
In this case, we should consider the characteristics and possible effects of “Cyber-
Collective Moral Disengagement” in regards to cyberbullying and other online
problematic behaviours, which may correspond to the effects of “Classroom-
Collective Moral Disengagement” of traditional bullying at school, as proposed by
Gini and colleagues (2015).

Recent research on cyberbullying and online problems

among university students

Relationships between traditional bullying and cyberbullying

It is important to identify the similarities and differences between cyberbully-
ing and traditional bullying, as well as to discern the distinguishing features of
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 29

cyberbullying. Olweus (2012), for example, suggested several overlaps between

cyberbullying and traditional bullying, arguing that cyberbullying is a low-
prevalence phenomenon, and most of those who experience cyberbullying, either
being a victim or a perpetrator, are often also involved in traditional bullying.
While Smith (2012) concurs with Olweus about the lower prevalence of cyber-
bullying compared to bullying, he stresses the distinctive features of cyberbullying:
for example, the invisibility or anonymity of the perpetrators. He also points out
that the concept of repetition, one of the major conditions of traditional bully-
ing, can be more difficult to operationalize, as only a single act by a perpetrator
can be seen, commented on, and forwarded by many others, and this constitutes
a repetition.
Taking into account these arguments, Kanetsuna (2014a) examined the per-
ceptions and general understanding of the nature of cyberbullying with 601 uni-
versity students (288 males and 313 females) and 536 high school students (278
males and 258 females). He used hypothetical scenarios of four different forms
of online victimization: (1) attacks on an online BBS and SNS (making repeated
abusive comments, spreading rumours, and outing personal information), (2) by
email (sending repeated abusive comments and pictures), (3) by online spoof-
ing (unknown homepage was insidiously opened in victim’s name, and personal
information, both true and untrue, is disclosed), and (4) by using pictures and
videos taken by mobile devices (taking embarrassing pictures and videos, and
disclosing and sharing them online). Using these scenarios, he first asked about
the experience of witnessing others being victimized and of being victimized
themselves in each of the four categories. He then asked about the likely perpetra-
tors and likely relationships between victims and perpetrators. Lastly, he inquired
about likely motives for perpetration and probable reasons for victimization.
He found that the majority of university students (about 50% to 60% depend-
ing on the forms of aggression) had some awareness of all four types of online vic-
timization, but only about 20% to 35% reported having actually witnessed others
being cyber-victimized, and very few (1.3% to 3.4%) reported being victimized
themselves. High school students showed very similar patterns, though they were
found to be less aware (about 42% to 55%) and less experienced (16% to 33% had
witnessed and 0.7% to 3.8% were victimized) than university students.
Regarding the differences between types, being attacked on BBS and SNS,
and through pictures and videos taken by mobile devices were found to be more
frequent than bullying by email and spoofing.This may be, in part, because online
communication has shifted rapidly from email to instant-messenger services,
especially among adolescents, and the forms of cyberbullying shifted accordingly.
As for spoofing, instigating this type of cyberbullying may need more specialized
technical knowledge about the internet, and therefore may not be an option for
everyone.
Regarding the likely perpetrators and their relationships with victims, again
both university and high school students showed very similar patterns, and the
findings were fairly consistent with those for traditional bullying. For all types
30 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

of cyberbullying, the perpetrators were most likely to be someone or a group of

people that the victim knows very well in real life, such as “classmates” or “some-
one in a different class or year group (but the same school)”, or even “one of the
friends of the victim”, rather than someone unknown to the victim either in
person or online (Kanetsuna, 2014a).
As for the motives for the perpetration, “antipathy for the victim” was the
most likely motive followed by “for fun” and “for stress release”. In terms of the
reason to target the victim, “because the victim is cheeky”, was the most common
answer, followed by because the victim is “somewhat different from others” and
“cannot read the situation” (Kanetsuna, 2014a). These responses were consist-
ent between university and high school students. This tendency to attribute the
responsibility of victimization to the victims rather than the perpetrators was also
found in traditional bullying and is prevalent among Japanese adolescents (Kanet-
suna, 2016a).
All of these perceptions appear to be consistent with the findings of traditional
bullying or ijime in Japan (e.g., Kanetsuna, 2016a). Because of the similarities
in their perceptions and understanding of the nature of traditional bullying and
cyberbullying, university students in Japan perceived cyberbullying as an exten-
sion of traditional bullying, which most often occurs within close relationships.

Risk perception, anxiety, and coping potential

Kanetsuna (2014b) also examined the subjective risk perception, anxiety about
victimization, and coping potential concerning cyberbullying, using the same
four hypothetical scenarios described earlier. He found that pictures and videos
taken by mobile devices and online communication using BBS and SNS were
perceived to have the greatest potential for cyberbullying and caused the most
anxiety. This may be because taking pictures and videos with mobile devices is
becoming increasingly popular among the young, and those pictures and videos
are often easily shared with others through SNS, regardless of whether they are
socially appropriate. What can be more fearsome is that it is almost impossible
to recover those pictures and videos once posted, spread, and shared online with
many unknown others. Being targeted by emails, on the other hand, was per-
ceived to have the lowest risk of occurrence, cause the least fear, and be the easiest
to cope with if it occurred. This may be because email is more personal, is less
likely to be made public, and it is easier to track the perpetrator.
Kanetsuna (2014b) further reported that those who had experienced being
cyberbullied or had witnessed others being targeted online had a higher risk
perception, a higher level of anxiety about victimization, and a lower coping
potential compared to those who had never experienced it themselves or had
never seen someone else being victimized.This suggests that even if students have
awareness of online perpetration and victimization, it may be difficult for them to
consider their own vulnerability unless they had experiences as victims or at least
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 31

witnessed someone else being victimized. This is important to consider when

planning for effective prevention methods.

The effects of the belief in anonymity on risk perception and

preventive attitudes
Taking into account the arguments by Smith (2012) and Kanetsuna (2014a,
2014b), Kanetsuna (2016b) examined the effects of beliefs about online anonym-
ity on the levels of risk perception and anxiety about the internet use, the caution
concerning different online risk behaviours including accessing, signing up, and
posting comments on online BBS, SNS, and adult and dating sites, and uploading
pictures of themselves as well as those of friends to those sites.With 1,185 students
from two high schools and three universities, he found that those with a stronger
belief in online anonymity showed lower levels of risk perception and lower levels
of caution for various online risk behaviours.This finding suggests that those who
believe they are anonymous on the internet are less likely to think they could be
victimized online and therefore less likely to be careful about their online actions.
In contrast, those who think they are at risk of victimization in some way were
more likely to feel anxious about using the internet in general and being victim-
ized, and as a result, more likely to be careful about various online behaviours.
This series of studies suggests that in order to prevent and protect youth in
school and at university from various online risks including cyber-victimization,
it is important to inform them that cyberbullying often occurs in relationships
in the real world, and that the internet is not totally anonymous. Even without
actual exposure to these risks, they should be aware of the various online risks and
become familiar with the actions they can take to avoid such risks.

A propensity for acute social withdrawal, problematic

internet use, and cyberbullying
Regarding cyberbullying and problematic internet use among Japanese university
students, Aoyama (2014) focused on the association between having a propensity
for acute social withdrawal. For the past decade, acute social withdrawal (hikiko-
mori) has been a serious social and educational problem in Japan, and it has been
pointed out that problematic use of the internet and mobile phones, in particu-
lar the excessive or addictive use of the internet, can be related to hikikomori.
Hikikomori is also related to cyber-victimization. MEXT (2012) demonstrated
how experiencing peer victimization can lead to school avoidance and social
withdrawal. According to a study by the Office for Youth Affairs and Public Safety
of Tokyo Metropolitan Government (2008), 44% of hikikomori youth have expe-
rienced traditional peer victimization. Although the relationship between online
victimization and hikikomori had not been previously determined, the experience
of cyberbullying was found to cause various psychological symptoms including
32 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

depression, anxiety, high levels of stress, and low self-esteem, all of which could
lead to social withdrawal.
With 581 high school and university students (248 and 333, respectively),
Aoyama (2014) found that there was a moderate negative correlation between
propensity for acute social withdrawal and problematic use of the internet and
mobile phones, and a moderate positive correlation with the experience of online
victimization. Although the Cabinet Office (2010) claimed that those who are
socially withdrawn are more likely to use the internet excessively, Aoyama (2014)
revealed that those who are not exactly socially withdrawn but merely have a pro-
pensity for it are less likely to show symptoms of excessive or addictive internet
use. However, consistent with the findings of MEXT (2012), the experience of
cyberbullying does seem to affect social withdrawal.

Prevention and intervention

There have been various approaches to tackling cyberbullying in Japan. These
have included teaching internet literacy and morality to children and adolescents
(MEXT, 2010), making it obligatory for mobile service providers to offer internet
filtering service to youth under 18 and, at the same time, encouraging efficient
use of such internet filtering services for computers and mobile phones (Ministry
of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2016). Strict monitoring of compliance
with such internet regulatory laws for telecommunication companies and of the
usage of internet among youth are conducted by the police (National Police
Agency, 2013). However, all of these approaches target school-aged children, and
there have not been many approaches and activities for university students.
One example of approaches targeting university students was introduced
by Takeuchi and Abe (2014). In this inter-school peer-support workshop, they
trained university students as facilitators for high school students’ discussions on
internet violence and to provide information as to what is and is not illegal and/
or dangerous. To lead these workshops, university students had to gather accurate
information about the internet and mobile phones and had to acquire appropriate
skills for proper use of the internet. This process not only benefited high school
students, but it also encouraged university students to learn how to wisely use
the internet and mobile phones. Takeuchi and Abe emphasized that doing such
student-led activities requires that the teachers trust the students and collaborate
with them. As there have not yet been many student-led approaches aimed at pre-
venting ijime and net-ijime in Japan, it is worth further investigating such initiatives.

Conclusion and future perspectives

Cyberbullying among university students in Japan can be understood as a phe-
nomenon that shares several essential features with traditional bullying at school:
it is a group phenomenon and it most often manifests as collective relational
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 33

aggression against a targeted victim. However, it also has a number of distinctive

features. While traditional bullying, and possibly cyberbullying, among school-
aged children most often occurs between close relationships based mostly on
class and year groups at the school, university students lack similar grouping by
class. Beliefs about online anonymity seem to play a key role in the aggressive
and deviant online behaviours of university students because this perception has
been shown to either weaken personal and collective norms to morally disengage,
or to strengthen students’ conformity to a particular group norm. Strong beliefs
about anonymity on the internet not only affect online perpetration, but they
also affect students’ risk perception of online victimization and their attitude and
behaviour toward prevention and self-protection. Therefore, it is important to
disseminate appropriate knowledge about online anonymity and to be aware that
one is always at risk of inadvertently becoming an online perpetrator or victim.
At the same time, it is also important to cultivate a sense of belonging in the real
world to avoid immersive and addictive use of the internet, which often leads to
other problematic online behaviours. In order for youth and young adults to learn
appropriate internet literacy and morality, including the limits of online anonym-
ity, practices such as those discussed in Takeuchi and Abe (2014), though they have
currently only been implemented in a limited way, need to be spread nationwide.

References
Aoyama, I. (2014). The association between an affinity for acute social withdrawal (hikiko-
mori) and problematic use of Internet/cell phone and cyberbullying among Japanese
high school and college students [in Japanese]. Educational Studies: Bulletin of International
Christian University, 56, 43–49.
Aoyama, I., Saxon, T. F., & Fearon, D. D. (2010). Internalizing problems among cyberbully-
ing victims and moderator effects of friendship quality. Multicultural Education & Technol-
ogy Journal, 5(2), 92–105.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality
and Social Psychology Review [Special Issue on Evil and Violence], 3, 193–209.
Cabinet Office. (2010). Fact-finding survey on social withdrawal of adolescents [in Japanese].
Tokyo: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan.
Cabinet Office. (2016). Environmental consideration for safe and secure Internet use for adolescents
[in Japanese]. Tokyo: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan.
Chiba, K. (2011). Sociological study of flaming in cyberspaces: Diffusion of discourse
beyond the intention [in Japanese]. Social Movement and New Types of Working, Report on
Research Project, 231, 24–37.
Coyne, I., & Farley, S. (this volume). Cyberbullying within working contexts. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 80–96). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behavior and Personal-
ity, 5, 143–155.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Bussey, K. (2015). The role of individual and collective moral disen-
gagement in peer aggression and bystanding: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 43, 441–452.
34 Tomoyuki Kanetsuna, Ikuko Aoyama, and Yuichi Toda

Internet White Paper. (2008). General Incorporated Foundation of Internet Association Japan.
Tokyo: Impress R & D.
Japan Internet Safety Promotion Association (JISPA). (2016). Internet Literacy Assessment
indicator for Students (ILAS) Final Report 2015 [in Japanese].Tokyo: Japan Internet Safety
Promotion Association (JISPA).
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2008).
Study for unofficial school homepage (e.g. anonymous BBS) used by adolescents [in Japanese].
Department of Juveniles. Tokyo: Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-
ence and Technology (MEXT).
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2010).
Guidelines for information, moral education at school, and cooperation with family and commu-
nity [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (MEXT).
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2012).
Annual fact-finding survey on problematic behaviour in school [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2016).
Annual fact-finding survey on problematic behaviour in school [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. (2016). Improvement of safe and
secure computer-mediated environment for adolescents [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Japanese Ministry
of Internal Affairs and Communications.
Kamihama,T., Shimizu, S., Sawamura, S., & Shimizu, S. (2013). Utilization and the depend-
ence tendency in mobile phone use among university students [in Japanese]. Department
of Education Research Bulletin of Iwate University, 72, 1–10.
Kanetsuna, T. (2014a). General perception and understanding for the nature of different forms of
cyberbullying among adolescents. Poster presented at International Society for Research on
Aggression XXIst World Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, US.
Kanetsuna, T. (2014b). The relationships between risk perception, fear of victimization, and coping
potential in Cyberbullying. Paper presentation at 14th Biennial Conference of the Euro-
pean Association for Research on Adolescence, Izmir, Turkey.
Kanetsuna, T. (2016a). Comparisons between English bullying and Japanese ijime. In P. K.
Smith, K. Kwak, & Y. Toda (Eds.), School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and Western
perspectives (pp. 153–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kanetsuna, T. (2016b). Effects of anonymous beliefs of the Internet on the levels of caution for vari-
ous online risk behaviour. Paper presentation at 31st International Congress of Psychology,
Pacifico Yokohama,Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kohara, K. (2004). The Influence of the diffusion of mobile phones to the relationship of
university students [in Japanese]. Socio-Cultural Studies of Education, 10, 1–17.
Kollerová, L., Soukup, P., & Gini, G. (2017). Classroom collective moral disengagement
scale: Validation in Czech adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
15(2), 1–8.
Morita, Y. (2001). Cross-national comparative study of bullying [in Japanese]. Japan: Kaneko
Shobo.
Morita,Y., & Kiyonaga, K. (1994). Bullying:The ailing classroom [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kaneko
Syobo.
National Police Agency. (2013). Propulsive movement of cyber-patrol [in Japanese] (Report on
National Police Agency, 130).
 Students/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan 35

Okamoto, Y., Miyake, Y., Jinnin, R., Yashiki, H., Uchino, T., Isobe, N., . . . & Yoshihara, M.
(2014). The Internet use situation in university students: Association between tendency
of dependence and mental condition [in Japanese]. Sogo Hoken Kagaku, 30, 7–13.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Develop-
mental Psychology, 9(5), 520–538.
Ono, A., & Saito, F. (2008). Educational psychological review about understanding and
coping with cyber bullying [in Japanese]. Bulletin of Senri Kinran University, 5, 35–47.
Orita, A. (2009). A report on the username squatting problem of social-media [in Japanese].
Information Processing Society of Japan Technical Report, 44, 5–14.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-
effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715.
Reicher, S. D. (1984). The St. Pauls’ riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in
terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1–12.
Sasagawa, K. (2016, August 7). Plunge to his death after exposure of homosexuality [in
Japanese]. The Huffington Post.
Sato, H., Hibino, K., & Yoshida, F. (2010). The effects of computer-mediated communica-
tion (CMC) on verbal aggression [in Japanese]. Psychology Bulletin of Tsukuba University,
39, 35–43.
Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying: Challenges and opportunities for a research program –
A response to Olweus (2012). European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 553–558.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organiza-
tional communication. Journal of Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.
Takeuchi, K., & Abe, K. (2014). “Smart” online violence in Japan and the United States:
Discussing the similarity/difference of them and applicability of inter-school peer sup-
port system. The Japanese Journal of Educational Practices on Moral Development, 8(1), 28–31.
Takeuchi, K., Toda,Y., & Takahashi, T. (2015). How should we cope with smartphone and
the Internet problems among adolescence? For further collaboration of society and
educational psychologists [in Japanese]. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in
Japan, 54, 259–265.
Tashiro, M. (2012). Analysis of university students’ Internet flaming, prevention, and pro-
posal of correspondence [in Japanese]. Bulletin of Otsuma Women’s University School of
Information, 21, 233–240.
The Office for Youth Affairs and Public Safety of Tokyo Metropolitan Government. (2008).
Fact-finding survey of social withdrawal of adolescents. Tokyo: The Office for Youth Affairs
and Public Safety of Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
Toda, Y. (2016). Bullying (Ijime) and related problems in Japan: History and research. In P.
K. Smith, K. Kwak, & Y.Toda (Eds.), School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and western
perspectives (pp. 73–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Toda, Y., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2008). Process model of bullying [in Japanese]. In T.
Katoh & H. Taniguchi (Eds.), Darkside of interpersonal relationships (S.117–131). Kyoto:
Kitaohji-Shobo.
Watanabe, N., Kubota, M., Ishizaki, T., & Oyanagi, K. (2008). The study of cellular phone,
the state of use and the influence on the living environment of junior high school,
high school, and university students [in Japanese]. Bulletin of Niigata Seiryo University,
8, 31–40.
Yaguchi, S. (2013). Internet usage among university students [in Japanese]. Bulletin of Tokoha
University Junior College, 44, 125–132.
3
EXPERIENCES OF CYBERBULLYING
AT A CHILEAN UNIVERSITY RAYÉN CONDEZA, GONZALO GALLARDO, AND PABLO REYES PÉREZEXPERIENCES OF CYBERBULLYING AT A CHILEAN UNIVERSITY

The voices of students

Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and

Pablo Reyes Pérez

Introduction
This chapter presents the first exploratory study on cyberbullying from the per-
spective of undergraduate students at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
(UC). Located in Santiago, Chile’s capital city, and with one campus in the south-
ern region of the country, this is Chile’s second oldest university. Each year, UC
receives students with the best high school graduation rankings and the most
outstanding scores on the national university selection exam. It is considered to
be one of the best universities in Latin America (first in 2018 QS ranking for the
region). Throughout the past years, this institution has made progress in terms of
social and geographical inclusion through the implementation of scholarships and
additional admission mechanisms. However, the majority of students still repre-
sent a higher socio-economic status.
As in other countries, in Chile, the research on cyberbullying has focused
mainly on behaviours at middle and high school levels (Varela, Pérez, Schwa-
derer, Astudillo, & Lecannelier, 2014). The interest for this type of study in higher
education is increasing, driven by the frequent use of information and commu-
nication technologies (ICT) by university students (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy,
2015), for whom ICT is not something “new”, “but rather it is an accepted and
normalized part of everyday life” (Myers & Cowie, 2017, p. 1172). In Chile, 91%
of people between 18 and 29 years old use smartphones to connect to the web,
making them the more intensive users compared to other age groups (Gobierno
de Chile, 2016).
Among university students, digital environments are active contexts of every-
day life that offer opportunities and pose risks, such as aggression, social exclusion,
and suffering in many shapes and degrees (Bartlett et al., 2014; Faucher et al.,
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 37

2015; Walker, Sockman, & Koehn, 2011). In order to promote well-being for
all, higher education managers are now responsible for gathering information
about this phenomenon to generate actions, limit its scope, and support its victims
(Myers & Cowie, 2017).
In Chile, as well as in the rest of South America, investigations into this topic
at higher education are rare. Cyberbullying is a social phenomenon and public
health issue that is “polymorphous, multi-causal, complex and that is also a cause
of suicide in young people” (García Peña, Moncada Ortiz, & Quintero Gil, 2013,
p. 299). Evidence such as this should promote the development of policies and
proactive practices that reduce the effects and impacts of cyberbullying (Cassidy,
Faucher, & Jackson, 2013; Myers & Cowie, 2017; Walker et al., 2011).
This study may help to address the issue of cyberbullying at the university
level in Chile by shedding light on its extent and providing additional data to
inform existing protocols and regulations within UC, which are oriented toward
fostering well-being and respect among students and professors. The university
currently has an Office of the Ombuds and a helpline (2013), a Directorate for
Inclusion (2015), and a Protocol to prevent sexual assault and support sexual
assault victims (2016). The effort to promote a respectful environment between
students and professors is included as a particular dimension evaluated by students
in the teaching survey. Furthermore, addressing cyberbullying as an institutional
concern supported by evidence may promote the discussion of regulations aimed
at developing specific lines of action within UC and in other institutions.

Inequality and transformations in Chilean

higher education
The school system in Chile is highly unequal and segregated (Bellei, 2013; Pro-
grama de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo PNUD, 2017).There are three types
of schools: (a) public (free and funded by the state); (b) private-voucher (private
owners, tuition fee paid by the state); and (c) private fee-paying (tuition fee paid
entirely by the families). The latter “serve the upper class, with 94% of enrolment
coming from the two wealthiest deciles. Public schools mostly serve the lower and
the lower-middle class. Private-voucher schools recruit broadly from the middle
and upper-middle strata” (Mizala & Torche, 2012, p. 135).
Notwithstanding the above, in the last 20 years, Chile has experienced a mas-
sive increase in access to universities, with a subsequent diversification of students
(OECD Report Chile, 2007). In the Latin American context, Chile has the high-
est participation rate in higher education of students from the poorest quintile
(27.4%), followed by Bolivia (24.8%) and Argentina (21.6%) (Brunner & Miranda,
2016). This development poses an opportunity for progress in social mobility,
considering the highly unequal and segregated school system (Koljatic & Silva,
2012). In recent years, UC has diversified gradually, through specific affirma-
tive action policies. According to its Admissions Department, 60% of students
38 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

accepted in 2017 had studied at private schools, 27% at a private-voucher school,

and 12% at a public school.

Well-being and social relationships at universities

Universities have the potential to break down barriers and bring people together,
contributing to the well-being of the university community and (ultimately) the
creation of a fairer society. Well-being may be understood as the satisfaction of
personal, relational and collective needs. Among relational needs, it is important to
mention the need for care, compassion, affection, bonding, social support, solidar-
ity, and a sense of belonging in a community (Prilleltensky, 2004).
Nobody feels part of a community just by enrolling in university; it is essen-
tial to perceive yourself as a part of it based on positive experiences (Strayhorn,
2016; Tinto, 2015). Generally, good relationships among classmates contrib-
ute to improved involvement in the learning processes. If students feel valued
and accepted by their classmates, they also feel more motivated (Grau & Pino-
Pasternak, 2012). Unfortunately, relationships among peers at universities are not
always pleasant (Lehmann, 2014; Roberts & Rosenwald, 2013). Social integration
becomes more complex when there are no networks available at the univer-
sity, and, instead, contact is mediated through negative prejudices among peers
(Gallardo, Lorca, Morrás, & Vergara, 2014; Sobrero, Lara-Quinteros, Méndez, &
Suazo, 2014). If career administrators create safe environments and promote posi-
tive intergroup contact, initial prejudices can potentially be overcome (Gallardo,
Espinosa,Vergara, Sanhueza, & Cruz, 2016; González, 2005).

What is cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is a complex phenomenon of interaction among peers that carries
serious social and personal consequences (Ortega-Ruíz & Zych, 2016). Studies
concerning this issue are relatively new and mostly descriptive (Bartlett et al.,
2014). Cyberbullying is a type of bullying between peers, where behaviours are
carried out using virtual media (text messages, chats, emails, webpages, Twitter,
blogs, Facebook, YouTube or videogame chats, among others) causing different
types of damage (Cassidy et al., 2013; Condeza & Fontcuberta, 2015). Its distinc-
tive features include (Cassidy et al., 2013):

• Receiving vulgar, aggressive, threatening, hurtful or unpleasant messages

via ICT.
• Degrading, defamatory, sexist, racist or homophobic images or messages
through different media.
• Virtual identity theft (for instance, on Facebook or Twitter).
• Deliberate exclusion from an online group or community.
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 39

Cyberbullying exhibits the main features of bullying, regarding aggressive

behaviour set in a repeatedly abusive relationship, carried out with the inten-
tion of causing damage to someone who has relatively less ability to defend
themselves (Potocnjak, Berger, & Tomicic, 2011). However, in the specific case
of cyberbullying, these features have different nuances (Bartlett et al., 2014;
Cassidy et al., 2013; Faucher et al., 2015; Mishna et al., 2012; Ortega-Ruíz &
Zych, 2016):

• Sometimes the online context provides anonymity for the offenders;

• There are very few immediate consequences for the offenders;
• It is more difficult to empathize with the victims when it is not possible to
verify their emotional reaction;
• The audience witnessing cyberbullying is wider than it is for bullying;
• Messages could remain online for a lengthy period of time (making them
harder to forget and facilitating re-victimization);
• The imbalance of power is variable and it can shift: people with less power
can use technology to defend themselves.

The following consequences of cyberbullying have been observed in higher edu-

cation contexts (Aricak, 2009; Faucher et al., 2014, this volume; Myers & Cowie,
2017; Walker et al., 2011):

a Emotional issues, such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, a sensation

of threat towards their emotional and body confidence, and even suicidal
thoughts;
b Behavioural and academic issues, such as a decrease in class attendance, commit-
ment to studies and academic performance, and difficulty to fulfil academic
tasks due to reduced productivity, self-confidence, and concentration;
c Relational issues, at the university and beyond, including the end of friendships
and romantic relationships.

Some researchers found gender differences in the experiences and consequences

of cyberbullying. For example, Faucher and colleagues (2014) indicated that
female university students acknowledge the negative effects of online harassment
to a higher degree than do male students. They are more likely to talk about the
situations with friends or family, and they also tend to make more attempts to put
an end to these actions. Women may be especially vulnerable when experiencing
hostility, humiliation, violation of privacy, or exclusion in the context of friend-
ships and romantic relationships. Sexual orientation (in the case of homosexual
and transsexual students) may represent a factor that increases the risk of victimi-
zation (Margolin, 2011; Rivers, 2016, as referenced in Myers and Cowie, 2017;
Pescitelli, this volume).
40 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

Current study
This study aims to understand the scope of cyberbullying among undergraduate
students at UC, identify risk factors and describe the specific influence of univer-
sity life on this phenomenon.
We employed a survey based on the research of Cassidy, Jackson, and Faucher
(2012), adapted to fit into the sociocultural Chilean reality, in order to understand
the students’ points of view regarding cyberbullying, as well as their experiences
as victims, witnesses, or bullies.
The survey consisted of 36 items, using the following variables: major, year in
major, gender, age, people with whom they live, region of origin, type of high
school they attended, nationality, identification with ethnic groups, and presence
of special needs. Frequency of daily media use was also considered. Those who
declared being victims were asked about the media through which they experi-
enced said violence, and whether they shared this experience with others. A space
was provided for students to tell their stories, and open-ended questions covered
possible solutions and concrete preventive actions.
The research was approved by the University Research Ethics Committee.
The survey was made available to all UC undergraduate students (n = 22,605)
through an online platform. We received 961 completed surveys, which repre-
sents 4% of the total number of undergraduate students. The main findings of
the survey are described as follows, identifying four sections: (1) experiences
from undergraduate cyberbullying victims, (2) witnesses of cyberbullying, (3)
offenders, and (4) general perceptions of the undergraduate student community
about cyberbullying.

TABLE 3.1 Description of the Sample

Variable Category N %

Gender Male 317 33.0

Female 640 66.6
Missing data 4 0.4
School Public 115 12.0
Private-voucher 277 28.8
Private fee-paying 557 58.0
Missing data 12 1.2
Generation First year 285 29.7
Second year 151 15.7
Third year 157 16.3
Fourth year 149 15.5
Fifth year 118 12.3
Sixth year/ older 100 10.4
Missing data 1 0.1
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 41

The respondents to the survey are described in terms of gender, high-school

origin and college year. Women represent 66.6% of respondents, twice as many as
men (33.0%). In this sample, they are over-represented in relation to the gender
breakdown of UC first-year students in 2017 (55.3% women and 44.7% men).
According to the type of secondary school of origin, the distribution is similar
to that of the 2017 enrolment process: 12% of first-year students came from pub-
lic schools, 27% from private-voucher schools, and 60% from private fee-paying
schools. Finally, response rates decreased progressively as the year of enrolment
increased, ranging from 29.7% (first year) to 10.4% (sixth year), with the excep-
tion of a slight increase between the second and third year (15.7% to 16.3%).

Experiences of cyberbullying victims

Twelve point five percent of participants mentioned being a victim of cyberbul-
lying during the past year, while 2.4% of the students claimed to be a victim of
cyberbullying at the time they answered the survey.
Seventy-two point four percent of the participants who claimed to have expe-
rienced cyberbullying mentioned that their offenders were mainly people from
outside the university context, followed by university peers, with 45.1% referring
to friends or friend groups, and 36.8% to university acquaintances.
Students were asked to indicate the media and the frequency in which they
experienced cyberbullying in the last year. Facebook is the main platform used for

TABLE 3.2 Cyberbullying Behaviour Prevalence

Confidence interval (95%)

Category n % inf Sup

CB victim during past year 120 12.5 10.4 14.7

CB victim at university 61 6.3 4.8 8.0
Current CB victim 23 2.4 1.5 3.5

TABLE 3.3 Offender Distribution Declared by CB Victims

Declared offender n %

External to university 84 72.4

Friend or friend group from university 51 45.1
Acquaintance from university 39 36.8
Scholar or assistant 6 5.7
Worker from university 2 1.9
42 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

TABLE 3.4 Platforms and Frequency of CB

Never 1 or 2 times 3 or more Once a Every

a month times a month week week

Facebook 41.5% 41.5% 8.5% 5.9% 2.5%

Pictures via mobile 48.7% 38.3% 7.0% 1.7% 4.3%
phone
Texts via email 78.1% 15.8% 2.6% 1.8% 1.8%
Identity theft 85.8% 10.6% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%
Text message 87.1% 6.9% 2.6% 0.9% 2.6%
Twitter 87.8% 8.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.7%
Pictures via email 88.8% 9.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9%
Forums or academic 98.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%
platforms
Skype 95.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 3.4%

cyberbullying with a frequency of once or twice a week to once a month, rang-

ing from 41.5% to 5.9%, respectively. Students who suffered from cyberbullying at
least every week in the last year (i.e., the highest frequency alternative presented
in the survey) report pictures sent by mobile phone (4.3%) as the predominant
platform. Perhaps surprisingly, Skype is the second most common platform for
cyberbullying with the highest range of frequency (3.4%), followed by text mes-
sages (2.6%).
Regarding the reasons or causes behind cyberbullying, 50.8% of the victims
claimed not to be aware of the motivations of their offenders or to know the
reasons why they were targeted. In the cases where victims were able to identify
possible motivations behind the offenders’ actions, they mentioned their physi-
cal appearance (36.6%), interpersonal relationship issues (30%), socio-economic
status (20.8%), gender (20%), academic success (18.3%), age (10%), academic dif-
ficulties (9.2%), physical disability (4.2%), and geographical origin (4.2%).
In addition, respondents had the opportunity to describe other causes that, in
their view, may have motivated cyberbullying from their peers. These included
sexual orientation, political ideas, ending romantic relationships, or differences in
age with respect to peers. The following quotations illustrate some of these self-
reported reasons victims gave for why they were targeted at UC:

Last year we were on strike for an indefinite amount of time. I expressed

my opinion on the Facebook page of my major. A classmate of mine
made a comment on the same post, saying that I was “fucking selfish”.
Others made fun of me because I said I was going to miss a flight because
of the strike.
(male student, sixth year)
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 43

When I broke up with my partner a couple of years ago, my group of friends

at university started judging me because I got into another relationship too
soon after that, and they started spreading lies among them. After that, some
people sent me aggressive messages insulting me and my new partner. My ex
posted things on Facebook and started a wave of WhatsApp messages insult-
ing me or ignoring me whenever I spoke on a WhatsApp group we shared.
( female student, fifth year)

In the context of a discussion forum in the UC students’ Facebook group,

a group of students were posting homophobic and transphobic comments
and memes. I wrote a comment defying them, and they turned it into a
meme, reposting it in the same Facebook group and on their own profiles.
(male student, third year)

In relation to the consequences experienced, 51.7% of cyberbullying victims declared

having felt physically or emotionally threatened, 52.5% experienced mental health
difficulties, 47.9% showed physical symptoms, and 46.6% felt it affected their aca-
demic performance. Cyberbullying also caused difficulties in terms of interpersonal
relationships (43.7%), academic performance (26.1%), and class attendance (25.9%).
Eighteen point six percent of the victims considered dropping out of university, as
illustrated by the following quotation from one respondent who had been victim-
ized: “I have anxiety episodes to this day, every time I see my classmate (cyberbully).
I had to drop out of my classes the last month and I have been under psychological
and psychiatric treatment for almost a year now” (female student, second year).
Out of the total number of students who reported being victimized during
the past year, 54.1% made attempts to stop it. Only 36.6% were able to do so,
reinforcing the low amount of control of the situation that cyberbullying victims
perceive to have.
Regarding support networks, 80.3% of students who defined themselves as
cyberbullying victims mentioned having talked about their experience with a
friend or classmate, 67.2% did so with a friend from outside university, 55.9%
decided to share their experience with family members, and 47% did so with
their partner. Teachers and professionals at the university were not sought out for
support (only 8.2% of victims went to student affairs, 6.6% to teachers, and 3.3%
to teaching assistants).Very few went to the police (3.3%). Student Health services,
the university helpline, or the university counsellor were not mentioned.

Experiencing cyberbullying as a witness

The cyberbullying experience extends beyond the victim-offender relationship,
involving spectators or indirect participants. These individuals may hear about
the negative consequences that befall the victims, the lack of punishment for
44 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

offenders, or they may observe the cyberbullying directly. Thirty-eight point one
percent of the participants mentioned having witnessed cyberbullying. Some of
these students said that they were emotionally affected, expressing discomfort and
concern about this type of relationship among classmates, with some reporting
that they felt empathy and attempted to support the victims.The following exam-
ples are indicative of the comments received:

I thought that it was not right to expose a classmate like that, it upset me,
and I believed that it was a shame that we treated each other like that.
( female, fourth year)

I felt powerless about the offenders’ anonymity, and I felt ignorant because
I did not know what to do.
( female, second year)

I was very angry . . . I felt rage, and I just wanted to let my friend know that
she could count on me any time.
( female, fifth year)

Beyond expressions of concern, or some attempt to show support to the victim,

in most cases, this discomfort did not translate into action:

I thought it was horrible, but I did nothing to stop it.

( female, sixth year)

I did not do anything, but I’m angry.

( female, sixth year)

I worry that people will be attacked in this way. However, I admit that I did
not take any action in this regard.
(male, sixth year)

It angered me, but since it was not my friend, I cannot intervene.

(male, first year)

It is also relevant to note that among the participants who identified themselves as
witnesses of cyberbullying, 44.5% mentioned that they were sometimes afraid of
becoming cyberbullying victims themselves.

Cyberbullying from the perspective of the offenders

Only 3.3% of the total number of participants reported having been cyberbullying
offenders, while 7.8% claimed not to know if they had participated. Regarding
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 45

those who identified themselves as being involved in cyberbullying, the majority

said they only participated once or twice (85.7%), describing these instances as
specific experiences rather than recurring. Ten point seven percent of those who
said they cyberbullied, however, declared having participated in cyberbullying
many times per week.
According to statements by students self-identified as offenders, their actions
were directed towards class acquaintances or strangers rather than partners or
close friends.
No one mentioned having targeted teachers or other authorities. These
results suggest that aggressive behaviour among peers in this sample is more
likely to occur with distant relationships, with friendships perhaps offering
some protection from cyberbullying. This observation is worth investigating in
future studies.

General conceptions about cyberbullying

Overall, 45.9%, or almost half, of the participants in this study had been involved
in a cyberbullying situation during the past year, if one combines those who
reported being a victim, witness, or offender. Also, of concern is that more than
half of the respondents consider cyberbullying to be a normal online phenomenon
(54.9%), with 23.5% noting that cyberbullying is unavoidable, although 23.7%
agreed that the university should play a major part in preventing and stopping
it. Importantly, 81.5% of the students stated that they would like to help cre-
ate a more respectful and caring online environment. Most are willing to report
cyberbullying, provided that it is anonymous (79.3%). Just under one-quarter of
respondents (21.2%) think that freedom of speech permits them to say whatever
they like online.
In thinking about future interventions, students were asked to evaluate strate-
gies that the university could implement to prevent or limit the effects of cyber-
bullying. The three strategies that obtained the highest rating from the proposed
list were: (1) provide counselling and support services to victims; (2) develop a
specific policy; and (3) offer support to people who engage in cyberbullying.
Some students added written suggestions for possible actions that the university
might develop to institutionally address cyberbullying. For example, “conduct a
campaign for good treatment and dedicate days in all academic units” (male, sixth
year). Other students demanded moral sanctions and public rejection of the per-
petrators along the lines of “an eye for an eye”: “Punishments without mercy for
cyberbullying” (male, second year). Or, “Punish those who bully so they learn that
it is not right” (female, third year). Other students considered the aggressor as a
member of the community who needs help: “it would be good to target those
who attack, as they have often suffered aggression” (female, first year). Some voices
were without hope, stating that there was nothing the university could do about
cyberbullying.
46 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

Discussion and conclusions

One of the main objectives of this study was to discover the scope of cyberbully-
ing experienced by UC undergraduate students. Our findings indicate that 45.9%
(or close to half) of the participants in this study had been exposed to cyberbul-
lying in the last year, whether as a victim, witness, or perpetrator. Regardless of
their role in cyberbullying, it impacts the well-being and learning experiences of
all participants (Aricak, 2009; Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, this volume; Faucher
et al., 2014, this volume; Myers & Cowie, 2017; Walker et al., 2011). Although
this study leads us to infer that cyberbullying occurs in Chilean higher education,
additional studies are needed to investigate the phenomenon in greater depth at
UC, as well as at other universities in Chile.
While the percentage of reported victims of cyberbullying among university
students is lower than in many other countries (Faucher et al., 2014), the presence
of negative online relationships among students in Chile is worth acknowledging.
Recognizing oneself as a victim is never easy, and it becomes even more difficult
when cyberbullying behaviours are normalized in some circles, or when there
are no public campaigns to identify cyberbullying as a problem, a relational or a
public health issue. We are highly motivated to disseminate the findings from this
first Chilean study as a way to encourage a prevention campaign. Making cyber-
bullying prevention a priority at the post-secondary level could encourage more
students to feel comfortable revealing that they have been victims or even perpe-
trators, as well as empower by-standers to offer concrete support or to intervene
when an incident is occurring.
The repercussions of cyberbullying identified by participants in this study are
in line with other studies (e.g., Aricak, 2009; Faucher et al., 2014; Myers & Cowie,
2017; Walker et al., 2011). Victims of cyberbullying at UC experienced similar
emotional, behavioural, academic and relational issues, discomfort and suffering
which, in some cases, lasted for several months. The sum of these consequences
makes cyberbullying a pressing issue for higher education institutions in Chile
and for society as a whole.
Therefore, the questions remain: what should be done? And what actions
should be promoted? A first step is to work towards de-naturalizing the accept-
ance of these actions among students. This is a key challenge in the UC context.
More than half of the participants in this study described cyberbullying aggres-
sions as “normal”. Medium-term actions could be to identify cyberbullying as
a common problem that affects the welfare of all, and for which everyone has
a responsibility to act. The newspaper in charge of the Directorate of Student
Affairs, “Vive la UC”, could be a relevant and important tool because under-
graduate students report that it is the medium with the greatest impact.
To make visible the invisible, to problematize the everyday, and to de-naturalize
mistaken assumptions is a path towards awareness. It is a process. In order to make
progress, it will not be enough to merely spread awareness of the subject. To
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 47

problematize and de-naturalize cyberbullying requires the promotion of critical

reflection and analysis in each academic unit, among teachers, between teachers
and students, and also among students, ideally organized through student cen-
tres (democratic organizations chosen by students from each major). As Montero
(2011) states:

It is not possible to denature a stereotype, a commonplace, a traditional and

firmly entrenched belief, a norm, a habit or, in general, a way of behaving
whose presence in daily life is explained only because “that’s the way things
are”, or “because that is the way people behave” or “because it has always
been done”, if there is not a process of criticism that submits the subject
matter to review, discussion and analysis.
(p. 262)

How to move forward? Myers and Cowie (2017) emphasize that prevention and
intervention against cyberbullying must be the institution’s responsibility. Faucher
et al. (2015) mention that preventive actions should be implemented at the very
beginning of university life, “such as during the initial orientation sessions and on
the first day of a course” (p. 115), in order to promote immediate awareness of
cyberbullying as an issue. Other possible lines of action would be to offer report-
ing options and direct support for witnesses, encouraging them to step forward
and “break the silence” that permeates these practices (Myers & Cowie, 2017).
Doing so is not easy. As this study suggests, students do not look for support from
institutional agents (university helpline, counsellor’s office, teachers); rather, they
resort to family and friends. Furthermore, some students do not believe that the uni-
versity should be responsible for intervening in, or preventing, these issues. It will be
a challenge to generate a change of attitude and perception. Defining cyberbullying
in institutional policies, describing the harmful consequences, and creating clear
action protocols are all initiatives worth considering (Faucher et al., 2015).
Actively promoting good peer relationships in educational contexts is also
important. Creating affection and close bonds among classmates promotes self-
esteem, well-being, and a sense of belonging (Strayhorn, 2016; Tinto, 2015).
Neither bullying nor cyberbullying behaviours can be explained in terms of the
bully’s personality, the witnesses’ indifference, or the victim’s lack of strategies:
this is a systemic issue (López de Lerida, Berger, & Pizarro, 2012). It is essential
to encourage and model respect and good relationships within educational com-
munities and in society as a whole.
Finally, it is necessary to activate and disseminate resources already available
at UC, and also to create new approaches for effective intervention, to stop vio-
lence when detected, protect victims, and generate opportunities for learning
and reparation for aggressors. Among the resources already available at UC are
the Ombuds, the undergraduate and teacher regulations, the unit of psychologi-
cal support (Bureau of Health students), and the helpline “Fono-Ayuda UC”,
48 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

which offers guidance, support, and information about procedures and channels
for victims and witnesses of harassment and physical or psychological abuse or
violence. In addition, just as UC created the “Protocol against sexual harassment
and abuse”, it could create a protocol of “Good treatment in cyber space”. As
with the “Protocol against sexual harassment”, it would be important to source
codes and norms through dialogue among the different members of the commu-
nity. Mass diffusion of information regarding cyberbullying and disseminating the
results of this study in a fact-sheet or easily readable infographic could contribute
to increasing awareness of the problem. Promoting national and international
meetings of higher education in this field will continue to foster the interdiscipli-
nary international research networks such as the one that gave rise to this study.
Finally, this topic demands collective reflection throughout the campus context
and in every career program. Furthermore, more research is needed to support
policy development and the implementation of new practices at the university
and state levels. For example, regarding the Chilean higher education system, the
government could consider the implementation of specific policies and protocols
in this area as a requisite for university accreditation, encouraging institutional
attention to this area of student well-being across the country.

Limitations and future research

It is necessary to move forward with the investigation about this issue by provid-
ing stratified samples according to student population parameters. In our study,
female participants, as well as certain academic fields, are over-represented (for
instance, students from the Faculty of Engineering, College and Faculty of Medi-
cine). This could have an effect on the cyberbullying prevalence rates. Addition-
ally, it is necessary to have a better understanding of cyberbullying experiences at
university, taking a qualitative approach in subsequent research studies.

Acknowledgements
We thank all the students who trusted us with their experiences.

References
Aricak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of cyberbullying among
university students. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34,
167–184.
Bartlett, C., Gentile, D., Anderson, C., Suzuki, K., Sakamoto, A.,Yamaoka, A., & Katsura, R.
(2014). Cross-cultural differences in cyberbullying behaviour: A short-term longitudi-
nal study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 300–313.
Bellei, C. (2013). El estudio de la segregación socioeconómica y académica de la educación
chilena [The study of the socioeconomic and academic segregation of Chilean educa-
tion]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 39(1), 325–345.
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 49

Brunner, J. J., & Miranda, D. (2016). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica Informe 2016 [Higher
Education in Ibero-America Report 2016]. Santiago de Chile: CINDA (Centro Interuni-
versitario de Desarrollo)/RIL Editores.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A compre-
hensive review of current international research and its implications and application to
policy and practice. School Psychology International: Special Issue on Cyberbullying, 34(6),
575–612.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume). “You need a thick skin . . .”: Impacts
of cyberbullying in Canadian universities. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson
(Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 112–125). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2012). Survey to investigate the extent, nature and
impact of Cyber-Bullying among university students in select universities in Canada. Canada:
Simon Fraser University.
Condeza, R., & Fontcuberta, M. (2015). Redes sociales: luces y sombras en el ámbito de
la Comunicación & Educación [Social networks: Lights and shadows in the field of
Communication & Education]. In V.Tomé, E. Bévort, & V. Reia-Baptista (Eds.), Research
on social media: A glocal view [Investiugacao em media sociais: uma visiao glocal] (pp. 51–78).
Lisboa: RVJ.
Ezcurra, A. M. (2005). Diagnóstico preliminar de las dificultades de los alumnos de primer
ingreso a la educación superior [Preliminary diagnosis of the difficulties of first-year
students entering higher education]. Perfiles Educativos, 27(107), 118–133.
Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (this volume). Power in the tower: The gendered
nature of cyberbullying among students and faculty at Canadian universities. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 66–79). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university stu-
dents: Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research Interna-
tional, 2014, 1–10 [online]. Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/
edri/2014/698545/
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2015). When online exchanges byte: An examina-
tion of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 45(1), 102–121.
Gallardo, G., Espinosa, C.,Vergara, M., Sanhueza, M., & Cruz, S. (2016). Apoyo institucional
para la inclusión educativa universitaria: actividades deportivas de integración [Institu-
tional support for inclusion at higher education: Sports integration activities]. In PAIEP
(Comp.), Primer Congreso de Inclusión en la Educación Superior: Acciones afirmativas para
igualar oportunidades. Santiago de Chile: PAIEP USACH.
Gallardo, G., Lorca, A., Morrás, D., & Vergara, M. (2014). High school to college transition
experiences of students admitted in a Chilean traditional university (CRUCH) through
Inclusive Special Admission. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional
Latinoamericana, 51(2), 135–151.
García Peña, J., Moncada Ortiz, R., & Quintero Gil, J. (2013). El bullying y el suicidio
en el escenario universitario [Bullying and suicide in the university scenario]. Revista
colombiana de ciencias sociales, 4(2), 298–310.
Gobierno de Chile. (2016). Séptima encuesta de Acceso, Usos y Usuarios en Internet [Seventh
Survey on Access, Uses and Users on the Internet]. Santiago: Subtel/Ipsos.
González, R. (2005). Movilidad social: el rol del prejuicio y la discriminación [Social
mobility: The role of prejudice and discrimination]. En foco, Expansiva, 59, 1–23.
50 Rayén Condeza, Gonzalo Gallardo, and Pablo Reyes Pérez

Grau,V., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2012). Colaborar para aprender en contextos de diversidad.

El aprendizaje mediado por pares y la riqueza de las diferencias [Collaborate to learn
in contexts of diversity. Peer-mediated learning and the richness of differences]. In
I. Mena, M. R. Lissi, L. Alcalay, & N. Milicic (Eds.), Educación y divesidad. Aportes desde la
Psicología educacional (pp. 71–94). Santiago de Chile: Ediciones UC.
Koljatic, M., & Silva, M. (2012). Opening a side-gate: Engaging the excluded in Chil-
ean higher education through test-blind admission. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10),
1427–1441.
Lehmann, W. (2014). Habitus transformation and hidden injuries: Successful working-class
university students. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 1–15.
López de Lerida, S., Berger, C., & Pizarro, B. (2012). Intimidación o Convivencia: Polos
opuestos en la experiencia de la diversidad escolar [Intimidation or Coexistence: Oppo-
site poles in the experience of school diversity]. In I. Mena, M. R. Lissi, L. Alcalay, & N.
Milicic (Eds.), Educación y Diversidad. Aportes desde la Psicología Educacional (pp. 123–152).
Santiago: Ediciones UC.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involve-
ment in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Services
Review, 34, 63–70.
Mizala, A., & Torche, F. (2012). Bringing the schools back in: The stratification of educa-
tional achievement in the Chilean voucher system. International Journal of Educational
Development, 32(1), 132–144.
Montero, M. (2011). Introducción a la Psicología Comunitaria. Desarrollo, conceptos y procesos
[Introduction to communitary psychology. Development, concepts and processes].
Buenos Aires: PAIDÓS.
Myers, C., & Cowie, H. (2017). Bullying at university:The social and legal contexts of cyber-
bullying among university students. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 48(8), 1172–1182.
OECD Report, Chile. (2007). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning. Country Back-
ground report Chile. Prepared by the Lifelong Learning System Chilecalifica in col-
laboration with the Higher Education Division of the Ministry of Education and
National Service the Training and Employment. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/
chile/41836939.pdf.
Ortega-Ruíz, R., & Zych, I. (2016). La ciberconducta y la psicología educativa: retos y
riesgos [Cyber-conduct and educational psychology: Challenges and risks]. Psicología
Educativa, 22, 1–4.
Pescitelli, A. (this volume). MySpace or yours? An exploratory study of homophobic and
transphobic cyberbullying of post-secondary students. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 52–65). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo-PNUD. (2017). Desiguales. Orígenes, cam-
bios y desafíos de la brecha social en Chile [Unequal. Origins, changes and challenges of the
social gap in Chile]. Santiago: PNUD.
Potocnjak, M., Berger, C., & Tomicic, T. (2011). Una aproximación relacional a la violencia
escolar entre pares en adolescentes Chilenos: Perspectiva adolescente de los factores
intervinientes [A relational approach to school violence among peers in Chilean ado-
lescents: Adolescent perspective of the intervening factors]. Psykhe, 20(2), 39–52.
Prilleltensky, I. (2004). Prólogo. Validez psicopolítica: el próximo reto para psicología
comunitaria [Foreword. Psychopolitical validity: The next challenge for community
psychology]. In M. Montero (Ed.), Introducción a la Psicología Comunitaria. Desarrollo,
conceptos y procesos (pp. 5–14). Buenos Aires: PAIDÓS.
 Experiences of cyberbullying at a Chilean university 51

Roberts, J. S., & Rosenwald, G. C. (2013). Ever upward and no turning back: Social mobil-
ity and identity formation among first generation college students. In D. P. McAdams,
R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in transition
(pp. 91–119). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA).
Sobrero, V., Lara-Quinteros, R., Méndez, P., & Suazo, B. (2014). Equidad y diversidad en
universidades selectivas: la experiencia de estudiantes con ingresos especiales en las car-
reras de la salud [Equity and diversity in selective universities: Experiences of students
admitted to health majors via equity programs]. Pensamiento educativo, Revista de Investi-
gación educacional latinoamericana, 51(2), 152–164.
Strayhorn, T. (2016). Student development theory in higher education: A social psychological
approach. New York & London: Routledge.
Tinto,V. (2015). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory and Practice, 19(3), 254–269.
Varela, J., Pérez, J. C., Schwaderer, H., Astudillo, J., & Lecannelier, F. (2014). Caracterización
del cyberbullying en el gran Santiago de Chile, en el año 2010 [Characterization of
cyberbullying in the city of Santiago, Chile, in 2010]. Revista Quadrimestral da Associação
Brasileira de Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 18(2), 347–354.
Walker, C. M., Sockman, B. R., & Koehn, S. (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbully-
ing with undergraduate university students. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to
Improve Learning, 55(2), 31–38.
4
MYSPACE OR YOURS? AYNSLEY PESCITELLIMYSPACE OR YOURS?

An exploratory study of homophobic

and transphobic cyberbullying of
post-secondary students

Aynsley Pescitelli

The vast majority of cyberbullying research to date focuses on elementary, mid-

dle, and high school students; yet, post-secondary students are not immune to
this behaviour, nor are they immune to the resultant harms. In fact, “while tra-
ditional bullying decreases as adolescents move into university, cyberbullying
may remain constant from the high school years” (Wensley & Campbell, 2012,
p. 652). Although studies have just begun to examine cyberbullying among post-
secondary students, there is even less research examining the LGBTQ (lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or questioning) experience. Of the studies
that have been conducted, most address LGBTQ students as part of the wider stu-
dent population (Bauman & Baldasare, 2015; Finn, 2004; Lindsay & Krysik, 2012;
Wensley & Campbell, 2012), or comparing patterns of cyberbullying of LGBTQ
individuals to their peers (Cooper & Blumenfeld, 2012; Finn, 2004), rather than
studying this group in particular.This chapter addresses LGBTQ students’ experi-
ences with homophobia1 and transphobia2 in online environments.

Literature review

Homophobia and transphobia in post-secondary settings

Research on homophobia and transphobia in post-secondary institutions has
most often been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. These
studies have generally neglected to focus on the “T” in LGBT (Beemyn, 2012),
often examining only discrimination encountered by gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students.The bulk of this research has focused on the anti-homosexual attitudes of
heterosexual post-secondary students. In their study of anti-gay attitudes of U.S.
college students, Cotten-Huston and Waite (1999) found that one-time, in-class
 MySpace or yours? 53

interventions were largely ineffective in influencing attitudes towards homosexu-

ality. In a four-year longitudinal project with U.S. university students, however,
Jayakumar (2009) found that most students (75%) had lower levels of sexual preju-
dice in their final year of university. Finally, in their examination of heterosex-
ist language in American college settings, Woodford, Howell, Silverchanz, and Yu
(2012) focused specifically on the popular phrase “that’s so gay”, as well as wider
use of the term “gay” in a derogatory fashion. Almost all (90% of LGB partici-
pants) reported hearing the phrase at least once in the last year (with 47% hearing
it more than 10 times).Woodford et al. (2012) argue that the common use of such
terms, particularly in school settings, has likely led to a degree of desensitization
among LGB students, and that findings indicate high levels of resiliency among
their sample.
Although this area remains an under-researched one (Rivers, 2016), a small
number of studies have also addressed transgender students specifically. In their
undergraduate survey, Nagoshi et al. (2008) found that male students’ scores
on both homophobia and transphobia were significantly higher than those of
their female counterparts. Homophobic and transphobic males were also signifi-
cantly more likely to self-report high levels of aggression and masculinity. In a
UK study (Ellis, 2009), LGBT students from 42 universities reported experienc-
ing homophobia and transphobia most often in public places. Such harassment
was overwhelmingly perpetrated by other students. Although homophobic and
transphobic events were commonly experienced by participants, most believed
that on-campus anti-LGBT attitudes were fairly uncommon.

Cyberbullying and LGBTQ students

The rates of, and consequences resulting from, the cyberbullying of LGBTQ youth
are a cause for concern. In Varjas, Meyers, Kiperman, and Howard’s (2013) study
of American LGB adolescents, 94% of participants reported experiencing cyber-
bullying, with the majority believing that their sexual orientation was the reason
for their cyber-victimization. In their comparison of American LGBT and allied
youth, Cooper and Blumenfeld (2012) found similar rates of cyber-victimization
in terms of bullying which was based on race/ethnicity and biological sex – LGBT
individuals, however, were much more likely to be cyberbullied for reasons related
to their sexual or gender identity. LGBT participants were also more likely to
receive messages of a threatening or intimidating nature. Although both allied
and LBGT groups reported experiencing negative emotional responses follow-
ing cyberbullying victimization, rates of depression were higher among LGBT
participants, as were rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts. GLSEN, CiPHR, and
CCRC’s3 (2013) online study of LGBT and non-LGBT U.S. youth also showed
much higher levels of online bullying and harassment among their LGBT par-
ticipants. “Nearly three in four respondents (71%) in this study reported having
been bullied specifically because of their sexual orientation, gender expression, or
54 Aynsley Pescitelli

both in the past year” (GLSEN et al., 2013, p. 8). LGBT participants also reported
much higher rates of sexual harassment than their non-LGBT peers, both online
and through text messaging (GLSEN et al., 2013).
While there is still a dearth of research in this area, researchers are starting to
explore the topic by comparing the experiences of LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ
post-secondary students. Finn (2004) found higher rates of stranger-perpetrated
email harassment among sexual minority-identified participants at the University
of New Hampshire. In an Australian study, Wensley and Campbell (2012) found
that, compared to their heterosexual peers, non-heterosexual male university stu-
dents were significantly more likely to be victims of cyberbullying. Overall rates
of cyberbullying in this study were comparable to those found in middle and high
school settings, suggesting that cyberbullying continues to be a problem experi-
enced by post-secondary students. Although, in a re-examination of Finn’s (2004)
study at Arizona State University, Lindsay and Krysik (2012) did not find LGBT
students’ stated sexual orientation to be linked to more frequent experiences of
online harassment.
The continuing presence of subtle and overt homophobic and transphobic
harassment in post-secondary settings is quite troubling, especially since the inter-
net provides a wider context in which to perpetrate similar forms of bullying. If
homophobia and transphobia are this prevalent in face-to-face contexts, there is
a strong possibility that it is even more common on the internet, where anonym-
ity and disinhibition may further encourage such behaviour. Although several of
these studies discuss the overlap of online bullying and LGBTQ young adults,
very few have focused on this topic exclusively. Furthermore, the studies con-
ducted to date have been entirely or predominantly quantitative in nature. Thus,
the research outlined in this chapter attempts to fill this gap and examine the topic
through an exploratory, qualitative lens.

Research methods
Because very little research has been conducted to date on post-secondary stu-
dents’ experiences with homophobic and transphobic cyberbullying, this study
is both exploratory and descriptive. The primary research question is: “What are
post-secondary students’ experiences with homophobia and transphobia in online
environments?”
Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling meth-
ods. It was important that interviewees met several criteria for inclusion. These
requirements included: current registration at a post-secondary institution in the
Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, being a minimum age of 19, and
personal or witnessed experience of homophobic or transphobic cyberbully-
ing.4 Additional participants were recruited through a snowball sampling method,
wherein early-stage interviewees spread the word about the study to contacts that
also fit the sampling criteria. Snowball sampling is often used in research with
 MySpace or yours? 55

hard-to-contact populations and studies that address sensitive topics (Dantzker &
Hunter, 2012; Palys & Atchison, 2014). These considerations both apply in the
current study, as information about an individual’s sexual orientation and/or gen-
der identity may not be readily apparent (Janoff, 2005); members of the LGBTQ
community, however, may know others who meet study requirements who are
unaware of the research being conducted.
Recruitment was carried out primarily through posters placed in general areas
of multiple local university and college campuses, as well as in several inclusive
spaces (both on campuses and in the community). Additional recruitment meth-
ods included: free and paid advertisements on online news and classified sites,
as well as in local newspapers; Facebook recruitment through former partici-
pants and colleagues; email newsletters through LGBTQ organizations (on and
off campus); and email recruitment through several departmental undergraduate
mail lists.
The final sample consisted of six participants, including both undergraduate
and graduate students from post-secondary institutions throughout the Greater
Vancouver region. All information in Table 4.1, as well as further demographic
information, was obtained through a follow-up questionnaire administered after
each interview. Questionnaire results were submitted in the participants’ own
words and are reported as written. Interviewees were given additional space to
expand on answers or to discuss anything not covered in the interview. Partici-
pants were provided the opportunity to select their own pseudonyms. They were
also encouraged to define their own sexual orientation and/or gender identity,
rather than having these personal features presumed or assigned. Finally, inter-
viewees were asked how they would like to be referred to in the study (e.g., in
masculine, feminine, or neutral terms) to allow them to have additional ownership
over their representation.
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and
June of 2013. Interview length ranged from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 50 minutes.
Participants were given the opportunity to select a location for the interview

TABLE 4.1 Study Participants

Pseudonym* Sexual Identity or Orientation** Gender Identity**

Clark Kent Not identified Not identified

Mercy Straight, bi, or pansexual Female
(situation dependent)
Jeeves Pansexual queer Transmasculine
Fox Lesbian Not identified
Gia Queer/lesbian/gay Female/genderqueer
Damon Pansexual/polyamorous Transmasculine
* Selected by participants or assigned by researcher if self-selection declined.
** Self-identified by participants.
56 Aynsley Pescitelli

(as recommended by Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003). Interviews were recorded
on a digital device (with permission), and field notes were taken to supplement
recordings. Although this project was designated minimal risk by the institutional
Office of Research Ethics, bullying, homophobia, and transphobia are difficult
topics – interviews can involve the recounting of painful memories, experiences,
and emotions. For this reason, interviewees were also provided with a list of
local counselling contacts. Recorded interviews were transcribed and uploaded
to NVivo 10 qualitative analysis software for coding. Coding was conducted in
several stages, beginning with an initial round of open coding, followed by axial
coding, shifting the focus to more specific categories and key themes present
throughout the entire sample (see Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss, 1987; Scott &
Garner, 2013).

Results

Venues in which cyberbullying most often occurs

Cyberbullying was encountered by participants in many different online settings,
including chat rooms, through instant messaging, social networking sites (Face-
book, MySpace, Twitter), video sharing sites (YouTube), news sites (The Vancouver
Sun, The Province), gaming communities (Call of Duty, virtual worlds), and blogs
(Tumblr). Although homophobia and transphobia were encountered in each of
these venues, it was most commonly experienced through Facebook posts, online
gaming, and YouTube comments and videos.
All participants reported regular use of Facebook. Reported forms of victimi-
zation on Facebook included threats, use of transphobic slurs (e.g., “tranny”), and
insult wars between groups of people. There was an additional level of discomfort
with Facebook victimization compared to the other listed media, since it is not an
anonymous website and, in most cases, the cyberbullies were friends or acquaint-
ances. There were a few instances where unknown individuals posted rude com-
ments due to changes in Facebook privacy settings, but these were rare. Such
knowledge of identity did play a role in one interviewee’s, Jeeves’, offline expe-
riences, however. In this case, Facebook victimization extended into in-person
victimization when cyberbullies spotted Jeeves at the mall and said hurtful things
about him while he was nearby.
Fox and Mercy, meanwhile, had both been regularly exposed to victimization
in online gaming environments. In Mercy’s in-game experiences, homophobic
comments were generally tied to players’ religious beliefs. Such cases were typi-
cally attributed to “trolling”, with players seeking to get a rise out of her and other
LGBTQ gamers. In comparison, Fox’s experiences with homophobic comments
in Call of Duty were constant. Her online profile and uniform emblems identi-
fied her as both female and a lesbian, and she was regularly barraged by slurs (e.g.,
“dyke”, “lesbo”, “faggot”), as well as threats of rape.
 MySpace or yours? 57

Fox also experienced secondary cyber-victimization, as she was constantly

being exposed to homophobic insults directed at male players, whether gay or
straight. She states that “faggot” is by far the most common insult used in-game,
and that she hears the term repeatedly in every game in which she participates.

They jump on guys whether they’re straight or not. When it comes to

gaming like that, if you aren’t good, then you’re a fag. If you have to throw
grenades, if that’s the only way you can get kills instead of actually shooting
somebody with a gun, which takes a little more precision, then you’re a fag.
(Fox, personal communication, 2013)

YouTube emerged as one of the most concerning online venues. Homophobic

and transphobic views were sometimes expressed through videos, but were more
commonly present in comments responding to videos. Some comments were
directed at videos with LGBTQ contributors or in support of LGBTQ causes.
Examples of this included music videos by gay or lesbian artists, or videos posted
by activist groups. Others were posted in response to seemingly innocuous vid-
eos. Damon also described high levels of transphobic comments in response to
trans-specific videos on YouTube, and talked about actively avoiding reading such
comments.

MySpace or yours?: do safe online spaces exist?

There was clear consensus among participants that there is no such thing as a
truly safe online space. Some sites or modes of communication were viewed
as safer than others, but there was no sure-fire way to control what might be
encountered – or what other people might say/post. Mercy felt that Facebook
was the closest thing to this “safe space”, since the user can control access to their
personal information (i.e., who sees what). She also pointed to the ability to block
people and record information. She did, however, acknowledge that Facebook
makes controlling your own space challenging, by often having to monitor and
change one’s privacy settings. Damon seconded this, arguing that the boundaries
on Facebook are ever-shifting, making it difficult to feel truly secure in that vir-
tual environment.
An interviewee named Clark Kent argued that Tumblr is the closest thing to
a safe online space, given the ability to control what appears on one’s dashboard
and who you follow. Fox also brought up the ability to use trigger warnings on
Tumblr to avoid mentions of especially troubling content. Still, hurtful content
sometimes slips through the cracks, and there is no guarantee that this content will
not be encountered at some point.

Even on Tumblr, the gayest site in the world, you will still find occasionally
a bit of abuse. Especially toward gays, because there are some, you know,
58 Aynsley Pescitelli

Republicans in America who will get online and make a whole bunch of
posts about how evil gays are. There’s a small conservative niche on Tumblr.
And they’re very adamantly and staunchly anti-gay.
(Fox, personal communication, 2013)

There was agreement among participants that they have never personally expe-
rienced a safe space online. Clark Kent felt that, because online environments are
shared, it is impossible to rely on other people for safety. Despite this belief, several
interviewees thought that the creation of such spaces was possible. Fox argued that
a safe space would have to be self-created and limited only to people you know
and truly trust. Damon felt that boundaries would need to be clear and fixed, and
that all members would have to agree to and abide by pre-set norms. These con-
cerns are warranted but troubling, as participants have accepted the constant risk
of harmful behaviours in an online setting. Given the frequent use of the internet
by all participants, for both educational and social purposes, such a risk has the
potential to seriously disrupt online activities and freedom.

Can’t we all just get along?: cyberbullying within and

outside of the LGBTQ community
Homophobic and transphobic cyberbullying were perpetrated in many ways, and
participants reported experiencing both overt and subtle forms in online contexts.
Overt forms of online homophobia and transphobia included threats, slurs, hate
speech, insults, and harassment. More subtle forms included heteronormative or
heterosexist comments and inadvertent forms of discrimination.
While much of the experienced homophobia and/or transphobia was per-
petrated by individuals known or presumed to be heterosexual, one of the more
unexpected findings was experiences with cyber-victimization perpetrated by
other members of the LGBTQ community. Such harassment was often expe-
rienced by trans-participants, with Jeeves and Damon reporting the bulk of
such occurrences. In these cases, cyberbullies were members of the LGB and/
or trans communities. When discussing transphobic bullying by members of the
LGB community, Damon pointed to recent debates surrounding the presence of
trans-males on social networking applications traditionally used by gay men (e.g.,
Grindr, SCRUFF, GROWLr). Damon reported that this resulted in a consider-
able amount of transphobia on these sites. Damon also maintained that there is a
certain lack of understanding of trans issues in the wider LGB community, argu-
ing that a lot of the transphobia coming from them is unintentional: possibly the
result of wanting to be supportive but not knowing how.
Jeeves referred to trans-on-trans cyberbullying as a form of “queer community
self- policing”. In such cases, transphobic comments related to individuals being
perceived as “not trans enough to be trans”. For example, Jeeves often experi-
enced discrimination and confusion because his partner is genderqueer, and many
 MySpace or yours? 59

members of the trans community presume that he, as a trans-male, should be dat-
ing a woman. Damon reported similar experiences. Damon also explained that
trans people are not always on the same page about issues, definitions, or concerns,
which can lead to disagreements. Ultimately, such in-community debate and dis-
cord was perceived by participants as being more harmful than helpful.

Perceived reasons for online homophobia and transphobia

When discussing their experiences with homophobic and transphobic cyber-
bullying, interviewees believe such actions occurred for several reasons. Some
participants had fairly good ideas of why they were bullied, or were told outright
by perpetrators. Others could only guess based on the content or context of
posts and discussions. Perceived reasons included the perpetrators’ religious beliefs,
mean-spiritedness, impulsivity, ignorance, exhibitionism, lack of boundaries, and
anonymity. The most prevalent reasons were disconnect or detachment in online
contexts, strongly held opinions, and the wider societal acceptance of transphobia.

Disconnecting on the internet

In their discussions of cyberbullying, all participants pointed to the ease with
which individuals can detach themselves and their behaviours when online. This
disconnect generally tied into the anonymity afforded by the internet, as well as
the fact that offline consequences are either not apparent or far removed. Several
interviewees pointed to the lack of real-world cues missing in online discussions,
such as body language, tone of voice, and facial cues. It is often difficult to gauge
responses at all – let alone severity of response. Clark Kent pointed out that this is
especially problematic if you do not have an offline relationship with the person.

I mean, we call them by their username, and it’s that identity on the internet
that we’re getting pissed off at. Not the actual person behind the screen.
Unless we know that person. Then we can link it to another identity.
(Clark Kent, personal communication, 2013)

The non-linear nature of the internet can also be problematic, as people are often
receiving communications at later times, which may affect how far removed the
perpetrator is from the situation and possible repercussions.
Several participants argued that the internet brings out the worst in people.
They argued that specific aspects of the internet encourage people to say things
they likely would not say offline. Gia had her own theory about this phenom-
enon, arguing that anonymity plus an audience encourages abusive behaviour that
users would never be courageous (or foolish) enough to engage in offline. She
also discusses the troubling tendency of people distinguishing their online activi-
ties from in-person ones by using the term IRL (in real life), delineating their
60 Aynsley Pescitelli

offline experiences. She reached an epiphany while watching a documentary on

the subject.

I watched a documentary once on the Pirate Bay . . . called The Pirate Bay
AFK, and I didn’t know what that meant, but during the documentary,
someone says IRL. And they’re like, “well, actually, we don’t say IRL (in real
life) we say away from keyboard [AFK], because the internet is real life”. It
is real life! This is your actual life, and what you do on it is going to impact
others and impact you. You have to behave accordingly. But yeah, saying
IRL I feel sort of backs up these people who just say whatever they want
on the internet.
(Gia, personal communication, 2013)

This IRL versus online distinction may allow cyberbullies to separate themselves
from their online actions, as well as minimize the perception of the harm expe-
rienced by victims.

Strongly held opinions: everyone has one and they’re not

afraid to share them online
Several participants were of the mindset that online homophobia and transphobia
often stemmed from the personal opinions and deeply held beliefs of perpetrators.
Some interviewees felt that people were entitled to their own opinions, providing
they did not force them on others. Others felt that, while individuals were entitled
to their own beliefs, they could control their personal associations and exposures
to them. Jeeves reported ending online friendships over strong clashes in beliefs,
particularly if they related to his trans status.
While several participants were pro-education and wanted to promote an
understanding of LGBTQ issues, they realized that some opinions are difficult, if
not impossible, to change. Gia related this to her own beliefs, understanding that
her own strongly held convictions were unlikely to be easily changed. She did,
however, acknowledge that it was always worth trying.While some people may be
unwilling to listen to or accept other viewpoints, others may be more receptive.
Gia believed it was worth attempting to clarify opinions or educate individuals,
even if they only took a small part away from her larger argument.

What’s the big deal?: wider societal acceptance

of transphobia
Several participants thought that transphobia often occurs online due to a wider
societal acceptance of transphobic behaviour. While overt homophobia has
become much less acceptable, transphobia has not followed the same trend. Damon
 MySpace or yours? 61

discussed how popular culture’s emphasis on transphobia as a joke or humorous

concept might lead the wider society to view such actions as acceptable.

Aynsley: Does transphobia tend to be anonymous in your experiences online?

Damon: No. Transphobia is very accepted as a form of, humour right now. . . .
So many mainstream movies, like, at least one a year will come out with
something really explicitly transphobic. And there won’t be any narra-
tive to act as though that was an absurd thing to see.
Aynsley: Not the same backlash you’d see for something very homophobic or
racist.
Damon: Yeah, exactly. That wouldn’t survive in this political climate right now.
But we’re in a time and a climate that is supportive of that. So people
don’t feel, like, it’s not the sort of thing, if people harbour those feelings
and thoughts, that they feel the need to hide them. It’s not shameful
right now.
(Damon, personal communication, 2013)

Transphobic slurs were also an all-too-common occurrence, directed at partici-

pants and others in online and offline settings. Both Jeeves and Damon encoun-
tered the slur “tranny” very often, generally being used by people outside of the
trans community. Jeeves noted that he personally considers the term to be an
acceptable one for trans-identified individuals to use, but that it becomes prob-
lematic and offensive when used by those outside of the community. Damon
argued that is a difficult concept, as most people do not even define such terms
as slurs. He linked the heavy use of such slurs to ignorance, stating that many
people do not realize the offensiveness of transphobic comments. Jeeves agreed
that sometimes the use of such terms is linked to not knowing any better, so he
often assumes innocent intent and aims to educate people who use these terms
incorrectly.

Discussion and conclusions

It is clear from the findings of this study that not only does cyberbullying extend
beyond high school, but cyberbullying experienced by participants within the
LGBTQ community was anything but rare. Interviewees encountered cyber-
bullying throughout their lives and continued to experience it as adult post-
secondary students. This finding is consistent with many post-secondary studies
indicating that cyberbullying does not simply stop at high school graduation
(Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014; Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). Study partici-
pants recounted online experiences of both the positive and negative variety,
and generally coped with online harassment in a mature fashion. Interviewees
often gave perpetrators the benefit of the doubt, assuming positive or neutral,
62 Aynsley Pescitelli

rather than negative intent. While these findings are promising and point to
high levels of resiliency (as was similarly noted by Woodford et al., 2012), other
findings are more troubling.
The perception of a strong societal acceptance of transphobic views is sad-
dening, as is the common experience of cyberbullying within the LGBTQ com-
munity. Similar findings emerged in Dispenza, Watson, Chung, and Brack’s (2012)
study of in-person career-related discrimination experienced by female-to-male
trans adults. In their study, transphobic discrimination was perpetrated by both
LGB and trans individuals. Findings of transphobic actions perpetrated by the LGB
community are not entirely surprising, as heterosexist beliefs are also sometimes
held by LGB individuals (Weiss, 2003). As pointed out by Jackson, Faucher, and
Cassidy (this volume), any policies developed in this area should take into account
the vulnerability to potential homophobic and transphobic discrimination.
As this present study was conducted in 2013, however, it is possible that societal
views and norms may have shifted since the research period (either positively or
negatively), both within and outside of the LGBTQ community. Furthermore,
students are now using different sites and applications, rendering some of the
earlier sites nearly obsolete.This provides additional venues and options for cyber-
victimization that may have been neglected, as well as options for potentially safer
online communities.
Ultimately, this study offers an important jumping-off point. This information
is useful for raising awareness of problems that exist, persist, and may need more
(or less) focus. Awareness is the first step in problem solving, and these data are
certainly a step in the right direction in improving the internet experiences of
LGBTQ individuals, and in creating truly safe online spaces.

Action points
• As recommended by Faucher, Jackson, and Cassidy (2015), administrators
should consider both gender and sexuality when drafting policies and pro-
cedures related to online activities. Past research indicates that rates of cyber-
victimization may be higher among LGBTQ students (Finn, 2004;Wensley &
Campbell, 2012) and consequences may be more severe (Cooper & Blumen-
feld, 2012), so it is important to examine the particular needs of and risk
factors associated with LGBTQ students online.
• Administrators should also consider the needs of LGBTQ students and com-
munity members when creating general university policies and procedures. If
a university espouses a zero-tolerance response to homophobia and transpho-
bia, it can be helpful in dealing with such behaviours in the online context
as well (particularly with more subtle or unintentional forms of discrimina-
tion). Examples may include the creation of gender-neutral washrooms, or
LGBTQ-supportive spaces and organizations on campus.
 MySpace or yours? 63

• To ensure that LGBTQ students feel they are a valued part of the commu-
nity, universities and colleges should ensure that they are providing adequate
orientation and identity options on official documents and institutional sur-
veys (see Rivers, 2016). They should move away from dichotomous gender
options (or the additional option that literally “others” those who do not
identify as male or female). It is difficult to feel one’s voice is heard when
your identity is not properly acknowledged by your institution.
• When defining terms such as “cyberbullying” or “cyber-harassment”, it is
worthwhile to consider the role of harm and how harm may be experienced.
While many commonly employed definitions consider only those behav-
iours where harm was deliberate (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Langos, 2012), it
may be more useful to direct attention to the harm that is experienced by the
victim, rather than the intent of the perpetrator (Walker, Sockman, & Koehn,
2011). It is apparent from the experiences of this study’s participants that,
while interviewees experienced harm from online actions and defined said
behaviour as cyberbullying, they still often presumed neutral or even positive
intent on behalf of their cyberbullies. We cannot discount such experiences
when the impact is equally severe. Unintentional cruelty can lead to the same
consequences as intentional cruelty.

Notes
1 Homophobia is often referred to as a “fear or hatred of homosexuality and gays and les-
bians in general” (Pickett, 2009, p. 93). It is also often used to explain orientation-based
discrimination experienced by bisexual and questioning individuals (Blackburn, 2012;
Conoley, 2008; Weiss, 2003).
2 While homosexuality and bisexuality relate to sexual orientation, transgender relates to
gender roles and identities (Nagoshi et al., 2008). Transgender is likely often subsumed
under the wider LGB category because it has only been distinguished from homosexu-
ality within the past century (Pickett, 2009; Weiss, 2003). Transphobia is described as
“fear and/or emotional disgust towards individuals who do not conform to society’s
gender expectations” (Watjen & Mitchell, 2013, p. 135).
3 The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the Center for Innovative Public
Health Research, and the Crimes Against Children Research Center, respectively.
4 I did not explicitly define cyberbullying for potential participants, as I was interested in
how they personally perceived and defined the issue.

References
Bauman, S., & Baldasare, A. (2015). Cyber aggression among college students: Demo-
graphic differences, predictors of distress, and the role of the university. Journal of College
Student Development, 56(4), 317–330.
Beemyn, G. (2012).The experiences and needs of transgender community college students.
Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 36(7), 504–510.
64 Aynsley Pescitelli

Blackburn, M.V. (2012). Interrupting hate: Homophobia in schools and what literacy can do about
it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conoley, J. C. (2008). Sticks and stones can break my bones and words can really hurt me.
School Psychology Review, 37(2), 217–220.
Cooper, R. M., & Blumenfeld,W. J. (2012). Responses to cyberbullying: A descriptive anal-
ysis of the frequency of and impact on LGBT and allied youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,
9(2), 153–177.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cotten-Huston, A. L., & Waite, B. M. (1999). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college students.
Journal of Homosexuality, 38(3), 117–133.
Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. D. (2012). Research methods for criminology and criminal justice
(3rd ed.). Mississauga, ON: Jones & Bartlett Learning Canada.
Dispenza, F., Watson, L. B., Chung, W. B., & Brack, G. (2012). Experience of career-related
discrimination for female-to-male transgender persons: A qualitative study. The Career
Development Quarterly, 60, 65–81.
Ellis, S. J. (2009). Diversity and inclusivity at university: A survey of the experiences of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) students in the UK. Higher Education, 57(6),
723–739.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International, 2014,
1–10.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2015). When online exchanges byte: An examina-
tion of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 102–121.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19(4), 468–483.
GLSEN, CiPHR, & CCRC. (2013). Out online: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender youth on the Internet. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to
cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jackson, M., Faucher, C., & Cassidy, W. (this volume). What’s policy got to do with it? The
focus on cyberbullying policy at the university level. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 198–211). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
Janoff, D. V. (2005). Pink blood: Homophobic violence in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2009). The invisible rainbow of diversity: Factors influencing sexual
prejudice among college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 675–700.
Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: The challenge to define. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 15(6), 285–289.
Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis
(Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social scientists and researchers (pp. 138–169).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lindsay, M., & Krysik, J. (2012). Online harassment among college students. Information,
Communication & Society, 15(5), 703–719.
Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008).
Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531.
 MySpace or yours? 65

Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2014). Research decisions: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Pickett, B. L. (2009). The A to Z of homosexuality. Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press.
Rivers, I. (2016). Homophobic and transphobic bullying in universities. In H. Cowie &
C. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 48–60).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Scott, G., & Garner, R. (2013). Doing qualitative research: Designs, methods, and techniques (1st
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology hurts? Lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal of School Vio-
lence, 12(1), 27–44.
Walker, C. M., Sockman, B. J., & Koehn, S. (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying
with undergraduate university students. TechTrends, 55(2), 31–38.
Watjen, J., & Mitchell, R. W. (2013). College men’s concerns about sharing dormitory
space with a male-to-female transsexual. Sexuality & Culture, 17, 132–166.
Weiss, J. T. (2003). GL vs. BT: The archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the
U.S. gay and lesbian community. In J. Alexander & K. Yescavage (Eds.), Bisexuality and
transgenderism: InterSEXions of the others (pp. 25–56). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park
Press.
Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young university
students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behav-
ior, & Social Networking, 15(2), 649–654.
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverchanz, P., & Yu, L. (2012). “That’s so gay!”: Examin-
ing the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college
students. Journal of American College Health, 60(6), 429–434.
Zalaquett, C. P., & Chatters, S. J. (2014). Cyberbullying in college: Frequency, characteris-
tics, and practical implications. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–8.
5
POWER IN THE TOWER CHANTAL FAUCHER, WANDA CASSIDY, AND MARGARET JACKSONPOWER IN THE TOWER

The gendered nature of cyberbullying

among students and faculty at
Canadian universities

Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and

Margaret Jackson

It is not surprising that cyberbullying has appeared as an issue in the context of

post-secondary education for several reasons. First, information and communica-
tion technologies (ICT) increasingly permeate our daily lives; their presence is
both pervasive and permanent. Second, cyberbullying exists in elementary and
secondary schools, as well as in the workplace; therefore, it could easily be pre-
dicted to occur in the post-secondary sector as well. Third, the role of power in
bullying behaviour has long been recognized, and the hierarchical and competi-
tive nature of universities lends itself to the emergence of problems related to the
exercise of power. Furthermore, the slowly emerging literature on cyberbully-
ing in the post-secondary realm provides indications that the problem is gen-
dered. This chapter offers a gendered analysis of experiences with cyberbullying
reported by university students and faculty based on the power dynamics that
characterize the post-secondary context.The gender differences that emerge help
to carve out a clearer understanding about cyberbullying behaviour at the uni-
versity level. The findings advance a gendered interpretation of vulnerability to
cyberbullying, which is closely tied to power imbalances among members of the
university community. Such findings have the potential to inform the develop-
ment of more appropriate policies and intervention programs/solutions to address
the gendered nature of this behaviour.

Background
Cyberbullying in higher education can be situated on a continuum between
cyberbullying in kindergarten to grade 12 (K–12) education and cyberbully-
ing in the workplace (Adams & Lawrence, 2011; Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson,
2015; Langos & Giancaspro, this volume; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008;
 Power in the tower 67

Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). Time spent online is a significant variable as far as
experiences with cyberbullying are concerned (Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2016;
Donner, 2016; Turan, Polat, Karapirli, Uysal, & Turan, 2011; Wright, 2016;Yubero,
Navarro, Elche, Larrañaga, & Ovejero, 2017; Zhang, Land, & Dick, 2010). Those
who spend more time online are more likely to experience cyberbullying. As time
spent online, for both personal and academic purposes, becomes more strongly
anchored in the daily life of university students and faculty members, cyberbully-
ing experiences are expected to follow.
In findings reported elsewhere, we noted that 24% of 1,925 students sur-
veyed at four Canadian universities had experienced cyberbullying in the past
12 months (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014) and 25% of 331 faculty members
surveyed had reported the same (Cassidy et al., 2016). Other studies on cyberbul-
lying in the post-secondary context in different countries have similarly reported
the existence of such experiences among students to varying degrees (e.g., Beran,
Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Blaya, this volume; Dilmaç, 2009; Francisco,
Simão, Ferreira, & Martins, 2015; Langos & Giancaspro, this volume; Molluzzo &
Lawler, 2012; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Turan et al., 2011; Walker, Sockman, &
Koehn, 2011;Wensley & Campbell, 2012) as well as among faculty members (e.g.,
Blizard, 2016; McKay et al., 2008; Minor, Smith, & Brashen, 2013;Vance, 2010).
Although some youth (Fiske, 2016) and university students (Crosslin & Gol-
man, 2014) may find the term outdated or childish, cyberbullying is perceived
by a majority of post-secondary students and faculty as a problem that requires
greater attention (Cassidy et al., 2016; Crosslin & Golman, 2014; Langos & Gian-
caspro, this volume). The perception of cyberbullying as childish behaviour, or
at least behaviour which one is expected to handle independently, likely inhibits
students’ (and faculty members’) willingness to report incidents of cyberbully-
ing (Francisco et al., 2015) and relates to their preference for autonomous cop-
ing strategies (Orel, Campbell, Wozencraft, Leong, & Kimpton, 2017; Wozencroft,
Campbell, Orel, Kimpton, & Leong, 2015).
What has become apparent in the gradually mounting body of work on cyber-
bullying in post-secondary is that the role of gender warrants closer consideration.
Multiple studies employing convenience sampling methods have had a large over-
representation of female participants (see Table 5.1). Although the disproportional
representation of female participants in these studies is not significant in and of
itself (and in some studies, the gender disparity is accounted for by representation
in the student body), it does serve to alert us to a gender disparity in attention to
the issue of cyberbullying in universities. It also invites us to consider the ways in
which the experiences of cyberbullying may differ by gender.
This emerging literature on cyberbullying in post-secondary institutions has
begun to reveal certain key gender differences, but more information is needed.
Francisco et al. (2015) found that female students in Portugal were more prone
to be aggressors and victims in cyberbullying. Such findings are paralleled in the
work of Zalaquett and Chatters (2014), Snell and Englander (2010), and Turan
TABLE 5.1 
Disparities in Gender Participation Among Studies of Cyberbullying in
Post-Secondary Institutions

Authors (year) Country Participants n % female

Adams and Lawrence USA Students 269 65.4

(2011)
Akbulut and Eristi (2011) Turkey Students 254 68.1
Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, Canada & USA Students 1,368 49.4
and Rich (2012)
Blaya (this volume) France Students Surveys: 1,125 70
Interviews: 20 60
Blizard (2016) Canada Faculty 36 75
Cassidy, Jackson, and Canada Faculty 331 68
Faucher (2016)
Condeza, Gallardo, and Chile Students 961 66.6
Reyes (this volume)
Crosslin and Golman USA Students 54 85
(2014)1
Dilmaç (2009) Turkey Students 666 65.3
Donner (2016) USA Students 522 66.1
Faucher et al. (2014) Canada Students 1,925 74
Finn (2004) USA Students 339 64.9
Francisco et al. (2015) Portugal Students 519 77.6
Langos and Giancaspro Australia Students 213 43.7
(this volume)
Minor et al. (2013) USA Faculty 68 41.2
Molluzzo and Lawler USA Students 121 58
(2012)
Orel et al. (2017); Australia Students 282 72.3
Wozencroft et al. (2015)
Schenk and Fremouw USA Students 799 71.6
(2012)
Snell and Englander USA Students 213 73
(2010)
Turan et al. (2011) Turkey Students 579 56.8
Vance (2010) USA Students & 225 students 63
faculty 56 faculty
Walker et al. (2011) USA Students 120 58.3
Wensley and Campbell Australia Students 528 80.7
(2012)
Wright (2016) USA Students 1,483 60
Yubero et al. (2017) Spain Students 243 67.9
 Note: all studies cited used survey methodology, except Crosslin and Golman (2014), which used
1

focus groups.
 Power in the tower 69

et al. (2011). Francisco et al. (2015) also reported that male cyberbullies tended to
act alone, whereas female cyberbullies tended to act in groups.
On the other hand, studies by Akbulut and Eristi (2011) in Turkey, Blaya (this
volume) in France, and Englander (2008) in the U.S. found cyberbullying to be
more common among male than female college students. Donner (2016) exam-
ined the gender gap in college students’ involvement in three forms of online
crime, including cyber-harassment, and found male involvement to be persistently
higher than that of female students. Dilmaç (2009) also found male students more
likely to report they had engaged in cyberbullying others, whereas female students
were more likely to report being victims of cyberbullying. Still others have found
no gender differences in prevalence of cyberbullying (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012;
Vance, 2010; Walker et al., 2011;Yubero et al., 2017).
One of the earliest studies in this field found LGBT students were twice as
likely to experience online harassment as heterosexual students (Finn, 2004).
Wensley and Campbell (2012) found higher cyberbullying perpetration rates
among non-heterosexual female students, and higher victimization rates among
non-heterosexual male students. Molluzzo and Lawler (2012) questioned students
regarding their awareness of cyberbullying against particular groups at their insti-
tution and the main target groups identified were: gay, lesbian, and female.
Preferred coping strategies may also vary by gender – female students were
more likely than males to use help-seeking coping strategies, whereas male stu-
dents were more likely to retaliate against the cyberbullying (Orel et al., 2017).
Schenk and Fremouw (2012) found that the most frequent types of coping strat-
egies were similar for male and female students (i.e., telling someone, avoiding
friends or peers, getting revenge), but some differences emerged with female stu-
dents also frequently responding that they would avoid the internet or their cell
phone, and male students reporting the use of substances such as alcohol or drugs
to cope.

Theoretical framework
A number of theoretical frameworks have attempted to account for gender dif-
ferences with respect to cyberbullying. Work on gender and cyberbullying in
elementary and secondary schools has adopted the frames of relational aggression
for girls (Jackson, Cassidy, & Brown, 2009) and cognitive and affective deficits for
boys (Topcu & Erdur-Baker, 2012). Relational aggression is used to exert a nega-
tive impact on friendships, group belonging, or standing by spreading rumours,
gossip, and slander (Crick et al., 1999). Cognitive and affective deficits may be
more likely to contribute to boys’ involvement in cyberbullying. Such deficits
may limit empathy as well as the ability to identify emotions and paralinguistic
cues. Both of these frames have some applicability to what is reportedly occur-
ring in universities as well (Faucher et al., 2014), but they are certainly lacking in
some respects.
70 Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

Donner (2016) has used social learning theory to account for the gender
gap in cyber-harassment and other cyber crimes among college students. He
examines socialization variables, such as self-control and immersion into cyber-
environments, in order to explain the gap. However, such variables cannot fully
account for the gender differences in male and female students’ level of involve-
ment in cyber crimes.
To orient our analysis of the gender differences, we borrow from the field
of intimate partner violence in situating our gendered analysis of cyberbullying
against the backdrop of the Duluth model (Pence & Paymar, 1993). This model
is a cognitive-behavioural approach used in counselling for males found guilty
of domestic violence. The model is premised on the Power and Control Wheel,
which specifies a range of ways in which power and control may manifest in an
abusive relationship. Of particular interest in our analysis of cyberbullying rela-
tionships are the elements relating to the use of intimidation, coercion, threats,
harmful language, emotional abuse, social standing, male privilege, exclusion, har-
assment, and using technology to send unwanted messages.
Much as in the field of intimate partner violence, the cyberbullying of women
and girls should not be divorced from the gendered hierarchies of power that
exist both online and offline and which contribute to the violence in the lives of
women and girls in numerous forms (Crooks, 2016; Halder & Jaishankar, 2009;
Navarro & Jasinski, 2013; Shariff & Gouin, 2005). While the internet may be a
source of empowerment for women and girls (Crooks, 2016), it can also contrib-
ute to maintaining their disadvantaged position in society (Navarro & Jasinski,
2013). The internet has furthered the ways in which gender exploitation may
occur, including pornography, sex trafficking, gender and sexual harassment, and
cyber-stalking (Halder & Jaishankar, 2009; Navarro & Jasinski, 2013; Shariff &
Gouin, 2005).
Power dynamics are integral to the hierarchical structure of post-secondary
institutions. Not only is power manifested through rank and status, but gender,
gender identity, sexuality, age, race, and ethnicity also are impactful features. Fur-
thermore, the manifestation of contrapower harassment (where the person with
ostensibly less power in the relationship harasses the individual with more power)
in student-faculty relations has been noted (DeSouza, 2010). De Souza (2010)
suggests that students, who may appear to be less powerful than faculty members,
may use the anonymity of the internet to engage in uncivil behaviour in retalia-
tion for actual or perceived slights.
A number of possible explanations have been offered for the use of con-
trapower harassment by post-secondary students in particular. The stress and
pressure experienced by students may cause a range of undesirable behaviours
including incivility, harassment, and bullying (Knepp, 2012). Furthermore, in a
context where faculty members hold control over students’ grades in particular,
students may experience some degree of frustration and powerlessness (Blizard,
2016). Some students adopt consumerist views of education and feel some degree
 Power in the tower 71

of entitlement with respect to their grades, such that they may react negatively
when faculty members do not meet their expectations (Blizard, 2016; DeSouza,
2010; Knepp, 2012; McKay et al., 2008). These situations may be further com-
pounded by universities overlooking student incivility in order to retain students
(Knepp, 2012) and collective agreements that account for top-down harassment,
but not for harassment of faculty by students (McKay et al., 2008). “The system
is also weighted heavily in favour of the student, through the process of linking
tenure and promotion to student evaluations” (McKay et al., 2008, p. 89).
Furthermore, a range of studies relating to contrapower harassment has clearly
pointed to the fact that those faculty members who are most likely to be treated
in this way by students are those who are perceived to have the least power in the
university based mostly on gender, age, sexuality, gender identity, race/ethnicity,
and rank (DeSouza, 2010; Knepp, 2012; Lampman, 2012; Sallee & Diaz, 2012).
Lampman (2012) points out that women are at greatest risk of being bullied or
disrespected by students in universities because they are underrepresented in the
highest ranks and in leadership roles within universities, less likely to work full-
time, and less likely to have tenured positions. Women’s authority tends to be
resisted by subordinates (as is the case for others with less power, such as minori-
ties and those in low-ranking positions). Thus, when women do not accommo-
date student requests for extensions, make-up exams, etc., they may be perceived
as breaking the prescriptive gender stereotype according to which women are
sensitive, nurturing, caring, etc. (Lampman, 2012). Lampman’s study of 524 profes-
sors from 100 colleges and universities in the U.S. also found that women faculty
were more likely than male faculty to report experiences of severe contrapower
harassment.
Contrapower harassment, however, is not the only manifestation of bullying
behaviour found in universities. Bullying between colleagues or peers has also
been reported. Lester’s (2009) study of workplace harassment among community
college faculty found the use of power to be significant. “Unlike other forms
of bullying that use direct threats and obvious harassment, using formal power
occurs by using institutionally or positionally relevant powers to silence and/or
control faculty colleagues” (p. 452). Racism and sexism were prevalent through-
out the forms of bullying noted in the study.
In Hollis’s (2012) survey of 401 individuals employed at one of 175 higher
education institutions in the U.S., higher rates of experience with workplace bul-
lying were found among respondents who were African Americans, women, and
members of the LGBT community. Witnesses of academic workplace bullying
noted that those with less power within the higher education administration were
more likely to be targeted. Taylor (2012) found that tenure status impacts faculty
members’ experiences with bullying in the academic workplace, both as targets
and as bullies. Non-tenure-track faculty reported the highest levels of exposure
and felt powerless to address the situation. Tenured faculty were more likely to be
targeted if they were perceived as ‘untouchable’ (i.e., the intent of the bullying was
72 Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

to create conditions that would lead to their resignation, or it was due to envy).
Tenure-track faculty members reported the lowest level of exposure. They are
not as powerless as non-tenure track, but easier to terminate than tenured faculty.
Yamada, Cappadocia, and Pepler’s (2014) Canadian study of psychology grad-
uate students and their supervisors provides additional evidence on the use of
power in universities. The academic context is particularly vulnerable to work-
place bullying “due to the competitive and individualistic nature of obtaining
promotions and progress through faculties and graduate programs” (p. 59). Gradu-
ate students are particularly vulnerable due to the power imbalance with their
supervisors, who may control their grades, recommendations, references, financial
support, and career opportunities.
In order to better understand bullying between peers, Walker et al. (2011)
applied social dominance theory, which suggests that power differentials may exist
based on age, gender, and other socially valued attributes and that ‘legitimizing
myths’ may operate to allow for any discrimination that exists along these lines. In
their comparison of the proportion of student respondents who reported expe-
riencing at least one of 13 specific scenarios (which constituted cyberbullying
according to the operational definition used by the authors) with the proportion
of respondents who reported that they had been cyberbullied, a significant dis-
crepancy arose (over 30% said yes to the former, 11% to the latter). The authors
suggest that students may consider some of these behaviours to be accepted parts
of online social life, which could suggest that legitimizing myths are operating.
In the following section, we briefly outline the methods employed in our
examination of cyberbullying among post-secondary students and faculty, fol-
lowed by a summary of the findings, and their analysis in relation to the lens of
power.

Methods
In order to examine the nature, extent, impacts, and solutions to cyberbullying in
the post-secondary context, the authors developed two online surveys dissemi-
nated at four Canadian universities. The universities are situated in different parts
of the country and vary in size and profile. The surveys each contained over 100
items asking respondents about basic demographic information, background on
ICT usage patterns, experiences with cyberbullying in the past 12 months, and
solutions and opinions about the problem. Both closed and open-ended questions
were included. The research ethics office of the researchers’ university as well as
of the participating universities reviewed and approved the study. The data were
collected over short periods between late 2012 and early 2014 at the different
universities.
Cyberbullying was defined in the surveys as using language that can defame,
threaten, harass, bully, exclude, discriminate, demean, humiliate, stalk, disclose
personal information, or contain offensive, vulgar, or derogatory comments. The
 Power in the tower 73

intent to harm was emphasized. Respondents were also provided with a list of
examples such as receiving nasty, mean, rude, vulgar, hurtful, or harassing email
or text messages; having terrible, derogatory, sexist, racist, or homophobic things
written about you online; someone posting an embarrassing photo or video of
you online; someone pretending to be you online; and being deliberately excluded
from an online group or chat.
Descriptive statistics were examined for the closed-ended questions and the-
matic content analysis was conducted on the open-ended questions.

Findings
More detailed findings from these surveys have been reported separately else-
where (Cassidy et al., 2016; Faucher et al., 2014). We focus here on the analysis of
similarities and differences between the results of the two surveys as they relate to
gender, which has emerged as a key consideration.
As noted previously, participation in both of these surveys was consistent with
what appears to be a trend in the literature to date on cyberbullying in the post-
secondary sector in that voluntary female participation far outnumbered male
participation. On the student survey, the female-to-male ratio was 3:1, and for
the faculty survey it was 2:1. A very small number of respondents provided an
alternate gender identity, and it was not possible to include these respondents
in the gender analysis. What is clear in terms of the female-to-male ratios is that
they are not consistent with the reported gender ratios for Canadian university
students or faculty (Council of Canadian Academies, 2012; websites of participat-
ing universities).
The student sample consisted of 1,925 students, 74% of whom were women
and 51% of whom were Caucasian. The students were primarily undergradu-
ates and were fairly evenly drawn from first, second, third, and fourth years. The
faculty sample was composed of 331 faculty members, 68% women, 84% Cauca-
sian and included professors, teaching assistants, instructors, lecturers, advisors, and
other teaching-related university personnel. There was a fairly even distribution
between those with less than five years of experience and those with more than
five years and/or permanent or tenured positions.
Respondents to both surveys reported similar rates of cyberbullying victimiza-
tion overall (24.1% of students and 25% of faculty had been cyberbullied in the
last 12 months). However, although rates for male and female students were fairly
similar (25.4% and 23.8%, respectively), female faculty members (27%) were much
more likely than male faculty members (18%) to have been cyberbullied.The rates
for cyberbullying of faculty members by students were more similar for men and
women (13% and 16%, respectively), but there was a wider gap between those
who reported being cyberbullied by a faculty colleague (8% of male respondents
and 14% of female respondents). For students, male respondents were more likely
than female students to have been cyberbullied by someone they did not know,
74 Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

whereas female students were more likely to report having been cyberbullied by a
friend or acquaintance at the university. For faculty, the vast majority of cyberbul-
lying victims knew the perpetrators (students and/or faculty).
Students experienced cyberbullying in a wide range of formats: social networks,
email, text messages, non-course-related blogs, forums, or chat rooms. Social
networks and text messages were more frequently cited by female respondents,
whereas the non-course-related blogs, forums, or chat rooms were more often
mentioned by male respondents. Male respondents were overrepresented among
those who reported experiencing extensive cyberbullying via email, email photo,
text message, course-related sites, other blogs, forums, or chat rooms, impersona-
tion, and “other” which predominantly consisted of cyberbullying in online gam-
ing. On the other hand, faculty overwhelmingly experienced cyberbullying over
email, with professor-rating sites and course-related sites, blogs, forums, and chat
rooms a distant second and third.
When asked for the reasons for which they had been cyberbullied, students
who knew the reasons generally provided answers such as interpersonal problems,
their physical appearance, or other reasons such as differences of opinions/beliefs,
it was part of an online game, or it was a joke. Males also cited their ethnicity
as a reason for which they were cyberbullied, while female students mentioned
their gender as a primary reason for the cyberbullying they experienced. Female
faculty respondents also cited their gender as a primary reason for which they
became targets of cyberbullying. Other reasons cited by faculty tended to be
related to their work. When they were targeted by students, they felt it was often
due to teaching-related reasons (such as students being unhappy with a grade
they received or some aspect of the course they were taking), or their position
or role at the university. When they were targeted by colleagues, faculty members
primarily cited work-related reasons, such as a professional difference of opinion,
competition between colleagues, professional jealousy, their professional status, or
attempts to establish power and control. Their position or role at the university
was also cited, as was age in some cases.
Approximately 5% of respondents to the student survey admitted to having
cyberbullied someone at the university in the past 12 months. When asked about
their intent, male and female respondents identified insulting as a primary intent,
as well as defaming when the cyberbullying targeted faculty members. Further-
more, some male respondents also identified intents such as humiliating, harassing,
and threatening. Faculty respondents were not asked about whether they had
engaged in cyberbullying, but they were asked about the perceived intent of the
cyberbullying that was directed at them. They reported similar intents to those
cited by students: insulting, demanding, demeaning, belittling, being derogatory,
spreading rumours, harassing, and being rude or vulgar.
In both surveys, female victims were much more likely than male victims to
talk to someone about what they were experiencing, though few students or
faculty reported the cyberbullying to someone at the university. They tended to
 Power in the tower 75

prefer telling close friends, family, or partners. Faculty members also told col-
leagues, but they did not tell superiors or others who might help them in an
official capacity.
Also in both surveys, female respondents reported a far wider range and extent
of impacts stemming from their cyberbullying experiences. In all categories of
effects about which they were surveyed, female students and faculty members
were more likely than their male counterparts to acknowledge the effects, includ-
ing mental and physical health issues, impacts on ability to work/study, impacts
on relationships inside and outside the university, desire to remain at the univer-
sity, feeling their emotional security and/or physical safety were threatened, and
thoughts of suicide and self-harm.

Discussion
In line with most studies to date on the cyberbullying of post-secondary students
and/or faculty, the vast majority of those who voluntarily participated in this
study were women. We also note some differences between the experiences with
cyberbullying for male and female study participants, suggesting that an analysis
that takes gender into account is relevant.
Among students, the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization appears to be
generally gender neutral, and no clear gender pattern has emerged in the existing
literature, which contains contradictory findings as to whether female students
are more or less likely to be victims and/or perpetrators (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011;
Blaya, this volume; Dilmaç, 2009; Donner, 2016; Francisco et al., 2015; Schenk &
Fremouw, 2012; Snell & Englander, 2010; Turan et al., 2011; Vance, 2010; Walker
et al., 2011;Yubero et al., 2017; Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014).The different types of
cyberbullying behaviours examined and different cyber-environments frequented
by male and female students may account for some of the variations observed. For
instance, in our study, students had experienced cyberbullying in a wide range of
online settings, and there were significant variations between the online spaces
where female and male respondents had experienced cyberbullying.
For faculty, however, the gender pattern noted in this study more clearly points
to a greater likelihood for female faculty members to be targeted. Such a finding
is in line with existing studies on cyberbullying and other forms of incivility and
harassment in universities (Blizard, 2016; DeSouza, 2010; Hollis, 2012; Knepp,
2012; Lampman, 2012; Sallee & Diaz, 2012). The clearer pattern may also be
partially accounted for by the vast consensus that email was the primary means
through which the cyberbullying targeting faculty members was carried out, with
professor-rating sites and course-related sites also being identified. These forms of
technology may not have as much gender variability in usage as those noted in
relation to the cyberbullying targeting students.
Although victimization is spread between men and women, the reasons for the
targeting of women also point to other disadvantaged groups who may experience
76 Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

similar vulnerabilities, such as individuals from the LGBTQ communities or racial

and ethnic minorities.
The examination of intents (actual or perceived) of the cyberbullying against
both students and faculty members highlights a number of elements from the
Power and Control Wheel. The elements of using technology to send unwanted
messages, as well as threats and harassment, were directly cited by the respond-
ents. Furthermore, intents such as belittling, demeaning, insulting, and humiliat-
ing the target all refer to the element of emotional abuse. Attacks on the targets’
social standing were highlighted through intents such as defaming and spreading
rumours. Lastly, messages that were perceived by the targets as demanding bring
to mind the element of coercion.

Conclusion and action points

Universities reproduce power hierarchies in society. Although the numbers of
women in post-secondary education are growing, even to the point of surpassing
the number of men in some areas, these numbers do not appear to be sufficient
to de-stabilize the long-standing hierarchical structures grounded in gender, race,
and class discrimination and privilege that have shaped these institutions.
Cyberbullying is inscribed within this context and may merely be the newest
manifestation of power relations and gender inequality in the post-secondary
context. As with the field of intimate partner violence from which the Power
and Control model is borrowed, men and women both experience such vio-
lence. However, women are more likely to be victims of family violence in
Canada, as well as around the world, and they experience more frequent and
more prolonged effects of the violence they endure (Statistics Canada, 2017;
World Health Organization, 2013), as is also the case with the cyberbullying
they experience.
Universities, as places of learning, must attend to the factors that prevent the
learning environment from fostering positive outcomes by ensuring the well-being
of all involved. Some suggestions stemming from the findings of this research that
would help universities to address cyberbullying more effectively and to prevent it
in the first place include:

• Develop, implement, communicate, enforce, and review university poli-

cies that speak to the issue of cyberbullying. Hold the campus community
responsible for upholding standards of conduct (including online conduct)
that support the well-being of all community members and promote an
engaging learning environment.
• Generate awareness of the issue of cyberbullying, its nature, extent, and
impacts on the university community.
• Create and promote services to assist those who have been victims of cyber-
bullying. Recognize the difficulties for victims coming forward to seek help
 Power in the tower 77

and remove those barriers. Understand the victims’ needs and follow up to
ensure they are met appropriately.

References
Adams, F. D., & Lawrence, G. L. (2011). Bullying victims:The effects last into college. Ameri-
can Secondary Education, 40(1), 4–13.
Akbulut,Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish university
students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1155–1170.
Beran,T. N., Rinaldi, C., Bickham, D. S., & Rich, M. (2012). Evidence for the need to sup-
port adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progres-
sion, and impact. School Psychology International, 33(5), 562–576.
Blaya, C. (this volume). Cyberbullying among university students in France: Prevalence, con-
sequences, coping and intervention strategies. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson
(Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 9–22). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Blizard, L. M. (2016). Faculty members’ perceived experiences of cyberbullying by stu-
dents at one Canadian university: Impact and recommendations. International Research
in Higher Education, 1(1), 107–124.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2016). Gender differences and cyberbullying
towards faculty members in higher education. In R. Navarro, S.Yubero, & E. Larrañaga
(Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health (pp. 79–98). Basel,
Switzerland: Springer.
Condeza, R., Gallardo, G., & Reyes, P. (this volume). In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jack-
son (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 36–51). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
Council of Canadian Academies. (2012). Strengthening Canada’s research capacity: The gender
dimension – The expert panel on women in university research. Ottawa, ON: Council of
Canadian Academies.
Crick, N.,Werner, N., Casas, J., O’Brien, K., Nelson, D., Grotpeter, J., & Markon, K. (1999).
Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 75–141). Lincoln, NB: University
of Nebraska Press.
Crooks, H. R. (2016). An intersectional feminist review of the literature on gendered
cyberbullying: Digital girls. Jeunesse:Young People,Texts, Cultures, 8(2), 62–88.
Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it” – College students’
perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20.
DeSouza, E. R. (2010). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher
education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 48(11), 1–27.
Dilmaç, B. (2009). Psychological needs as predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary report
on college students. Educational Sciences:Theory & Practice, 9(3), 1307–1325.
Donner, C. M. (2016).The gender gap and cybercrime: An examination of college students’
online offending. Victims & Offenders, 11(4), 556–577.
Englander, E. K. (2008). Cyberbullying and information exposure: User-generated content in post-
secondary education. In Massachusetts Aggression Research Center (MARC) Publica-
tions, Paper 11.
Faucher, C., Cassidy,W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Comparing
the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the work-
place. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111–125.
78 Chantal Faucher, Wanda Cassidy, and Margaret Jackson

Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International, 2014,
1–10.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 468–483.
Fiske, N. W. (2016). Framing Internet safety: The governance of youth online. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Francisco, S. M., Simão, A. M.V., Ferreira, P. C., & Martins, M. J. D. D. (2015). Cyberbullying:
The hidden side of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 167–182.
Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2009). Cyber socializing and victimization of women. Temida,
5–26.
Hollis, L. P. (2012). Bully in the ivory tower: How aggression and incivility erode American higher
education. Wilmington, DE: Patricia Berkly.
Jackson, M., Cassidy, W., & Brown, K. (2009). “you were born ugly and youl die ugly too”:
Cyber-bullying as relational aggression. In Education, 15(2), part. 1, 68–82.
Knepp, K. A. F. (2012). Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 33–46.
Lampman, C. (2012). Women faculty at risk: U.S. professors report on their experiences
with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual attention. NASPA Journal About
Women in Higher Education, 5(2), 184–208.
Langos, C., & Giancaspro, M. (this volume). Cyberbullying in the Australian context: The
shades of harm and implications for law and policy. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 181–197). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Lester, J. (2009). Not your child’s playground: Workplace bullying among community col-
lege faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(5), 444–462.
McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia:
A Canadian study. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 20, 77–100.
Minor, M., Smith, G. S., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Journal
of Educational Research and Practice, 3(1), 15–29.
Molluzzo, J. C., & Lawler, J. P. (2012). A study of the perceptions of college students on
cyberbullying. Information Systems Education Journal, 10(4), 84–109.
Navarro, J. N., & Jasinski, J. L. (2013). Why girls? Using Routine Activities Theory to pre-
dict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(4),
286–303.
Orel, A., Campbell, M., Wozencraft, K., Leong, E., & Kimpton, M. (2017). Exploring uni-
versity students’ coping strategy intentions for cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 32(3), 446–462.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter:The Duluth Model. New
York: Springer.
Sallee, M., & Diaz, C. (2012). Sexual harassment, racist jokes, and homophobic slurs: When
bullies target identity groups. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education
(pp. 41–59). New York: Routledge.
Schenk, A. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of
cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 21–37.
Shariff, S., & Gouin, R. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas: Gendered hierarchies, free expression and cyber-
safety in schools. Paper presented at Oxford Internet Institute International conference
Safety and Security in a Networked World. Oxford, UK. Retrieved from www.oii.
ox.ac.uk/cyber-safety.
 Power in the tower 79

Snell, P. A., & Englander, E. K. (2010). Cyberbullying victimization and behaviors among
girls: Applying research findings in the field. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 510–514.
Statistics Canada. (2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. Juristat, 85,
1–77.
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female
university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.
Taylor, S. (2012). Workplace bullying: Does tenure change anything? The example of a
Midwestern research university. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education
(pp. 23–40). New York: Routledge.
Topcu, Ç., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2012). Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gen-
der differences in cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International, 33(5),
550–561.
Turan, N., Polat, O., Karapirli, M., Uysal, C., & Turan, S. G. (2011). The new violence type
of the era: Cyber bullying among university students – Violence among university stu-
dents. Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research, 17, 21–26.
Vance, J. W. (2010). Cyber-harassment in higher education: Online learning environments.
Ed.D. dissertation. Retrieved from University of Southern California Digital Library
(usctheses-m2954).
Walker, C. M., Sockman, B. R., & Koehn, S. (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying
with undergraduate university students. TechTrends, 55(2), 31–38.
Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young university
students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behav-
ior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 649–654.
World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women:
Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Wozencroft, K., Campbell, M., Orel, A., Kimpton, M., & Leong, E. (2015). University
students’ intention to report cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Educational and Develop-
mental Psychology, 15, 1–12.
Wright, M. (2016). Cyber victimization on college campuses: Longitudinal associations
with suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Criminal Justice Review, 41(2), 190–203.
Yamada, S., Cappadocia, M. C., & Pepler, D. (2014). Workplace bullying in graduate psy-
chology programs: Students perspectives of student-supervisor relationships. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology, 8, 58–67.
Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying vic-
timization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and
emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–449.
Zalaquett, C. P., & Chatters, S. J. (2014). Cyberbullying in college: Frequency, characteris-
tics, and practical implications. Sage Open, 4(1), 1–8.
Zhang, A. T., Land, L. P. W., & Dick, G. (2010). Key influences of cyberbullying for univer-
sity students. PACIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 83.
6
CYBERBULLYING WITHIN
WORKING CONTEXTS IAIN COYNE AND SAMUEL FARLEYCYBERBULLYING WITHIN WORKING CONTEXTS

Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Comparative to the literature on traditional workplace bullying and school-based

cyberbullying, systematic empirical research exploring cyberbullying within
working contexts is at an embryonic stage. Scholars are directing increasing atten-
tion to this research topic, and there is no doubt that our knowledge of cyberbul-
lying at work will expand rapidly in the near future; yet, only a limited number
of studies have focused specifically on cyberbullying within university employee
samples (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014; Coyne et al., 2017). This chapter
adopts a broader work-based perspective outlining and debating the extant litera-
ture and the implications this may have for a university workplace. The chapter
commences with a brief review of workplace bullying research before focusing its
attention on cyberbullying within working contexts. We follow with a discussion
conceptualizing cyberbullying at work, debating its similarities with and differ-
ences from traditional workplace bullying. Next, we address evidence of cyber-
bullying rates and critically evaluate the measurement of this behaviour, as well as
debate the impact of cyberbullying on individual and organizational well-being.
We then turn our attention to understanding some of the antecedents of cyber-
bullying and theoretical notions of why this behaviour may occur within work
settings. We conclude by outlining future areas of action.
Over the last 30 years, the proliferation of research evidence published on
traditional workplace bullying has resulted in an enhanced understanding of what
the behaviour is, measurements in establishing prevalence rates, the impact on
individuals and organizations, situational and individual antecedents of bullying,
theoretical models explaining bullying, and, more recently, strategies to reduce
workplace bullying.
Evidence is consistent in highlighting a wide variety of psychological, psy-
chosomatic, and physiological effects in victims (see Coyne, 2011) and witnesses
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 81

of workplace bullying (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2004). Within university

employee samples, investigations demonstrate consequences for victims includ-
ing depression and anxiety (Björkqvist, Österman, & Hjelt-Bäck, 1994), a greater
risk of alcohol abuse (Richman, Rospenda, Flaherty, & Freels, 2001), percep-
tions of shame (Lewis, 2004), and higher mental strain (Coyne et al., 2017). At
an organizational level, data exist indicating increased absenteeism (Kivimaki,
Elovainio, & Vahtera, 2000), lower job satisfaction (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), and
negative perceptions of team performance (Coyne, Craig, & Smith-Lee Chong,
2004). In UK university samples specifically, Coyne et al. (2017) found a nega-
tive relationship between the experience of traditional bullying and job satisfac-
tion. Empirical data, which illuminates the severe negative outcomes faced by
individuals and organizations resulting from workplace bullying, augment the
interest in this topic area and stresses the need to find solutions to reduce this
behaviour.

Conceptualizing traditional workplace bullying

Perhaps one of the first confusing features individuals face when trying to under-
stand the concept of workplace bullying is the use of different, yet seemingly
similar, terms within the literature. Scholars are furnished with an assortment of
such mixed terms, including mobbing (Zapf & Einarsen, 2001), abusive supervi-
sion (Tepper, 2000), workplace incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005),
and social undermining (Crossley, 2009). These terms appear to represent similar
behaviours, yet are defended stoutly by proponents of each concept as possessing
uniquely defined characteristics. Critically, Hershcovis (2010) advocates against
differentiating concepts on the basis of “unique features”: wherein measurement
of these concepts tends not to reflect adequately the uniqueness espoused by
scholars, and empirical evidence indicates minimal differences between concepts
in their relationship to outcomes.
Albeit, some disagreement exists on what bullying is; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and
Cooper (2003) attempted to draw the body of research together to define work-
place bullying. They suggest it is:

harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting

someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be
applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeat-
edly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six
months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person
confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of sys-
tematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the inci-
dent is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal “strength”
are in conflict.
(p. 15)
82 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Inherent within this definition are criteria of frequency, duration, and power
imbalance – all three of which differentiate workplace bullying from other related
aggressive acts. Notably, unlike school bullying and general aggression research,
workplace bullying definitions tend not to include intent. Arguments for this
approach include the difficulty in measuring intent (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, &
Cooper, 2011) and the possibility that perpetrators may disguise their true inten-
tions to rationalize their behaviour to others (Samnani, 2013). Support exists on
including frequency, duration, and power imbalance within workplace bully-
ing definitions (Zapf & Einarsen, 2001); however, Rayner and Cooper (2006)
argue how persistency allows a perpetrator to rationalize a one-off negative act as
something that is not bullying. Furthermore, Saunders, Huynh, and Goodman-
Delahunty (2007) illustrate differences between academic definitions of bullying
and how the concept is conceptualized by its practitioners.

The extent of traditional bullying

Organizational and national surveys have provided stakeholders with an indica-
tion of the extent of workplace bullying. Chronologically, rates of those experi-
encing bullying that were reported include 8.8% in Finland (Salin, 2001), 10.6%
in the UK (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001), and 28% in the U.S. (Lutgen-
Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007). More recently, a meta-analysis across 86 studies
by Nielsen, Matthiesen, and Einarsen (2010) illustrates a mean prevalence rate of
14.6%. In relation to university employees specifically, data show prevalence rates
of 30–45% (depending on gender) (Björkqvist et al., 1994), 23% (Spratlen, 1995),
and 6.2% (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996).
We could argue that the plethora of survey data provides a clear indication
that bullying pervades the workplace worldwide. The difficulty is in answering
the question “to what extent”? As shown, bullying rates vary widely across studies
and countries. While the meta-analysis offers a synopsis of existing data, it is not
evident what the actual level of bullying is. Critics have pointed to problems in
methodology within survey research (Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, & Pereira,
2002), including variability in the timeframe adopted for bullying (e.g., at least
6 months, over the year, or ever in career) and the lack of verification for self-
reported bullying exposure. Additionally, the method used to establish victim sta-
tus moderates the bullying rates recorded (Coyne, Smith-Lee Chong, Seigne, &
Randall, 2003; Nielsen et al., 2010). Coyne et al. identify different victim rates
(ranging from 3.9% to 39.6%) that depend on whether a definition of self-report,
peer-report, or a combination of self-report and peer-report was used to classify
one’s victim status. Nielsen et al. emphasize variability of prevalence rates for a
self-labelling approach using a definition (11.3%), self-labelling without a defini-
tion (18.1%), and a behaviour-based scale (14.8%).
Currently, no definitive guidance exists that advocates a specific way to assess
bullying rates. Researchers have started to adopt a combination of self-reporting
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 83

to a definition with behaviour-based scales as the default method for assessing

prevalence rates. Additionally, support for the latent class cluster analysis method-
ology, which is more complex, has also been provided (Nielsen et al., 2009).

Antecedents of workplace bullying

Research on workplace bullying antecedents has focused principally on organiza-
tional factors that promote workplace bullying. Evidence has emerged indicating
that organizations characterized as stressful (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007),
politicized (Salin, 2003), going through change (Harvey, Heames, Richey, &
Leonard, 2006), and with poor leadership (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Ein-
arsen, 2010) are likely to experience heightened levels of bullying. Modelling
these factors, Salin (2003) suggests that for bullying to occur in an organization
there needs to be an initial trigger event: something which allows the bullying to
evolve (e.g., organizational change), a motivating process allowing a rationale for
the behaviour (e.g., competition), and conditions that facilitate bullying (e.g., poor
management). In commenting on research discussing bullying among university
students, Coyne (2016) suggests Salin’s model may explain university bullying as:

the transition (change) to university . . . provides the trigger for bullying

to evolve and the competitive environment . . . which normalizes abusive
behaviour . . . provides the motivation to engage in bullying.When these are
coupled with a lack of clear policies on bullying and power differentials . . .,
you have the right environment for bullying to occur.
(p. 204)

By comparison, individual-level explanations have received less attention, with

some dismissing their usefulness for understanding workplace bullying. However,
other researchers posit that disposition may help us understand the likely targets
of bullying – based on the extent of their vulnerability or provocative nature
(Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000). Additionally, perpetrators of bullying have been
hypothesized as possessing inflated self-esteem, low empathy, and a heightened
need for power (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003).
Theoretically, bullying specific models have attempted to capture both
individual and organizational characteristics as antecedents of bullying (e.g.,
Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Einarsen et al., 2003). Other scholars have focused on
bullying from a conflict perspective (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007) or drawn on
existing psychological models on job characteristics (Notelaers, Witte, & Ein-
arsen, 2010), fairness perceptions (Parzefall & Salin, 2010), and job demands/
resources (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011). Although, there is still some
way to go in testing the robustness of theoretical models explaining workplace
bullying, these relatively recent advances are providing fruitful areas of future
research.
84 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Conceptualizing cyberbullying within working contexts

Empirical research on cyberbullying at work may be viewed as the younger sib-
ling of traditional workplace bullying research – albeit one which is at the begin-
ning of its growth spurt. We know comparatively little about this phenomenon
in working contexts and, as a result, researchers have tended to cogitate about
it: using ideas gleaned from traditional workplace bullying and/or cyberbullying
among children/adolescents. Not surprisingly, current thinking is dominated by
existing ideas in these other domains; yet, more surprisingly, similar issues and
concerns raised in traditional bullying research afflict this area (e.g., differing defi-
nitions and debates about essential defining criteria).
Table 6.1 highlights a number of definitions of workplace cyberbullying and
related concepts. Mirroring the traditional bullying literature, we see a variety of
concepts promoted with some similarities and some “unique differences”. The
majority of the definitions (e.g., Farley, Coyne, Axtell, & Sprigg, 2016; Lim &
Teo, 2009; Weatherbee & Kelloway, 2006) closely reflect their offline equiva-
lent counterparts, with the addition of a technological component; others (e.g.,
Whitty & Carr, 2006; Willard, 2007) promote technologically specific concepts;
while Vranjes, Baillien,Vandebosch, Erreygers, and De Witte (2017) suggest both
a similar and technologically specific feature to the behaviour.
Firstly, these differences add another level of complexity to what Hershcovis
(2010) would refer to as an “abundance of overlapping constructs” (p. 499). Now,
not only do we have to contend with whether incivility, aggression, and bullying
are similar or different, but we also need to take the online/offline component
into consideration. Coyne et al. (2017) argue that as workplace cyberbullying
involves frequency, is focused on high-intensity behaviours, and tends not to con-
sider organizational outsiders, it differs conceptually from cyber-aggression and
cyber-incivility. However, this position is exactly the criticism Hershcovis levels at
offline “aggression” research.
Secondly, the different definitions echo the current debate on whether work-
place cyberbullying is simply bullying using technology (Coyne et al., 2017) or
whether it is conceptually distinct from offline bullying. In this latter respect,
Vranjes et al. (2017) posit specific characteristics of cyberbullying which support
the conceptually distinct hypothesis:

• Communication online is less rich as a result of a lack of non-verbal cues.

Consequently, perpetrators are less aware of their impact on others.
• Online communication allows for anonymity and reduces the victim’s con-
trol over the behaviour.
• Cyberbullying blurs the public/private boundary, becoming intrusive and
restricting a victim’s ability to escape.
• The power imbalance derives more from technical power.
• The volume and speed of the abuse (viral reach) is increased when the behav-
iour is online.
TABLE 6.1 Definitions of Cyberbullying at Work and Related Concepts

Authors Concept Definition

Whitty and Carr Cyber- “obscene or hate email that threatens or frightens,
(2006, pp. 237– harassment or emails that contain offensive content, such as
238) sexist or racist material . . . this material can be
sent by people . . . (either known or unknown
to the person)”
Weatherbee and Cyberaggression “aggression expressed in a communication
Kelloway (2006, between two or more people using
p. 461) ICTs, wherein at least one person in the
communication aggresses against another in
order to effect harm”
Willard (2007, Flaming “heated, short lived argument that occurs between
p. 5) two or more protagonists”.
Lim and Teo Cyber incivility “communicative behavior exhibited in computer-
(2009, p. 419) mediated interactions that violate workplace
norms of mutual respect”
Zhang and Workplace “instances where an employee is systematically
Leidner (2014, cyberbullying exposed to repeated negative treatment from
p. 2) supervisors, colleagues or subordinates by
electronic forms of contact over a long period of
time, in a situation in which the perpetrator has
more power than the target”
Farley et al. (2016, Workplace “a situation where over time, an individual is
p. 295) cyberbullying repeatedly subjected to perceived negative acts
conducted through technology (e.g. phone,
email, web sites, social media) which are related
to their work context. In this situation the
target of workplace cyberbullying has difficulty
defending him or herself against these actions”
Forssell (2016, Workplace “Negative acts carried out by a group or an
p. 457) cyberbullying individual using digital media.The acts are
carried out repeatedly and over time against
a victim who cannot easily defend him or
herself. Online harassment can be expressed
by offensive or rude text messages, email, or
someone posting unpleasant and offensive
information (picture, videos, or text) on the
Internet”
Vranjes et al. Workplace “all negative behavior stemming from the work
(2017, p. 326) cyberbullying context and occurring through the use of ICTs,
which is either (a) carried out repeatedly and
over a period of time or (b) conducted at least
once but forms an intrusion into someone’s
private life (potentially) exposing it to a wide
online audience.This behavior leaves the target
feeling helpless and unable to defend”
86 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Our contention is that while we acknowledge and agree there are contextual
features to workplace cyberbullying not seen in traditional bullying, these features
do not change the conceptualization of the concept (bullying is still bullying);
rather, they may help to explain why people engage in the behaviour and/or the
extent of impact on the target. This is perhaps best illustrated by discussing the
definitional criteria of frequency, duration, and power imbalance seen in offline
bullying definitions.
Traditionally, the frequency and duration component of bullying refers to
the same person regularly experiencing negative behaviour over a long period
of time. What constitutes repetition in the virtual environment is more ambigu-
ous, especially when considering a single online act, shared in the public domain
that can be viewed repeatedly by a broad audience – which may or may not be
shared by the initial perpetrator. Nevertheless, while not conforming strictly to
original ideas around frequency and duration, the victim will still regularly expe-
rience the behaviour over a prolonged period of time: they could even encounter
the cyberbullying for longer (due to their inability to escape) and more fre-
quently (the viral reach of the act). A second issue relating to repetition is the
co-occurrence of online and offline bullying behaviour. School-based (Sticca,
Ruggieri, Alsaker, & Perren, 2013) and work-related research (Coyne et al.,
2017) has identified relationships between experiencing offline bullying and
cyberbullying. Co-occurrence of both behaviours raises the issue of whether a
respondent is experiencing cyberbullying or whether they are actually facing
regular bullying (which has started to manifest in technological form). In the
latter case, one could claim that the movement across media is indicative of
frequency and duration.
Elements of power imbalance may differ when comparing cyberbullying to
traditional bullying. Cyberbullying victims are potentially in a stronger position,
as they can terminate negative interactions more easily by not responding to mes-
sages (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007). However, Heatherington and Coyne
(2014) argue that a victim’s perceived lack of power, rather than the bully’s pos-
session of it, characterizes the power differential in the virtual environment. We
suggest that Vranjes et al.’s (2017) position of cyberbullying being conceptually
different from offline bullying still falls under the remit of power differential –
albeit extending our perception of what power is:

• Due to the spread of technology and the lack of boundaries within online
communication, employees can be subjected to cyberbullying in their own
homes, which may heighten feelings of powerlessness.
• Technological ability by the perpetrator or limited technology ability by the
target can result in victim perceptions of powerlessness, as they are unable to
force a perpetrator to remove abusive material or cannot influence what oth-
ers write about them.
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 87

• Anonymity can increase uncertainty, as victims do not know the perpetrators –

or even whether there is more than one perpetrator – thereby creating a feeling
of powerlessness.

At the beginning of this section, we expressed surprise that similar concerns lev-
elled at traditional workplace bullying seem to permeate the research on work-
place cyberbullying. The debate on what the concept is – and whether it is
different from its online counterpart – perhaps illustrates these concerns clearly.
Ideally, as the research evidence matures, researchers and practitioners will reach
a level of consensus on how to conceptualize this form of interpersonal abusive
behaviour.

Types, rates, and impact of workplace cyberbullying

Recent research has begun to unearth behaviours that may occur during work-
place cyberbullying situations. Behaviours experienced by employees include
anonymous abusive emails sent to everyone within an organization, negative pub-
lic posts uploaded on social networking websites (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013), not
receiving responses to emails or text messages, and necessary work-related infor-
mation being withheld (Forssell, 2016). Examples reported by Human Resource
(HR) professionals include employees posting inappropriate comments about
their colleagues on the internet, distributing jokes via work email, and cyberstalk-
ing after an office romance had broken down (West, Foster, Levin, Edmison, &
Robibero, 2014).
The limited evidence in working populations to date for cyberbullying
has shown rates in the UK of 9.2% (Baruch, 2005), in the U.S./Canada of 9%
(Ford, 2013), 10.7% in Australia (Privitera & Campbell, 2009), 2.8% in New
Zealand (Gardner et al., 2016), and 9.7% in Sweden (Forssell, 2016). Within
a university context, Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, and Kowalski
(2012) reported 26% of a sample of U.S. university employees had experi-
enced cyber-incivility, and Cassidy et al. (2014) reported rates of 17% among
Canadian university faculty. Across three different UK university employee
samples, Coyne et al. (2017) detailed cyberbullying victim rates between
13.6% and 20.8%.
At this juncture, one almost experiences a sense of déjà vu observing the
variety of prevalence rates for bullying at work. The variation apparent in the
prevalence of cyberbullying may be due to existing cyberbullying measures being
either too narrow in scope, focusing only on one medium such as email (Baruch);
assessing constructs such as cyber-aggression (Ford) or cyber-incivility (Guimetti
et al.); or using an adapted version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) for
use in cyber-contexts (Coyne et al.; Forssell). Different methodologies and differ-
ent categorization approaches create the pattern of victim rates seen above. It is
88 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

only very recently that a specific workplace cyberbullying measure (WCM) has
been developed and validated (Farley et al., 2016), which may provide a metric for
assessing victim and target rates of cyberbullying at work – including universities.
As with traditional bullying, we may see the norm being the use of the WCM,
with an additional self-reported item added, to assess victim rates of cyberbullying
at work.
Paralleling traditional bullying research, evidence to date reveals experiencing
cyberbullying has negative implications for both individuals and organizations.
Cross-sectional investigations have shown relationships between cyberbully-
ing, anxiety, and an intention to leave one’s workplace (Baruch, 2005); general
well-being and fear of future harassment (Ford, 2013); perceived stress and low
optimism (Snyman & Loh, 2015); and mental strain and job dissatisfaction (Far-
ley, Coyne, Sprigg, Axtell, & Subramanian, 2015). University-specific studies
on cyber-incivility have shown correlations with general job stress and burn-
out (Giumetti et al., 2012), as well as on cyberbullying with negative emotion,
mental strain, perceived injustice, and job dissatisfaction (Cassidy, Faucher, &
Jackson, this volume; Coyne et al., 2017). Indeed, in this latter study, the authors
hypothesized that the “unique features” of cyberbullying (espoused earlier) may
result in more severe outcomes when compared to traditional bullying; they also
provide data to show that the strength of relationship between cyberbullying
experience, mental strain, and job dissatisfaction was stronger than for offline
bullying.

Antecedents of and theoretical approaches to

cyberbullying within work
Expected within a developing research area, knowledge on the antecedents of
workplace cyberbullying is sparse. Gardner et al. (2016) offer some initial results
from a two-wave study: finding significant correlations between poor physical
health, low organizational support, and low effective organizational strategies
when first experiencing cyberbullying and then again at three months later. If
we concur with the view that cyberbullying within working contexts is con-
ceptually similar to offline bullying, then researchers have a ready-made com-
pendium of possible antecedents (e.g., change, competition, poor leadership,
etc.) from an organizational and individual level, which could be considered
within cyberbullying research. Using Salin’s (2003) model, researchers should
identify the precipitating, motivating, and facilitating factors of workplace
cyberbullying. Currently, however, there is limited research focused on directly
mapping offline workplace bullying antecedents to cyberbullying contexts. The
question is, then, “where do we look for possible explanations of cyberbully-
ing within working contexts”? Theoretically, there are a number of avenues we
can follow.
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 89

Theories of computer-mediated communication

There is a vast literature on computer-mediated communication (CMC), which
may help identify why people engage in or experience cyberbullying behaviour.

Reduced social cues

Firstly, the reduced cues hypothesis (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987; Kock, 2004)
suggests CMC methods possess fewer social, contextual, and verbal cues; are lower
in media richness and media naturalness; and can result in individuals being less
present and more anonymous – a state described as “deindividuation”. In relation
to cyberbullying, it may be more likely for people communicating virtually to
misinterpret messages as cyberbullying acts. More misunderstandings occur dur-
ing online communication than in person (Byron, 2008), which may lead indi-
viduals to mistakenly perceive themselves as victims of cyberbullying, even when
the sender meant no ill intent.

Deindividuation
The deindividuation effect of CMC could also help explain cyberbullying.
Computer-mediated communication is often characterized by feelings of ano-
nymity, making people less sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others, and
causing a disinhibition effect (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Mcguire, 1986). The
outcome of this effect can be benign or toxic (Suler, 2004), in which case com-
munication becomes harsher and more abusive. Therefore – because people
become absorbed in immediate communication cues, rather than focusing on self
and others (Siegel et al., 1986) – they become submerged into their technology,
leading to a loss of identity and uninhibited behaviour – such as cyberbullying.
The Social Identity model of De-individuation Effects (SIDE) (Spears & Lea,
1994) argues that, in the absence of personal communication cues, individuals shift
their attention away from interpersonal differences to focus on a common group
identity, as characterized by group norms. According to SIDE, new group mem-
bers accept these norms through deindividuation. Research has identified that
norms of CMC are confined to the boundaries of a group – and that groups vary
in the number of requests, reactions, humour, emotion, and personal revelations
they deploy (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000). Group norms have implications when
a newcomer joins a group, as their communication may be perceived as rude or
aggressive (and vice versa), which may spark conflict and lead to cyberbullying.
Taken together, these theories provide a lens for understanding communication
in the virtual environment, and how this communication (or lack of communica-
tion) promotes cyberbullying. In particular, these theories outline how aspects of
online communication differ from face-to-face communication, as well as how these
90 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

differences – in terms of lack of cues, misinterpretation of communication, deindi-

viduation, disinhibition, and social identity – may result in cyberbullying behaviour.

Psychological theories of cyberbullying

Currently, only a small number of researchers have used models encompassing
features of existing bullying theories (e.g., stress, emotions, and fairness percep-
tions) to help explain workplace cyberbullying.

Dysempowerment theory
Focused on university employee samples in the UK, Coyne et al. (2017) apply
dysempowerment theory (Kane & Montgomery, 1998) to explain how cyberbul-
lying may lead to individual mental strain and job dissatisfaction. Dysempower-
ment theory posits an employee appraises a “polluting” work event as a violation
of his/her dignity (fairness perception), which results in a perception of subjective
stress, leading to negative affect (emotion) and, in turn, disrupts the employee’s
attitudes and behaviour at work. The greater the volume of polluting acts per-
ceived by an employee, the stronger the potential for dysempowerment. There-
fore, dysempowerment theory could explain cyberbullying as a situation in which
a target of workplace cyberbullying may perceive a series of events as a violation
of their dignity (or as something unfair), exhibiting a negative affective response
that impacts on their mental well-being and job attitudes. These results indicate
a mediating effect of negative emotion on the relationship between the experi-
ence of cyberbullying, mental strain, and job dissatisfaction. However, data sug-
gests interpersonal justice and negative affect were two separate routes, through
which cyberbullying may have its own effect: with negative emotion exhibiting a
stronger effect on mental strain than job dissatisfaction, and justice only mediating
the relationship between cyberbullying and job dissatisfaction.
Farley et al. (2015) go one stage further in their theories: combining dys-
empowerment theory with the attributional model of workplace harassment
(Bowling & Beehr, 2006). They suggest that attribution of blame for the “pol-
luting” event of cyberbullying impacts perceptions of violations to one’s dignity
and influence negative emotional responses. Findings indicate negative emotion
mediated the relationship between self-blame for a cyberbullying act and mental
strain, whereas interactional injustice mediated the association between blaming
the perpetrator and job dissatisfaction. Attributions of blame potentially go some
way in explaining the different paths seen in the Coyne et al. study.

Emotion reaction model

Offering a perspective on why people experience and/or engage in cyberbul-
lying (rather than modelling the impact of cyberbullying), Vranjes et al. (2017)
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 91

posit the moderation-mediation Emotion Reaction Model. They theorize that

work-related stressors at the job (e.g., role conflict), team (interpersonal conflict),
and organization levels (e.g., change) relate to experience and engagement in
cyberbullying behaviour at work. This stressor-strain relationship is mediated by
discrete emotions of anger, fear, and sadness – with anger promoting the engage-
ment in cyberbullying (via a retaliation process) and fear/sadness promoting the
experience of cyberbullying (via a powerlessness process). Additionally, control
appraisal is espoused to moderate the relationship between stressors and emotions.
When stressors are seen to be under an individual’s control, anger arises; com-
paratively, fear and sadness arise when work stressors are attributed to situational
factors. Emotional regulation is also identified as a moderator, but with different
impacts, depending on the type of strategy adopted. Reappraisal buffers the effect
of stressors on emotions, whereas suppression increases the relationship of emo-
tions to the experience or engagement of cyberbullying.
When considering the lifespan of its research, it is a strength that the devel-
opment and testing of theoretical ideas related to cyberbullying within working
contexts has arisen at such an early stage. Both the Coyne et al. and Vranjes et al.
approaches have foundations within stress theories (similar to offline bullying
models), and also provide insights as to the why and consequences of cyberbully-
ing in workplace settings. There is no reason to believe that a university context
will be any different from other working contexts in terms of job, team, and
organizational stressors – or else perceptions of what is or is not unfair behaviour,
perceptions of blame, and emotional reactions.

Conclusion
The evidence base for offline workplace bullying is extensive. Increasingly, it
becomes more and more robust in terms of its theory-driven nature and meth-
odological approaches. Cyberbullying research within working contexts is limited
by comparison, but it is comforting to know that scholars are increasingly becom-
ing aware of and interested in this concept – as well as notions of how cyberbully-
ing emerges. Concerns to its impact have evolved much earlier on in the lifespan
of a research agenda.
Going forward, a number of action points can be offered:

1 Consensus on whether cyberbullying is different from or the same as offline

bullying should be reached. Meta-analytic approaches akin to Hershcovis
(2010) will allow us to test if there are empirical differences between con-
cepts in their relationship to antecedents and outcomes, and should establish
support for one position or the other.
2 Use and validation of specific workplace cyberbullying measures – as well
as approaches in classifying victim status – should exist, as they allow com-
parisons to be made across organizations, sectors, and countries. Perhaps
92 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

aligning to the approach adopted within offline bullying is the optimal

solution.
3 Further testing and (where appropriate) the updating of models offered to
explain cyberbullying at work should be implemented. It would be useful to
consider including ideas from the CMC literature within current psycho-
logical models, as they may help to explain why people perceive messages as
a violation of dignity – or why disinhibited actions result from stressors and
emotions.
4 There should be a consideration of other roles within the cyberbullying situa-
tion. In parallel with offline workplace bullying research, the focus has tended
to be at the level of the victim (although Vranjes’s model does also consider the
perpetrator). Witnesses/bystanders have, to date, been largely neglected in this
process, with limited research suggesting that – unlike offline bullying – witnesses
of cyberbullying do not exhibit negative outcomes (Coyne et al., 2017).
5 Lastly, identification and the development of evidence-based interventions
could be put in place to reduce cyberbullying at work (see Farley and Coyne,
this volume).

References
Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as ante-
cedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s Job Demand Control
Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
84(1), 191–208.
Baruch,Y. (2005). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Informa-
tion & Management, 42(2), 361–371.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression among university
employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–184.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective:
A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012.
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication
of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume).“You need a thick skin . . .”: Impacts of
cyberbullying in Canadian universities. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 112–125). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P. K., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace
bullying. Agggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 33–51.
Coyne, I. (2011). Bullying in the workplace. In C. P. Monks & I. Coyne (Eds.), Bullying in
Different Contexts (pp. 157–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Coyne, I. (2016). Commentary: What universities can learn from workplace bullying
research. In H. Cowie & C. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national
perspectives (pp. 203–206). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 93

Coyne, I., Craig, J., & Chong, P. S.-L. (2004).Workplace bullying in a group context. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 301–317.
Coyne, I., Farley, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C., Best, L., & Kwok, O. (2017). Understanding the
relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain
and job satisfaction: A dysempowerment approach. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 28(7), 945–972.
Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from person-
ality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 335–349.
Coyne, I., Smith-Lee Chong, P., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nomina-
tions of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of
the working environment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(3),
209–228.
Crossley, C. (2009). Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer
look at perceived offender motives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
108(1), 14–24.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of
cyberbullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection,
and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3),
355–366.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work:
The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bul-
lying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice
(pp. 3–30). London: Taylor and Francis.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and
harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and
practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–40). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public
and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2),
185–201.
Farley, S., & Coyne, I. (this volume). Intervening against workplace cyberbullying. In W.
Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international con-
texts (pp. 173–177). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Farley, S., Coyne, I., Axtell, C., & Sprigg, C. (2016). Design, development and validation of
a workplace cyberbullying measure, the WCM. Work & Stress, 30(4), 293–317.
Farley, S., Coyne, I., Sprigg, C., Axtell, C., & Subramanian, G. (2015). Exploring the impact
of workplace cyberbullying on trainee doctors. Medical Education, 49(4), 436–443.
Ford, D. P. (2013). Virtual harassment: Media characteristics’ role in psychological health.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 408–428.
Forssell, R. (2016). Exploring cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying in working life –
Prevalence, targets and expressions. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 454–460.
Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Roche, M., Bentley, T., Catley, B., . . .
Trenberth, L. (2016). Predictors of workplace bullying and cyber-bullying in New Zea-
land. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5), 448–462.
Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M.
(2012). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychol-
ogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 148–154.
94 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Harvey, M. G., Heames, J. T., Richey, R. G., & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying: From the
playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 1–11.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21(3),
220–242.
Heatherington,W., & Coyne, I. (2014). Understanding individual experiences of cyberbul-
lying encoutered through work. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behav-
ior, 17(2), 163–192.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2010). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my !”: A call
to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 499–519.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001).The experience of bullying in Great Britain:
The impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 10(4), 443–465.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all
bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 32, 367–387.
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as
predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 21(2), 453–468.
Kane, K., & Montgomery, K. (1998). A framework for understanding dysempowerment in
organizations. Human Resource Management, 37(34), 263–275.
Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence
in hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57(10), 656–660.
Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated
communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15(3), 327–348.
Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college
lecturers. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32(3), 281–299.
Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (2009). Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on
employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419–425.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies,
44(6), 837–862.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological
moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 955–979.
Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., Glasø, L., Aasland, M. S., Notelaers, G., &
Einarsen, S. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across
time and estimation methods. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
18(1), 81–101.
Notelaers, G.,Witte, H. De, & Einarsen, S. (2010). A job characteristics approach to explain
workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(4),
487–504.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying:
A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761–780.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2005). Workplace incivility. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector
(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 177–200).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 Cyberbullying within working contexts 95

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-
mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341–371.
Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bully-
ing? Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality
on Behavior and Society, 12(4), 395–400.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Workplace bullying. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, &
J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 121–145). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Flaherty, J. A., & Freels, S. (2001). Workplace harass-
ment, active coping, and alcohol-related outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(3),
347–366.
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A com-
parison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating
and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations,
56(10), 1213–1232.
Samnani, A.-K. (2013). “Is this bullying?” Understanding target and witness reactions. Jour-
nal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 290–305.
Saunders, P., Huynh, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace bullying
behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 340–354.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Mcguire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-
mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,
157–187.
Snyman, R., & Loh, J. (2015). Cyberbullying at work: The mediating role of optimism
between cyberbullying and job outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 161–168.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panoptica? The hidden power in computer-
mediated communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 427–459.
Spratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university
workplace. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 285–297.
Sticca, F., Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal risk factors for cyber-
bullying in adolescence. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 52–67.
Strandmark, M. K., & Hallberg, L. R. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experi-
ences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing
Management, 15(3), 332–341.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior:The Impact of the
Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 7(3), 321–326.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 43(2), 178–190.
Vranjes, I., Baillien, E.,Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. (2017). The dark side
of working online: Towards a definition and an emotion reaction model of workplace
cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 324–334.
Weatherbee, T. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). A case of cyberdeviancy: CyberAggression in
the workplace. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace
violence (pp. 445–487). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
West, B., Foster, M., Levin, A., Edmison, J., & Robibero, D. (2014). Cyberbullying at work:
In search of effective guidance. Laws, 3(3), 598–617.
96 Iain Coyne and Samuel Farley

Whitty, M., & Carr, A. (2006). New rules in the workplace: Applying object-relations
theory to explain problem internet and email behaviour in the workplace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 22(2), 235–250.
Willard, N. E. (2007). The authority and responsibility of school officials in responding to
cyberbullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S64–S65.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute bul-
lying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 851–858.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and
practice – An introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4),
369–373.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice (pp. 165–184). London: Taylor and Francis.
Zhang, S., & Leidner, D. (2014). Workplace cyberbullying: The antecedents and consequences.
Paper presented at the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Social-
Technical Issues and Social Inclusion Track. Savannah.
PART II

Impacts
7
FROM TRADITIONAL BULLYING
TO CYBERBULLYING ELISA LARRAÑAGA, ET AL.FROM TRADITIONAL BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING

Cybervictimization among higher

education students

Elisa Larrañaga, Santiago Yubero, Raúl Navarro,

and Anastasio Ovejero

From traditional bullying to cyberbullying

Several studies have identified a correlation between participating in traditional
bullying and cyberbullying (Hemphill et al., 2012; Jang, Song, & Kim, 2014).
Students who are perpetrators of traditional bullying may also be perpetrators
through use of ICT, and traditional bullying victims may also be cyberbullying
victims (MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Smith et al., 2008; Sontag, Clem-
ans, Graber, & Lyndon, 2011;Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Other studies have found
that students who are victims of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying may
also be cyberbullies (König, Gollwitzer, & Steffgen, 2010; Smith et al., 2008; Son-
tag et al., 2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). In those cases, cyberbullying may be a
way of retaliating (Willard, 2006) or an act of revenge using the anonymity and
distance offered by the internet (König et al., 2010).
Additional studies have shown that those participating in bullying in high
school may continue to bully at university (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014;
Paullet & Pinchot, 2014; Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). Zacchilli and Valerio (2011)
have also reported the link between cyberbullying at university and involvement
in bullying in primary school.
As far as higher education students are concerned, MacDonald and Roberts-
Pittman (2010) also found a link between cyberbullying and bullying behaviours,
with correlations ranging from .22 to .65. Tomsa, Jenaro, Campbell, and Neacsu
(2013) reported that 31.5% of the cybervictims were also victims of traditional
bullying; with regard to perpetration, 10.9% of cyberbullies were also engaged
in traditional bullying. More recently, in a sample of Spanish university students,
Caravaca et al. (2016) found that 40.7% of traditional bullying victims were also
victims of cyberbullying.
100 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

Nevertheless, even when research data show that cyberbullying is a prevalent

behaviour in higher education students, a portion of the students participating in
qualitative studies tend to view cyberbullying as childish behaviour more typical
of previous educational levels, although these students admit that cyberbullying
is present in higher education (Baldasare, Bauman, Goldman, & Robie, 2012;
Crosslin & Golman, 2014). In these qualitative studies, higher education students
point out that cyberbullying depends on the intention of the perpetrator (Bal-
dasare et al., 2012; Kota, Schoohs, Benson, & Moreno, 2014), and they often
believe that it is just a joke that went too far. They also downplay the scale of the
repeated nature of cyberbullying (Kota et al., 2014). As a matter of fact, qualitative
studies have shown that some of the students do not see cyberbullying as a serious
problem because they believe they can cope with it, in comparison with students
in previous educational levels (Baldasare et al., 2012; Crosslin & Golman, 2014;
Kota et al., 2014). These contradictory findings warrant a more detailed analysis
of cyberbullying behaviour in institutions of higher education.

Cyberbullying prevalence in higher education

Although there is a growing body of research on cyberbullying among primary
and secondary school students, cyberbullying among higher education students
has been less explored. The first study was conducted by Finn in 2004, whose
results revealed that between 10% and 15% of the 339 participants from the Uni-
versity of New Hampshire had experienced cyberbullying through email and
instant messaging platforms. Starting in 2009, there was an increase in studies
regarding cyberbullying in different universities, mainly in the United States (e.g.,
Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Kraft & Wang, 2010; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Smith &
Yoon, 2013; Selkie, Kota, Chan, & Moreno, 2015) and Turkey (e.g., Aricak, 2009;
Dilmac, 2009;Turan, Polat, Karapirli, Uysal, & Turan, 2011).The self-reported vic-
timization rates in different studies range from 9% (Molluzzo & Lawler, 2011)
to 27.4% (Mateus, Veiga, Costa, & das Dores, 2015), and amount to 60% when
students were asked if they knew any victims of cyberbullying (Turan et al., 2011).
With regard to time frames, prevalence rates also differ greatly, ranging from 53%
(Dilmac, 2009) to 81% (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011) when asking students if they have
experienced any behaviour at any time in their lives; from 8.7% (Tomsa et al.,
2013) to 36.7% (Aricak, 2009) if they are asked about the previous year; and 9%
at the current moment (Paullet & Pinchot, 2014; for more details, see Larrañaga,
Yubero, & Ovejero, 2016).
Studies in Spain started to emerge in 2015. The first one was carried out by
Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Ortega-Ruiz, and Casas (2015), with a wide sample of
638 undergraduate students from Andalusia. Over half of the participants (54%)
reported having experienced some kind of cyberbullying victimization in the
past two months. Twenty-five percent of students experienced “insults about
me said to others via internet or SMS messages,” and another 25% of students
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 101

received “direct personal insults via email or SMS messages.” Only 2.2% indi-
cated that somebody had created a false Facebook or MSN account to steal
their identity; in those cases, this happened with an overall frequency of once
or twice.
Using a sample of 543 college students from Murcia, Caravaca et al. (2016)
found that 62.2% of students reported having been the victim of traditional bul-
lying, and 52.7% reported that they had experienced cyberbullying. Forty point
seven percent of participants had been victims of traditional bullying and cyber-
bullying in the past 12 months. Separating these numbers by category showed that
21.3% experienced traditional bullying only, and 12% were victims of cyberbul-
lying only.
Yubero, Navarro, Elche, Larrañaga, and Ovejero (2017), with a sample of 243
college students from Castilla-La Mancha, followed a more restrictive criterion
to categorize cyberbullying (participants’ scores above 1 standard deviation above
the mean). Nine point eight percent of the surveyed higher education students
reported having been victims of cyberbullying. The most frequently experienced
form of cyberbullying victimization was the online dissemination of lies and
rumours (36%); 9.1% had experienced such instances quite a few or many times
in the past year. The results of this study indicated that cyberbullying victimiza-
tion in higher education was associated with traditional bullying experienced in
primary and secondary school.

Cyberbullying correlates in college students

Research has provided evidence that being the target of cyberbullying negatively
impacts mental health and increases the risks of psychological and social problems.
Indeed, the National Institute of Health (2010) reported that the impact of cyber-
bullying could be even more damaging than that of traditional bullying. Zalaquett
and Chatters (2014) point out that the psychological consequences are more
serious in the case of higher education students. Cyberbullying at university may
trigger the development of mental health problems and may even lead to suicide
(e.g., Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, this volume; Dilmac, 2009; Lindsay & Krysik,
2012; Zacchilli & Valerio, 2011).
Smith and Yoon (2013) found that 10% of the 276 college student partici-
pants experienced cyberbullying victimization. The students first reported low-
ered self-esteem (21%), declining academic performance (18.5%) (even dropping
out of university), fewer social relations (15.5%), and depression (13.2%). Schenk
and Fremouw (2012) also reported depression and anxiety among cyberbullying
victims at university. Schenk, Fremouw, and Keelan (2013) analysed the conse-
quences in university cyberbullies and cyberbullying victims. Their results show
that cyberbullies and cyberbullying/victims scored significantly higher than other
control participants on the clinical scales of interpersonal sensitivity, depression,
hostility, phobic anxiety, psychoticism, and suicidal tendencies.
102 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

In the short term, victims of cyberbullying at university see their self-esteem

reduced and suffer from stress and depression; they also feel frustrated when the
university authorities do not take this problem seriously (Cassidy et al., this vol-
ume; Rivituso, 2014). Additionally, college students are concerned about how
information on the internet can affect their professional careers in the long term
(Kota et al., 2014).
Faucher et al. (2014) highlight the social consequences of cyberbullying, which
lead to a reduction in the number of relations established both at university and
beyond. Qualitative research (Baldasare et al., 2012; Crosslin & Golman, 2014)
confirms the fact that cyberbullying affects students’ social connections. Their
social lives suffer more when cyberbullying is perpetrated by friends and acquaint-
ances because it is generated inside their own social networks and, therefore, more
difficult to ignore (Baldasare et al., 2012).
Tokunaga (2010) points out that higher education students perceive turning to
their parents for help as immature behaviour, making them turn to their friends
instead. Maybe that is why the social support provided by friends seems to be
a protective factor against cyberbullying victimization among higher education
students (Yubero et al., 2017).

Cyberbullying within the framework of

dating relationships
Interest in violence within the framework of dating relationships has increased
in the past few years. The reason is the link between violence in younger cou-
ples and subsequent violence in adult, long-standing couples (González-Ortega,
Echeburúa, & De Corral, 2008; Wekerle, 1999). The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC, 2014) defines dating violence as that type of violence –
whether physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional – inflicted in dating rela-
tionships, as well as other acts of persecution and abuse. It also specifies that this
type of behaviour may originate from former or current partners, either in person
or through different electronic means. New technologies expand the settings in
which violence in couples’ relationships may arise (Durán & Martínez-Pecino,
2015), and constitute a new control and surveillance device, making young people
become more accessible and, therefore, more prone to interpersonal intrusiveness
(Van Ouytsel, Van Gool, Walrave, Ponnet, & Peeters, 2016). Jealousy and fighting
are the most common motivators for this kind of aggression (Borrajo & Gámez-
Guadix, 2015; Kellerman et al., 2013).
Research in this area distinguishes two types of online abuse in dating: direct
aggression and control (Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011; Burke, Wallen,
Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011). Direct abuse behaviours refer to those behaviours
aimed at harming the partner, for example, by sending offensive messages or by
disseminating negative information about the significant other (Zweig, Dank,
Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Control refers to those behaviours aimed at pursuing
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 103

or controlling the significant other, for example, by visiting his/her profile on his/
her social network quite frequently and controlling who he/she is with or what
he/she is doing (Burke et al., 2011; Tokunaga, 2010).
Finn (2004) found that between 10% and 15% of higher education students
had been abused by their partners. Other studies also highlighted the fact that an
important proportion of young people who are victims of cyberbullying identify
their partner as the perpetrator, and partners are the people against whom many
perpetrators direct their cyberbullying actions (Alexy, Burgess, Baker, & Smoyak,
2005). At an empirical level, it has been found that those who admit committing
cyber-dating abuse also tend to participate in cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin,
2011). For example, Hinduja and Patchin (2011) found that those young people
who perpetrated cyberbullying were three times more likely to engage in abu-
sive cyber-dating behaviour than those who did not perpetrate aggression against
their peers.
Research on cyberbullying among higher education students has started to
analyse the extent to which cyberbullying is perpetrated within the framework of
dating relationships. In 2011, Bennett et al., with 437 college students, reported
that 77% had experienced cyberbullying from their significant other in the last
year. Likewise, the results obtained by Burke et al. (2011), with a sample of 804
undergraduates aged between 18 and 23, showed that half of both female and
male respondents reported the use of communication technology to monitor
partners, either as the perpetrator or victim. Women were significantly more
likely than men to monitor the email accounts of their partners (25% vs. 6%),
and to regard doing so as appropriate behaviour. Crosslin and Golman (2014)
showed that according to 30% of participants, cyberbullying may be used to cre-
ate disagreement or harm romantic relationships by friends, acquaintances, and
ex-significant others.
In Spain, Durán and Martínez-Pecino (2015), with a sample of 336 college
students aged between 18 and 30, analysed abusive behaviour and cyberbullying
in dating relationships. Fifty-seven point two percent of participants stated that
they had been victimized through their cell phones, and 27.4% via the internet,
while 47.6% stated they had abused through cell phones, and 14% via the internet.
Another study (Martínez-Pecino & Durán, 2016), with 219 college students aged
between 18 and 28, 61.4% of whom were women, also reported greater incidence
through cell phones (48.4%) than via the internet (37.5%). This study also shows
the influence of participants’ hostile sexism on cyberbullying against women in
dating relationships. Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015), with a sample
of 656 Spanish young people aged between 18 and 30 years (79.7% of which were
college students), showed that justifying online abuse is associated with direct
online aggression in dating relationships. Myths about love were associated to
a greater extent with online control behaviours (e.g., monitoring social status
changes in social networks and cell phone messages). In their qualitative study
on the basis of individual, in-depth interviews with seven college students (five
104 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

women and two men), Borrajo and Gámez-Guadix (2015) reported that control
behaviours and harassment are the most frequent forms of online abuse within the
framework of dating relationships.
As a consequence of online abuse within romantic relationships, these types
of behaviours can even become normal or cause an end to the relationship
(Borrajo & Gámez-Guadix, 2015). Regardless of the outcome, cyberbullying in a
relationship has a major impact on health because it generates anxiety and depres-
sion in its victims (Bennett et al., 2011; Borrajo & Gámez-Guadix, 2016; Reed,
Tolman, & Safyer, 2015).

Cyberbullying behaviours in higher education students

from teacher education programs
Within the program named “The protection of cyberbullying victims: a study
of the gender and family variables” (PSI2015–70822-R), as part of the Spanish
National Program of Research, Development and Innovation (I + D + i) from
the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, a pilot study was con-
ducted with teachers in training (Yubero, Larrañaga, & Navarro, 2017). The pur-
pose of the study was to analyse cyberbullying victimization among university
students in education degree programs and to explore the coping strategies they
found more useful to confront cyberbullying behaviour. Participants included
154 university students at the Faculty of Education in the University of Castilla-
La Mancha; 75.3% were women, all participants ranging from 18 to 36 years old
(M(age) = 20.62; SD = 3.03).
Among the instruments used, students were asked to complete the Bul-
lyHARM (Bullying, Harassment, and Aggression Receipt Measure; Hall, 2016). It
consists of 22 items and six subscales: physical bullying, verbal bullying, social/
relational bullying, cyberbullying, property bullying, and sexual bullying. In the
BullyHARM, a series of specific bullying behaviours are presented to respond-
ents, who then indicate the frequency with which they have experienced each
behaviour. A four-point rating scale was selected with the following response
options: not in the past month, 1 or 2 times in the past month, about 1 time a week, and
about 2 or more times a week. For this study, the subscales of physical bullying, verbal
bullying, social/relational bullying, and cyberbullying were used. In the present
sample, the internal consistency coefficient, measured through Cronbach’s Alpha,
was .86 for the victimization scale and .86 for the perpetration scale.
Finally, students from teacher education programs completed the Management
strategies questionnaire (Fenaughty & Harré, 2013). Students were asked to evalu-
ate the suitability of different actions to cope with distressing harassment (1 = not
at all suitable, 5 = very suitable). These items included support elicited from par-
ents, teachers, and peers, and self-directed actions, including technological and
confronting/fighting solutions, and/or ignoring as a strategy.
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 105

Thirteen point six percent of the students had suffered cyberbullying dur-
ing the last month. Three point two percent of the participants reported they
had been a cyberbullying perpetrator. The most common type of cyberbullying
victimization was “made a mean comment about me on the internet” (8.4%),
followed by “sent me a mean email, instant message, or text message” (6.5%), and
“posted something bad about me on the internet” (3.9%). Regarding cyberbully-
ing perpetration, 1.9% had “posted something bad about others on the internet,”
1.3% had “sent a mean email, instant message, or text message to others,” and
another 1.3% “made a mean comment about others on the internet.”
Regarding the suitability of the coping strategies, students reported that social
support was the best strategy (M = 3.89; SD = 1.68), though they ranked in
the first place, “talk to a parent about it” (79%), second, “report it to bullying
phone” (68.5%), and third, “talk to teacher about it” (68.1%). Self-action strategies
reached a mean of 2.68 (SD = 0.85), and 56.4% reported that the victim should
tell the bullies to stop the bullying, while 11.2% of the students thought that the
victims should use retaliation strategies.The ignoring strategies reached a mean of
2.68 (SD = 0.81), with almost 25% of the participants believing that ignoring was
a good strategy to avoid bullying, 12% thinking that victims should stop going to
class, and almost 10% believing that the victim should not do anything.
According to this data, it is necessary to improve the training of teachers and
raise awareness of future educators in order for them to identify cyberbullying and
take action against it in the exercise of their future duties.

Implications for practice

Universities have a responsibility to protect students by providing a safe physi-
cal and digital environment. Several studies have pointed out that cyberbullying
behaviour that emerged in prior educational levels may continue at university.
Additionally, cyberbullying may be a form of aggression between partners or
students who are emotionally connected. Resolute action is necessary to prevent
such aggression and, instead, promote appropriate interactions with others. Con-
sequently, preventive actions and interventions should be implemented within
the university context, involving students, professionals, and academic authorities
(Souza, 2011).
Qualitative studies have highlighted students’ assertion that the lack of account-
ability within the university context facilitates cyberbullying, and that university
authorities do not respond adequately. Consequently, higher education institu-
tions should develop policies with clear guidelines for students about when and
where to report (Jackson, Faucher, & Cassidy, this volume; Langos & Giancaspro,
this volume). University personnel who receive these reports should feel confi-
dent that the design of the policy allows them to manage incidents effectively
(Wozencroft et al., 2015).
106 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

Additionally, it is essential that universities extend their abuse protocols to

include cyberbullying.These protocols should include specific actions to be taken
when cyberbullying is detected in order to prevent its escalation, as well as other
procedures to address situations that have already escalated, and to minimize the
impact on the victims. This requires a legislative framework that clarifies and
facilitates procedures to deal with cyberbullying from the perspective of university
regulators and/or inspection services (Yubero et al., 2017).
Protocols should also include therapeutic and social support actions to ensure
victim protection. Research has shown that social support may prevent victimiza-
tion and buffer the effects of victimization, especially support provided by friends,
notably in the case of university students. Indeed, the prevention and interven-
tion procedures should work towards strengthening social networks of support
among peers. Specifically, in cyberspace, universities should emphasize not only
prevention work with strategies to stop cyberbullying, but should also cultivate
relationships with those responsible for providing advice and support to victims
(Yubero et al., 2017).
In peer-support programs with adequate training, students can help to edu-
cate their classmates about responsible use of technology, cyberbullying, and
other technology issues. Through dialogue with peers about online risks, they
may discuss experiences with cyberbullying as well as strategies to prevent and
address it (Kanayama & Kurihara, this volume; Sabella, Patchin, & Hinduja,
2013). Peer helper programs and strategies have been proven successful in tra-
ditional bullying (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Among the practices implemented
in higher education, the Brief Internet Cyberbullying Prevention Program, developed
with university students in the United States (Doane, 2011), has been effective
in decreasing cyberbullying prevalence and dismissing positive attitudes toward
such behaviour.
Cyberbullying prevention may be incorporated into the university curriculum
as well. It is necessary to better educate students on which behaviours consti-
tute cyberbullying and on the psychological and emotional repercussions. Actions
should include lectures and activities that help students discern the psychological
indicators of victimization and perpetration. Students are more likely to intervene
with each other if they are able to detect when there is a problem and are familiar
with the options for resolution (Souza, 2011).
Teachers-in-training need to equip themselves with the skills to manage
cyberbullying confidently, competently, and effectively.With regard to their future
occupation, the skills to be acquired by the teaching staff should be in line with
the demands of society and the changes that have taken place within it. It is
therefore important that future teachers know ways to prevent and intervene
when cyberbullying emerges. Several studies, however, indicate that the university
system is deficient in the preparation of teachers on this subject (Eden, Heiman, &
Olenik-Shemesh, 2013; Li, 2008;Yilmaz, 2010). Adequate preparation is still lack-
ing in Spain, as is students’ satisfaction with the training received (Álvarez-García
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 107

et al., 2010; Rodríguez, 2008). For example, Benitez, Berbén, and Fernández
(2006) asked 373 Education students about their knowledge in relation to bully-
ing, and more than 30% did not know how to define bullying. Future educators
need the knowledge and skills required to implement suitable actions to prevent
and curtail bullying and cyberbullying behaviours.

References
Akbulut,Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and victimization among Turkish university
students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1155–1170.
Alexy, E. M., Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., & Smoyak, S. A. (2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking
among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 279–289. doi:10.1093/
brief-treatment/mhi020
Álvarez-García, D., Rodríguez, C., González-Castro, P., Núñez, J. C., & Álvarez, L. (2010).
The training of pre-service teachers to deal with school violence. Revista de Psicodidác-
tica, 15(1), 35–56.
Aricak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of cyberbullying among
university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 167–184.
Baldasare, A., Bauman, S., Goldman, L., & Robie, A. (2012). Cyberbullying? Voices of
college students. Technologies in Higher Education, 5, 127–155. doi:10.1108/S2044–
9968(2012)0000005010
Benítez, J. L., Berbén, A. G., & Fernández, M. (2006). El maltrato entre alumnos: cono-
cimientos, percepciones y actitudes de los futuros docentes. Revista de Investigación Edu-
cativa, 24(2), 329–352.
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’
electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress
and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26, 410–429. doi:10.1891/
0886–6708.26.4.410
Borrajo, E., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2015). Comportamientos, motivos y reacciones asocia-
das a la victimización del abuso online en el noviazgo: un análisis cualitativo. Revista de
Victimología, 2, 73–95.
Borrajo, E., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2016). Abuso “online” en el noviazgo: relación con
depresión, ansiedad y ajuste diádico. Psicología Conductual, 24(2), 221–235.
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Justification beliefs of violence,
myths about love and cyber dating abuse. Psicothema, 27, 327–333. doi:10.7334/
psicothema2015.59
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control
intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 1162–1167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010
Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyberbullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal
of Guidance and Counselling, 15(01), 68–76. doi:10.1375/ajgc.15.1.68
Caravaca, F., Falcón, M., Navarro-Zaragoza, J., Luna-Ruiz-Cabello, A. L., Rodriges, O., &
Luna-Maldonado, A. (2016). Prevalence and patterns of traditional bullying victimiza-
tion and cyber-teasing among college population in Spain. BMC Public Health, 16,
176–185. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2857-8
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume).“You need a think skin . . .”: Impacts of
cyberbullying in Canadian universities. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 112–125). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
108 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). Understanding teen dating vio-
lence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-
factsheet-a.pdf
Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”: College students’
perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2014.09.007
Dilmac, B. (2009). Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary
report on college students. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice, 9, 1307–1325.
Doane, A. N. (2011). Testing of a brief internet cyberbullying prevention program in college students.
Doctoral Thesis, Old Dominion University.
Durán, M., & Martínez-Pecino, R. (2015). Ciberacoso mediante teléfono móvil e Internet
en las relaciones de noviazgo entre jóvenes. Comunicar, 22(44), 159–167. doi:10.3916/
C44–2015–17
Eden, S., Heimann, T., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and
concerns about cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1036–1052.
doi:10.1111/j.1467–8535.2012.01363.x
Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Casas, J. A. (2015). Perceived emotional
intelligence as a moderator variable between cybervictimization and its emotional
impact. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 486. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00486
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Educational Research International,
2014, 1–10. doi:10.1155/2014/698545
Fenaughty, J., & Harré, N. (2013). Factors associated with young people’s successful
resolution of distressing electronic harassment. Computers & Education, 61, 242–250.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.004
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 468–483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
González-Ortega, I., Echeburúa, E., & De Corral, P. (2008). Variables significativas en
las relaciones violentas en parejas jóvenes: Una revisión. Psicologia Conductual, 16(2),
207–225.
Hall, W. J. (2016). Initial development and validation of the Bullyharm: The bullying, har-
assment, and aggression receipt measure. Psychology in the Schools, 53(9), 984–1000.
doi:10.1002/pits.21957
Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W., &
Catalano, R. F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpe-
tration in Australian secondary school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59–65.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2011). Electronic dating violence: A brief for educators and par-
ents. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/
electronic_dating_violence_fact_sheet.pdf
Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of
Educational Administration, 47, 652–665. doi:10.1108/09578230910981107
Jackson, M., Faucher, C., & Cassidy, W. (this volume). What’s policy got to do with it?
The focus on cyberbullying policy at the university level. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, &
M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 198–211).
Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence cyber-
bullying behavior among youths? Application of general strain theory. Computers in
Human Behavior, 31, 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.007
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 109

Kanayama, K., & Kurihara, S. (this volume). Preventive measures against cyberbullying at
a university in Japan. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at
university in international contexts (pp. 168–172). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Kellerman, I., Margolin, G., Borofsky, L., Baucom, B., & Iturralde, E. (2013). Electronic
aggression among emerging adults: Motivations and contextual factors. Emerging Adult-
hood, 1(4), 293–304. doi:1 0.1177/2167696813490159
König, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Steffgen, G. (2010). Cyberbullying as an act of revenge? Aus-
tralian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(2), 210–224. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.210
Kota, R., Schoohs, S., Benson, M., & Moreno, M. A. (2014). Characterizing cyberbullying
among college students: Hacking, dirty laundry, and mocking. Societies, 4(4), 549–560.
doi:10.3390/soc4040549
Kraft, E., & Wang, J. (2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and cyberstalking
experiences and factors related to victimization of students at a public liberal arts col-
lege. International Journal of Technologies, 1, 74–91. doi:10.4018/jte.2010100106
Langos, C., & Giancaspro, M. (this volume). Cyberbullying in the Australian university
context: The shades of harm and implications for law and policy. In W. Cassidy, C.
Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 181–
197). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Ovejero, A. (2016). Gender variables and cyberbully-
ing in college students. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larrañaga (Eds.), Cyberbully-
ing across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health (pp. 63–77). Netherlands: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25552-1
Li, Q. (2008). Cyberbullying in schools: An examination of preservice teachers’ perception.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2). doi:10.21432/T2DK5G
Lindsay, M., & Krysik, J. (2012). Online harassment among college students. Information,
Communication, & Society, 15, 703–719. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1941065
MacDonald, C. D., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among college students:
Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia: Social and behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003–
2009. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436
Martínez-Pecino, R., & Durán, M. (2016). I love you but I cyberbully you: The role of
hostile sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260516645817
Mateus, S., Veiga, A. M., Costa, P., & das Dores, M. J. (2015). Cyberbullying: The hidden
side of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 167–182. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2014.10.045
Melander, L. A. (2010). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 263–268. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0221
Molluzzo, J. C., & Lawler, J. P. (2011). A study of the perceptions of college students on
cyberbullying. Information Systems Education Journal, 10(4), 84–109.
National Institutes of Health. (2010). Depression high among youth victims of school cyberbul-
lying: NIH researchers report. Maryland: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Novick, R. M., & Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: The impact of student reports of
bullying on teacher intervention. Educational Psychology, 30(3), 283–296. doi:10.1080/
01443410903573123
Paullet, K., & Pinchot, J. (2014). Behind the screen where today’s bully plays: Perceptions of
college students on cyberbullying. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(1), 63–69.
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Safyer, P. (2015). Too close for comfort: Attachment inse-
curity and electronic intrusion in college students’ dating relationships. Computers in
Human Behavior, 50, 431–438. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.050
110 Elisa Larrañaga et al.

Rivituso, J. (2014). Cyberbullying victimization among college students: An interpretive

phenomenological analysis. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25, 71–75.
Rodríguez, J. M. (2008). Los docentes ante las situaciones de violencia escolar. Revista Elec-
trónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 11(3), 32–39.
Sabella, R. A., Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2013). Cyberbullying myths and realities. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2703–2711. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.040
Schenk, A. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of
cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 21–37. doi:
10.1080/15388220.2011.630310
Schenk, A. M., Fremouw, W. J., & Keelan, C. M. (2013). Characteristics of college cyber-
bullies. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2320–2327. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.013
Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., Chan, Y., & Moreno, M. (2015). Cyberbullying, depression and
problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(2), 79–86. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0371
Smith, J. A., & Yoon, J. (2013). Cyberbullying presence, extent, & forms in a midwestern
post-secondary institution. Information Systems Educational Journal, 11, 52–78.
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbul-
lying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469–7610.2007.01846.x
Sontag, L., Clemans, K., Graber, J., & Lyndon, S. (2011). Traditional and cyber aggressors
and victims: A comparison of psychosocial characteristics. Journal Youth Adolescence, 40,
392–404. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9575-9
Souza, S. B. (2011). Exploratory study about the perspectives of young Portuguese university stu-
dents regarding the phenomenon and coping strategies. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Psychology.
Lisbon: University of Lisbon.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis
of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Tomsa, R., Jenaro, C., Campbell, M., & Neacsu, D. (2013). Student’s experiences with tra-
ditional bullying and cyberbullying: Findings from a Romanian sample. Procedia. Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 586–590. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.356
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1),
27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1
Turan, N., Polat, O., Karapirli, M., Uysal, C., & Turan, S. G. (2011). The new violence type
of the era: Cyber bullying among university students: Violence among university stu-
dents. Neurology Psychiatry & Brain Research, 17, 21–26. doi:10.1016/j.npbr.2011.02.005
Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring
the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating
experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 76–86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042
Wekerle, C. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence theory, significance, and emerg-
ing prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435–456. doi:10.1016/
S0272–7358(98)00091–9
Willard, N. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Effectively managing Internet use risks
in schools. Retrieved from http://new.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbctpresentation.pdf
Wozencroft, K., Campbell, M., Orel, A., Kimpton, M., & Leong, E. (2015). University stu-
dents’ intentions to report cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Educational & Development
Psychology, 15, 1–12.
 From traditional bullying to cyberbullying 111

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets:
A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, 45(7), 1308–1316. doi:10.1111/j.1469–7610.2004.00328.x
Yilmaz, H. (2010). An examination of preservice teachers’ perception about cyberbul-
lying. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(4), 263–270.
doi:10.12973/ejmste/75248
Yubero, S., Larrañaga, E., & Navarro, R. (2017). La continuidad del conflicto en la con-
vivencia escolar: medidas de prevención e intervención del acoso. Revista de Paz y
Conflictos, 10(2), 89–116.
Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying vic-
timization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and
emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–449.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.037
Zacchilli, T. L., & Valerio, C. V. (2011). The knowledge and prevalence of cyberbullying in
a college simple. Journal of Scientific Psychology. Retrieved from www.psyencelab.com/
images/The_Knowledge_and_Prevalence_of_Cyberbullying_in_a_College_Sample.pdf
Zalaquett, C. P., & Chatters, S. J. (2014). Cyberbullying in college: Frequency, characteristic,
and practical implications. Sage Open, 4(1), 1–8. doi:10.1177/2158244014526721
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse
among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063–1077. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8
8
“YOU NEED A THICK SKIN . . .” WANDA CASSIDY, CHANTAL FAUCHER, AND MARGARET JACKSON“YOU NEED A THICK SKIN . . .”

Impacts of cyberbullying at
Canadian universities

Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and

Margaret Jackson

Introduction
The impacts on children and youth who have been the targets of cyberbullying
is well documented in the literature. Numerous studies report such impacts as
depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, psychosomatic problems including headaches
and sleep disruptions, decreased academic achievement, strained interpersonal
relationships, withdrawal behaviour, and suicide ideation (Beebe & Robey, 2011;
Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013; Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2009; Jackson, Cas-
sidy, & Brown, 2009; Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Marczak & Coyne,
2010; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Nocentini et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja,
2012; Smith, 2012; Sourander et al., 2010; Tokunaga, 2010; von Marées & Peter-
mann, 2012).
One might assume that only youth in their formative years experience nega-
tive impacts as a result of being cyberbullied, yet it is apparent from studies with
adults in the workplace and at university that the after-effects of being cyberbul-
lied when older are similar. Although fewer studies have been conducted at the
post-secondary level compared to K–12, university students report very similar
impacts: relationship issues, physical and mental health problems, reduced self-
esteem, concentration and academic challenges, decreased motivation, self-blame
and even suicide ideation (Arıcak, 2016; Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012;
Cowie & Myers, 2016; Cowie et al., 2013; Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014; Gio-
vazolias & Malikiosi-Loizos, 2016; Kokkinos, Antoniadou, & Markos, 2014; Lar-
rañaga et al., this volume; Rivers, 2016). University faculty members also report
emotional distress, decreased productivity and job satisfaction, absenteeism, avoid-
ance of the bully, and withdrawal behaviour (Blizard, 2016, this volume; Cassidy,
Faucher, & Jackson, 2014; Hollis, 2012;Taylor, 2012;Vaughan, 2012). Like children
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 113

and adolescents in school (Cassidy et al., 2009), university students and faculty
members tend to feel powerless to stop the bullying behaviour, further com-
pounding the negative effects (Lampman, 2012; McKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas,
2008; Minor, Smith, & Brashen, 2013; Taylor, 2012).
The workplace is also a site for bullying behaviour online and in person, with
similar consequences reported by those on the receiving end, as well as by those
who witness the behaviour: increased stress, lower job satisfaction, absenteeism,
reduced productivity, disengagement, mental and physical health impacts, greater
job turnover, and suicide ideation (Coyne & Farley, this volume; Duffy & Sperry,
2014; Keashly, this volume; Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012; Sallee & Diaz, 2012).
This chapter adds to the growing body of research examining the impacts
students and faculty members experience as a result of being cyberbullied at the
post-secondary level, including the impact on the wider university culture.

The study and method

This chapter focuses on the self-reported impacts of student-to-student,
student-to-faculty, and faculty-to-faculty cyberbullying at four universities in
Canada. Students (n = 1925) completed an anonymous online survey with 100
closed and open-ended questions, examining their information and communi-
cation technology (ICT) usage patterns, their experiences with online bullying
behaviours, and their opinions and proposed solutions. Ten audio-taped focus
groups with students were also held at the participating universities, primarily
addressing solutions. Faculty members (n = 331) completed a similar online sur-
vey with 111 closed and open-ended questions, with 14 also volunteering to
participate in a one-on-one anonymous audio-taped interview. Twenty-one uni-
versity administrators were also interviewed as to their experiences with cyber-
bullying, reporting issues and policies, adding insight to the researchers’ earlier
policy scan involving 74 Canadian universities.
Results from the wider study are reported elsewhere (Cassidy et al., 2014;
Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2017; Cassidy, Jackson, & Faucher, 2015; Faucher
et al., 2014; Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, 2015; Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2015;
Chapters 5 and 16, this volume), while this chapter focuses on the questions in the
surveys specifically related to impact: closed dichotomous yes/no questions; open-
ended questions where participants were asked to provide an example of when
they were cyberbullied, how it made them feel, what they tried to do to stop it,
and what happened; and the narratives and insights faculty members shared in
their interviews.
Survey, focus group, and interview participants were provided at the outset
with a definition of cyberbullying, along with examples, to avoid misinterpreta-
tion of the concept. The definition is similar to the one outlined in the Introduc-
tion to this volume. Following the prompt, “If you were a victim of cyberbullying
114 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

TABLE 8.1 Cyberbullying Impacts as Reported by Victims

IMPACT % Student to % Student to % Faculty to

Student CB Faculty CB Faculty CB

Ability to do work 41 64 73
Wanted to quit 14 30 49
Relationships at University 27 62 49
Relationships outside University 41 19 39
Mental health 42 30 39
Physical health 26 28 29
Feeling unsafe 39 34 46

in the last 12 months,” respondents were asked whether they had experienced
effects related to emotional security and physical safety, ability to do work, desire
to remain at the university, personal relationships inside and outside the university,
physical and mental health issues, suicidal ideation, and feelings of revenge.
Students’ and faculty members’ survey responses to closed, dichotomous ques-
tions were analysed using SPSS and Excel. Open-ended responses and transcribed
interviews were coded using NVivo software as well as hand-coded indepen-
dently and collaboratively by three researchers (the authors), using a grounded
theory process (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016) in order to determine the major themes
and sub-themes based on the frequency and/or strength of the response (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Since the major themes related to impacts identified in the
qualitative analysis supported the primary impacts identified in the quantitative
analysis of the closed questions (see Table 8.1), this chapter discusses the impacts
using the Table 8.1 categories. The quotations selected as exemplars from the
open-ended responses and interviews are representative of the responses given by
participants for each of the seven identified impact categories.

Extent, venues, and rationale

Analysis of respondents’ answers to the survey questions revealed that 24% of stu-
dents said that they had been cyberbullied in the last 12 months, 12% by a friend
or acquaintance at the university, 14% by a stranger, and 2% by a faculty member,
with 5% admitting to cyberbullying others at university. Twenty-five percent of
participating faculty members ranging from instructors just beginning their career
to senior tenured professors, and from departments across the universities, had
experienced cyberbullying in the past 12 months, 15% by students and 12% by
colleagues.
Although the percentages of cyberbullying towards students and faculty repre-
sent only a small proportion of cases relative to the entire population of the four
universities, these percentages fall within the mid-range of frequencies identified
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 115

in other studies (see Faucher et al., 2014, Table 1, p. 3). One does not know if a
larger sample of respondents in our Canadian study would have yielded a similar
percentage of victims.
Students who cyberbullied each other primarily used social networking
sites, text messaging, email, and non-course-related sites, while they targeted
faculty mainly through email, professor-rating sites, and course sites. Faculty
members who were cyberbullied by colleagues received their messages over-
whelmingly from email, so the perpetrators were known to them. Students
who experienced cyberbullying said it was for interpersonal reasons, because
of their physical appearance, gender (females), or ethnicity (males), while per-
petrators said it was because the target upset them, that person bullied them
first, or because “it was fun.”
Faculty members were cyberbullied by students and colleagues primarily for
work-related reasons: because of their position at the university or their teaching,
with female faculty members noting that their gender also played a role. Students
said that they targeted faculty members because the instructor had upset them,
they did not like their teaching style or them as people, and because they sought
to tarnish their reputation. Students’ messages were perceived by faculty members
as insulting, demanding, and demeaning, and included spreading rumours and
harassment. Negative messages from colleagues were described in similar ways,
while also adding attempts to exclude, threaten, and/or humiliate.

Findings: impact – dichotomous survey responses

The percentages of students and faculty reporting particular impacts are recorded
in Table 8.1. This table lists the most frequent impacts participants selected from a
list of 11 options in the dichotomous yes/no questions.
The impact that was selected the most often by students and faculty combined
was the ability to do one’s work at the university. Being cyberbullied by colleagues
affected faculty members’ ability to work (73%) even more so than being bul-
lied by students (64%). Almost half (49%) of the faculty members who had been
cyberbullied by colleagues wanted to quit, with the same proportion saying that
it impacted their relationships at the university. Thirty percent said that they felt
like quitting after being cyberbullied by students, and while faculty said that their
relationships at university were more affected by students cyberbullying them
(62%) than colleagues (49%), their open-ended and interview responses indicated
that being bullied by colleagues had a longer-term impact since difficult students
left after a semester, while colleagues remained.
Students reported that cyberbullying affected their relationships outside the
university (41%) more so than inside (27%), and that their mental health was more
at risk (42%) than their physical health (26%). Approximately one-third of stu-
dents who reported being cyberbullied by other students said that it made them
feel unsafe (39%), with a similar percentage reported by faculty (34%) who had
116 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

been cyberbullied by students, and a much higher percentage reported by faculty

who were cyberbullied by colleagues (46%).
Although Table 8.1 does not list the percentages of respondents who indicated
suicide ideation, because this was a less frequent response, 14% of students selected
this response, very worrisome for any institution concerned about the health and
well-being of their students. Only two faculty members selected this response –
not a large number, but two too many, and a wake-up call for university adminis-
trators and health providers.

Findings – open-ended and interview responses

Overarching finding of negative affect

One overarching finding from the open-ended responses and the interviews was
the depth and extent of the negative affect students and faculty members said that
they had experienced (or were still experiencing) as a result of being cyberbullied.
This negative affect is woven throughout all other impacts identified in Table 8.1.
Participants frequently used words and phrases such as feeling wounded, sad, hurt,
angry, humiliated, betrayed, crushed, choked, embarrassed, scared, alone, shaking, crying,
being emotionally raw, and vulnerable. One faculty member broke down and cried
during her interview, remembering her experiences of being victimized by a col-
league over a two-year period. Many of the respondents, particularly faculty in
their interviews, also used violence-based terminology to express the depth of the
anger, hurt, and frustration at the aggression they had experienced; words like poi-
son, attack, enraging, hate, roaring, shouting, horrific, vindictive, backstabbing, and disaster
(Cassidy et al., 2017). Some said that the experience made them want to retaliate
or take revenge, since they felt like they were in a “battleground,” “combat” zone,
or “cyber war.” Others went inward, blaming themselves and describing how the
experience had shaken their self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.
Students identified their appearance as one reason for being attacked, as noted
in this open-ended comment: “during Minecraft someone lashed out at me and
made fun of my appearance. . . . As an adult I was shocked that it would affect
me so much! I was seriously embarrassed and depressed as he had somehow hit
the right buttons.” Relationships were also a focus, with the bullying designed
to disrupt a relationship, challenge the target’s reputation, or discredit a friend:
“they [‘friends’] were spreading rumours about me [on Facebook] that [I] had a
sex relationship with many guys, they started sending vulgar messages, updating
statuses about me. . . . I felt helpless, emotionally distraut (sic), I cried almost every
day, my worst life experience till now.”
While some female faculty members discussed the upset they felt for being
judged for their “Hotness” on the Rate My Professor website, most comments
they received related to their teaching ability or the grade they gave a student.
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 117

This comment was typical: “Email, text messages making comments that I was
incompetent, not accessible, too slow, workload too difficult and the words used
were ‘useless’, ‘lousy,’ and ‘I am reporting you’. Student was not open to feedback.
I felt attacked, humiliated.” This form of cyberbullying behaviour fits with the
literature on student entitlement (Boswell, 2012; Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, &
Farruggia, 2008) and incivility (Chowning & Campbell, 2009; Clark, Werth, &
Ahten, 2012; Kopp & Finney, 2013; Wildermuth & Davis, 2012), where students
believe that they are entitled to certain grades and to be treated in certain ways by
their professors, despite their own behaviour.
Faculty members also discussed being humiliated by colleagues, as noted in this
open-ended response:

[A colleague] gave the wrong time and date for a meeting . . . all other
faculty had different communication. SKYPE arranged many times, but
month after month, the connection would be “lost” on the colleague’s
side, their cell phone turned off, the laptop closed, making it impossible to
reconnect. Then emails and text messages sent that I was not performing
my duties and would be reported for my lack of professional accountabil-
ity. . . . Humiliating is not a strong enough word.

One faculty member who had been cyberbullied by a colleague for two years,
with little done by her superiors to remedy the situation, talked at length in her
interview of the devastating emotional toll it took on her. After a culminating
event where she felt “kicked in the stomach,” and “cried on my direct boss’s desk,”
she went home: “I felt . . . really shaky in myself, really raw, shaky, everything being
magnified. . . . I was irritable, I was super sensitive and defensive . . . the world was
this strange place.”

Ability to do work
Both students and faculty talked about the effect being cyberbullied had on their
ability to do work; for example, “She [a “friend”] spammed my emails and FB
with hateful messages of my body and sexuality. She called me things like ‘whore’
or ‘slut’ and made rumors of me. . . . After my grades went down [I had been an
A/B student] because of stress I was put on academic probation.” Another student
talked about being “disregarded” and “put down” in group emails, which made
the student “angry and upset” and feeling “ganged up on and very distracted
from school and my social life.” A few students also chose to give examples of the
demeaning comments made online by a teacher, for example:

I asked my professor a question [in a course chat] and she belittled me

with her response. She essentially told me that I was asking her a stupid
118 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

question . . . like I was wasting her time. I felt invalidated. I was afraid to ask
her questions after that. I started skipping classes.

After reading negative comments on the Rate My Professor website, which one
professor labelled as “defamation of character,” she did not “really feel good about
going to that class knowing that someone was hating [her]. . . . It was pretty
depressing and unmotivating.” Being cyberbullied by colleagues was discussed
more often and in greater detail than by students, and with greater impact on their
ability to do their work.

[T]he immediacy of it [cyberbullying incident] has . . . a real . . . emo-

tional dimension which occupies a lot of my time. I think about it all
day long . . . or many days on end, like what could I do or how could
I respond. . . . So the first impact is that emotional gut – like, oh shit, this
is happening, what am I gonna do? I think that this is gonna not turn out
well. And the second impact . . . is depending on what kind of a decision
I’ve made, so if I’m going to engage and defend myself or defend the posi-
tion, um, you have to kind of psych yourself up for that. . . .Yeah, the next
wave to come and hit you . . . it’s gonna come again and every time you
turn on the computer . . . the anxiety of that builds. And if I’ve decided
to disengage then there’s the guilt of that. . . . I let the bully win and it
also makes me withdraw . . . from my professional position as a member
of the community.

Wanting to quit
While some faculty members expressed concern about losing their job “[since]
I think I have no power to intervene or do something,” others wanted to with-
draw from their responsibilities, particularly when they were targeted by col-
leagues: “I was always on edge . . . like walking on egg shells. . . . I’m quite an open
verbal person. I had to actually . . . physically force myself not to be involved in
staff meetings because I didn’t want to be put down again.”
One of the 14 faculty members being interviewed actually did quit her job and
moved to a different institution.

I mean, they [the university department] just kept having people leaving
and leaving and leaving but there was no a-ha moment, maybe it has to
do . . . [with the situation]. . . . I heard via the grapevine that they were really
angry with me after because I left in the middle of the year . . . but I couldn’t
stand it anymore so I quit . . . and to my knowledge it stayed exactly the
same. I’ve heard via the grapevine that nothing’s changed. . . . I mean it just
has such a detrimental effect . . . you know on a person’s life, on a person’s
home life, on their job satisfaction, I mean the reason that I didn’t leave long
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 119

before I did is I actually enjoyed what I was doing. . . . I love my students,

I love the program, I enjoyed teaching the courses that I did teach.

Impact on relationships inside and outside the university

Both students and faculty members said that being cyberbullied impacted their
relationships at the university and with friends and partners away from campus.
Faculty members talked about cyberbullying impacting their reputation; here are
two examples:

I was (I believe) deliberately excluded by a senior colleague from a series of

exchanges related to a project a group of about 15 colleagues were work-
ing on. When I stopped showing up to meetings (I wasn’t aware had been
scheduled), a fellow pre-tenure colleague asked if I wasn’t getting the email
messages. I said I wasn’t. When the coordinating (full prof bully) was asked
about it, she apologized and said she thought I was no longer interested. . . .
I had never said so, but I had been critical of a decision taken by the full prof
bully in prior exchanges . . . my colleagues, at least some, must have believed
I was unprofessional if not unresponsive.

A few faculty members also talked about becoming less vulnerable with students –
“more strict about rules with students and more standoffish in general” – as a way to
protect themselves from negative comments from students.While only a few faculty
members discussed the impact cyberbullying at university had on their friendships
and partners, one discussed at length the impact on her marriage, concluding with:
“I was in a horrible mood and state all the time.”
Students mainly talked about how cyberbullying impacted their friendships, as
indicated by this example: “A student at another university sent me really rude,
hurtful messages. I felt really bad about myself and it really has ruined not just that
friendship but almost all my friendships.To stop it I just removed myself from that
group of friends.”

Mental and physical health impacts

Both students and faculty members talked about the impacts on their health, list-
ing symptoms like depression, anxiety, panic attacks, stomach upset, and sleepless-
ness. In one faculty interview, the participant discussed having to take “sleeping
medication . . . when I couldn’t sleep in the middle of the night . . . [a colleague’s]
angry behaviours towards me . . . yeah, your stomach would go into knots . . . you
know the physical signs of stress.”
Some students said that they received messages saying that they should kill
themselves, with some admitting that the messages “DID make me feel suicidal,
depressed, like it was ruining my friendships inside and outside of school.”
120 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

Feeling unsafe emotionally and physically

Some messages were threatening or so worrisome that the recipients felt unsafe.
One student reported: “Over Facebook I was sent a personal message from a bully.
Disclosed within this message was a death threat. They threatened that if I didn’t
stop coming to school and being who I was that they were going to kill me. It was
the scariest time of my entire life.”
A faculty member reported threatening comments made by a student during
a live online tutorial: “I temporarily banned the student in the E-Live classroom,
which led to further threats. I was actually frightened that this student would
show up at my place of work and physically threaten me.” Another faculty mem-
ber said:

Over the past week a male student from a seminar class has sent me several
demanding, angry and belittling emails. . . . I feel strongly that such behav-
iour would not occur were I older, and/or male . . . it certainly made me
feel unsafe working in the evening in my office when no other faculty
members are around.

Faculty also talked about being worried that the office staff in their department
may also be a target, if the student, who had been spewing out angry messages,
arrived at the office seeking to find the faculty member.

Reporting
Compounding the impacts that students and faculty were experiencing was the
fact that those who tried to stop the cyberbullying, whether by themselves or
with the help of their superiors, were generally unsuccessful. Approximately two-
thirds of faculty members said they tried to address the problem, but less than half
said that it worked. Students were less likely than faculty to report their situation
to a university authority or counsellor, and more likely to tell a friend.Those who
chose not to report the behaviour said that they remained silent out of fear of
reprisals, because they believed that nothing would change, and/or because they
would be perceived as weak and this would negatively affect their reputation.

Theoretical frameworks
In other publications (Cassidy et al., 2014, 2017; Faucher, Jackson et al., 2014,
2015) we discuss in greater length the theoretical frameworks we use to help
understand the dynamics of cyberbullying at the university. Earlier in this chapter,
we briefly referred to the student entitlement and student incivility literature.
Another literature that is helpful in understanding cyberbullying is contrapower
harassment, where students, who normally have less power than their teachers,
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 121

seek to wield power through student evaluations and assessments, and other
course sites, aimed at damaging a professor’s reputation or ability to obtain tenure
or promotion (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2011; Blizard, 2016, this volume; DeSouza,
2011; McKay et al., 2008).
We also draw on the relational aggression literature (Crick & Nelson, 2002;
Jackson et al., 2009), particularly when examining the jockeying of power within
female so-called friendship groups. Of particular import is the power and con-
trol model (Pence & Paymar, 1993), adapted from the domestic violence litera-
ture, where one party seeks to exert power over another through intimidation,
isolation, emotional abuse, blaming, and/or privilege. We see evidence of these
dynamics being played out in the findings we have discussed in this chapter.

Impact on university culture as a whole

What should also be considered when seeking to understand and curtail cyber-
bullying at post-secondary is that cyberbullying not only affects individuals and
bystanders, but it also has a negative impact on the wider culture of the university.
Although only a small proportion of students and faculty at the four universi-
ties studied completed the surveys, approximately one-quarter of those who did
respond reported being cyberbullied in the last 12 months. More importantly,
each target reported negative impacts, which affected their health and well-being,
their relationships, their ability to work effectively, and even their safety. As one
faculty member noted in her interview, if someone requires a medical leave due to
cyberbullying, “it’s gonna cost [the university] a lot more money doing that than
it is to help keep me healthy in the first place.”
Others talked about how tension, stress, and dysfunction spreads and can affect
a whole department:

the culture of the community is not respectful and so people then just
disengage. I think that’s what happens in the university more often than
not. People aren’t held accountable for the behaviours so other people just
disengage and then issues never get resolved.

Solutions and action points

The solutions the participants recommended in the surveys stressed developing a
kinder university culture, better reporting measures, stronger anti-cyberbullying
policies that are understood and communicated, more support for victims, as well
as increased opportunities for dialogue, awareness, and education.The recommen-
dations made by the 10 student focus groups related to solutions are too extensive
to report here (separate paper in progress), other than to mention that students
highlighted the importance of modelling, dialogue, engaging bystanders, being
proactive in building relationships, fostering a caring community, and “having a
122 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

collective conscience.” Punishment was not widely advocated, as it was deemed

ineffective. Both students and faculty seemed attuned to the fact that the wider
campus culture can either facilitate positive behaviours, or the opposite can be
fostered, especially if the environment is strongly hierarchical or competitive and/
or if negative behaviour is modelled or practised at senior levels (see Crookston,
2012; Driver, this volume).
In their interviews, faculty members stressed that denial of the problem is not a
solution; rather, it is important to create spaces where the university community can
come together and discuss cyberbullying and its impacts, because “then you create
that opportunity for other people to come forward . . . to know that they’re not
alone.” If no one talks about it, “that becomes the power of silence,” and nothing is
done. While one faculty member said in the aftermath of being cyberbullied, “you
need a thick skin,” others sought to re-direct their attention to appreciative stu-
dents and supportive colleagues, while others said that they are using their anger to
conduct research into bullying with an aim to change the system. Attention was also
placed on the university’s responsibility to raise important and difficult issues facing
society: “I believe that universities are designed to serve communities, not the other
way around, and that we really have an obligation to use our privilege to advance
social dialogue and to lead those tough conversations in our society.”
None of the participants regarded the solutions as easy – a quick fix is unreal-
istic.What is needed, rather, is a willingness and intentionality to address the prob-
lem; collaboration with all stakeholder groups; dialogue, education, and awareness;
self-reflection and modelling at all levels; using research to inform policy and
practice; and taking action wherever possible.

References
Arıcak, O. T. (2016). The relationship between mental health and bullying. In H. Cowie &
C.-A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national perspectives
(pp. 76–90). London: Routledge.
Beebe, J. E., & Robey, P. A. (2011).The prevalence and psychological impact of bullying on
adolescents: An application of choice theory and reality therapy. International Journal of
Choice Theory & Reality Therapy, 30(2), 33–44.
Beran,T. N., Rinaldi, C., Bickham, D. S., & Rich, M. (2012). Evidence for the need to sup-
port adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progres-
sion, and impact. School Psychology International, 33(5), 562–576.
Bjorklund,W. L., & Rehling, D. L. (2011). Incivility beyond the classroom. InSight: A Journal
of Scholarly Teaching, 6, 28–36.
Blizard, L. M. (2016). Faculty members’ experiences of cyberbullying by students at one
Canadian university: Impact and recommendations. International Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 1(1), 107–124.
Blizard, L. (this volume). Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying: The impact on faculty.
In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international
contexts (pp. 126–138). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 123

Boswell, S. S. (2012). “I deserve success”: Academic entitlement attitudes and their rela-
tionships with course self-efficacy, social networking, and demographic variables. Social
Psychology of Education, 15, 353–365.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A compre-
hensive review of current international research and its implications and application to
policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6), 575–612.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2017). Adversity in university: Cyberbullying and
its impacts on students, faculty and administrators. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 14, 888–906.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume). Introduction: Context, framework,
and perspective. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university
in international contexts (pp. 1–6). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2015). Gender differences and cyberbullying
towards faculty members in higher education. In R. Navarro, S.Yubero, & E. Larrañaga
(Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health (pp. 79–98). Basel,
Switzerland: Springer.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but
how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology
International, 30(4), 383–402.
Chowning, K., & Campbell, N. J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure of
academic entitlement: Individual differences in students’ externalized responsibility and
entitled expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 982–997.
Clark, C. M., Werth, L., & Ahten, S. (2012). Cyber-bullying and incivility in the online
learning environment, Part 1: Addressing faculty and student perceptions. Nurse Educa-
tor, 37(4), 150–156.
Coyne, I., & Farley, S. (this volume). Cyberbullying within working contexts. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 80–96). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Cowie, H., Bauman, S., Coyne, I., Myers, C.-A., Pörhölä, M., & Almeida, A. (2013). Cyber-
bullying amongst university students: An emergent cause for concern? In P. K. Smith &
G. Steffgen (Eds.), Cyberbullying through the new media: Findings from an international net-
work (pp. 165–177). London: Psychology Press.
Cowie, H., & Myers, C.-A. (2016). What we know to date about bullying and cyberbul-
lying among university students. In H. Cowie & C.-A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among
university students: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.
Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friend-
ships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30(6), 599–607.
Crookston, R. K. (2012). Working with problem faculty: A 6-step guide for department chairs. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DeSouza, E. R. (2011). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher
education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 158–188.
Driver, J. (this volume). Faculty members who are bullies. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 212–214). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
124 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

Duffy, M., & Sperry, L. (2014). Overcoming mobbing: A recovery guide for workplace aggression
and bullying. New York: Oxford University Press.
Faucher, C., Cassidy,W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Comparing
the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the work-
place. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111–125.
Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (this volume). Power in the tower: The gen-
dered nature of cyberbullying among students and faculty at Canadian universities. In
W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international
contexts (pp. 66–79). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International,
2014, 1–10.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2015).When on-line exchanges byte: An examina-
tion of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 102–121.
Giovazolias, T., & Malikiosi-Loizos, M. (2016). Bullying at Greek universities: An empiri-
cal study. In H. Cowie & C.-A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-
national perspectives (pp. 110–126). London: Routledge.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college stu-
dents: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 37, 1193–1204.
Hollis, L. P. (2012). Bully in the ivory tower: How aggression and incivility erode American higher
education. Wilmington, DE: Patricia Berkly LCC.
Jackson, M., Cassidy, W., & Brown, K. (2009). “you were born ugly and youl die ugly too”:
Cyber-bullying as relational aggression. In Education: Special Issue on Technology and Social
Media, Part 1, 15(2), 68–82.
Jackson, M., Faucher, C., & Cassidy, W. (this volume). What’s policy got to do with it? The
focus on cyberbullying policy at the university level. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 198–211). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Keashly, L. (this volume). In the e-presence of others: Understanding and developing con-
structive cyber-bystander action. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyber-
bullying at university in international contexts (pp. 141–156). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., & Markos, A. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An investigation
of the psychological profile of university student participants. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 35, 204–214.
Kopp, J. P., & Finney, S. J. (2013). Linking academic entitlement and student incivility using
latent means modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 322–336.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital
age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lampman, C. (2012). Women faculty at risk: U.S. professors report on their experiences
with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual attention. NASPA Journal About
Women in Higher Education, 5(2), 184–208.
Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., Navarro, R., & Ovejero, A. (this volume). From traditional bul-
lying to cyberbullying: Cybervictimization among higher education students. In
W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international
contexts (pp. 99–111). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering five key questions about workplace
bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transform-
ing abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 3–47.
 “You need a thick skin . . .” 125

Marczak, M., & Coyne, I. (2010). Cyberbullying at school: Good practice and legal aspects
in the United Kingdom. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 182–193.
McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia:
A Canadian study. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 20, 77–100.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2012). Peer education intervention: Face-to-face versus
online. In A. Costabile & B. A. Spears (Eds.), The impact of technology on relationships in
educational settings (pp. 139–150). New York, NY: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdale, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). San Franscisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Minor, M. A., Smith, G. S., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Jour-
nal of Educational Research and Practice, 3(1), 15–29.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumboltz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Men-
esini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European
countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 129–142.
Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research.
In J. W. Patchin & S. Hinduja (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspec-
tives (pp. 13–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter:The Duluth Model. New
York: Springer.
Rivers, I. (2016). Homophobic and transphobic bullying in universities. In H. Cowie &
C.-A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national perspectives
(pp. 48–60). London: Routledge.
Sallee, M., & Diaz, C. (2012). Sexual harassment, racist jokes, and homophobic slurs: When
bullies target identity groups. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education
(pp. 41–59). New York: Routledge.
Sourander, A., Klomek, A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., & Koskelainen, M.
(2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents:
A population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 720–728.
Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson,
M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: Interna-
tional research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 93–103). New York: Routledge.
Taylor, S. (2012). Workplace bullying: Does tenure change anything? The example of a
midwestern research university. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education
(pp. 23–40). New York: Routledge.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis
of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287.
Vaughan, S. (2012). Ya’makasi or the art of displacement in the corporate world: A target’s
perspective on the impact of workplace bullying. In N.Tehrani (Ed.), Workplace bullying:
Symptoms and solutions (pp. 51–66). London: Routledge.
von Marées, N., & Petermann, F. (2012). Cyberbullying: An increasing challenge for schools.
School Psychology International, 33, 467–476.
Wildermuth, S., & Davis, C. B. (2012). Flaming the faculty: Exploring root causes, con-
sequences, and potential remedies to the problem of instructor-focused uncivil online
student discourse in higher education. In L. A. Wankel & C. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior
online in higher education: Cutting-edge technologies in higher education (pp. 379–404). Bing-
ley: Emerald.
9
STUDENT-TO-FACULTY TARGETED
CYBERBULLYING LIDA BLIZARDSTUDENT-TO-FACULTY TARGETED CYBERBULLYING

The impact on faculty

Lida Blizard

Introduction
This chapter explores the impact that student-to-faculty targeted cyberbul-
lying can have on faculty members. These findings were captured in a mixed-
methods study conducted at one Canadian university in 2012. The study found
that targeted faculty members experienced negative physical, emotional, rela-
tional, and occupational effects in the aftermath of being cyberbullied by students.
The classroom constitutes the workplace: in which faculty members are responsible
to uphold institutional policy, engage students in meaningful learning experi-
ences, and manage tensions that arise in the process.While teaching is a rewarding
experience, student-faculty conflicts are inevitable given that faculty members’
decision-making can have an effect on students’ academic outcomes. While some
students may choose to collaborate with faculty in resolving these differences,
others may retaliate by posting about their teachers online.
Some scholars argue that cyberbullying can be motivated by a perceived
injustice or for simple entertainment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; McKay, Arnold,
Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008). In a landmark Canadian court case (Prigden v. Univer-
sity of Calgary, 2012), two undergraduate students were expelled for creating
a Facebook polling site that rewarded peers for posting slanderous comments
about a targeted instructor. Remarkably, whether enticed by peer pressure or
the notoriety of posting harmful remarks (e.g., allegations of incompetence,
defamatory comments), students engaged in the contagion of vengeful activity
for several weeks. Although 10 students were prosecuted and found guilty of
non-academic misconduct, two students appealed to the higher courts arguing
that the university was not exempt from the standards set by the country’s Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Ultimately, the courts sided with the students, and their
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 127

perceived constitutional right to freedom of expression prevailed (see also Jackson,

Faucher, & Cassidy, this volume).The targeted faculty member later resigned from
the university and relocated to another country.

Literature
In terms of workplace safety for faculty, at the time of this study, the academic
bullying literature reported that between 18% and 32% of post-secondary faculty
members had been bullied (Keashly & Neuman, 2010; McKay et al., 2008); yet,
minimal research had explored cyberbullying within the tertiary sector (Baldridge,
2008; DeSouza, 2010; Lampman, 2012), with even fewer studies focused on a
student-to-faculty cyberbullying trajectory (Eskey, Taylor, & Eskey, 2014; Minor,
Smith, & Brashen, 2013). Even so, student-faculty cyberbullying research reported
relatively high prevalence rates, ranging between 12% (Faucher, Jackson, & Cas-
sidy, 2014) and 17%, to 45% (Eskey et al., 2014; Minor et al., 2013; Smith, 2007;
Vance, 2010).
The detrimental impact of cyberbullying on targeted individuals has been
well-documented across the workplace bullying, K–12 bullying, and, to some
extent, in the post-secondary face-to-face bullying literature (Beran, Rinaldi,
Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2009; Eskey et al., 2014; Na,
Dancy, & Park, 2015; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Shariff,
2008). Additionally, on the academic front, studies on faculty-targeted incivil-
ity (Lampman, 2012; Luparell, 2004) and cyberbullying directed toward faculty
members (Blizard, 2014; Clark, Werth, & Ahten, 2012; Eskey et al., 2014; Faucher
et al., 2014; Minor et al., 2013) have exposed the detrimental impact of bullying
on teachers. Yet, despite the harm endured by the target, the literature confirms
that victims (whether adolescents or adults) tend to avoid reporting the incident,
believing either that it will not solve the problem, or else may result in further
retaliation (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2012; Blizard, 2014). Furthermore,
research conveys that student-faculty conflict can be pervasive – placing students,
faculty members, and the overall learning community at risk of harm (Clark et al.,
2012; Frey Knepp, 2012; Luparell, 2004; Twale & DeLuca, 2008).

Purpose
This study was undertaken to develop a greater understanding of this phenomenon –
that is, evaluating the extent to which student-to-faculty cyberbullying takes
place – including the nature of the experience, the impact on targets, and the sup-
port measures needed to cope with cyberbullying incidents. The importance of
addressing this issue is two-fold: first, in terms of the individual welfare of faculty
members, who may inadvertently be placed at risk while fulfilling their roles; and,
second, in how this may affect the occupational health and safety of the overall
campus community.
128 Lida Blizard

Method
This two-phase mixed-methods study employed online survey and individual
interview methods to capture faculty members’ experiences of cyberbullying
by students. Purposeful convenience sampling was used to survey approximately
1,040 faculty members from within one Canadian university. Both the online
survey and interview questions were adopted, and then modified, from previ-
ously validated research instruments. The online survey included both closed and
open-ended responses.Throughout this study, cyberbullying was defined as an elec-
tronically mediated message(s) perceived by the targeted individual as contain-
ing aggressive, intimidating, derogatory, defamatory, sexist, harassing, or bullying
language (Blizard, 2014).

Results

Study participants
From the 36 survey respondents (3.5% of total surveyed), 22 faculty members
declared having experienced student-to-faculty cyberbullying at least once in
their teaching career, 19 of whom endured at least one “serious” incident that had
a negative effect on them. Four of these respondents (three females, one male)
volunteered to participate in a one-on-one individual audio-taped interview,
which ranged in length from 60 to 90 minutes. Recognizing that interviewees
were taking a risk in disclosing, and potentially reliving, painful memories of their
cyberbullying experiences, great care was taken to provide a safe, comfortable,
supportive environment during the interview process. The recordings were tran-
scribed, member-checked with participants to verify credibility and trustworthi-
ness of the transcript text, then coded using a descriptive coding process (Saldaña,
2009). Pseudonym codes were used to preserve anonymity and confidentiality of
the participants’ information.
Although this study assessed various aspects of faculty members’ cyberbullying
experiences (e.g., message content, prevalence, impact, support needed, recom-
mendations), this discussion focuses on the self-declared impact of cyberbullying
on targeted individuals. Notably, cyberbullied faculty members (n = 22) were
primarily female (68%), over 40 years of age (84%), held Canadian citizenship by
birth (72%), spoke English as their first language (97%), held full-time status, and
had greater than 10 years’ teaching experience within the post-secondary sector.
That targeted instructors were predominantly female converges with prior stud-
ies of cyberbullying and workplace bullying (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014;
Lampman, 2012), post-secondary bullying (Keashly & Neuman, 2010), and post-
secondary cyber-harassment (Vance, 2010). The findings diverge, however, from
studies of student incivility (Alberts, Hazen, & Teobald, 2010; Alexander-Snow,
2004), whereby young, low-rank, non-white faculty members were more likely
to be targeted.
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 129

Additionally, “student dissatisfaction with grades” (79%, n = 19) and “student

misconduct issues” (32%, n = 19) served as the most common precursors to cyber-
bullying, while email and online evaluation sites were the most prevalent platforms
utilized by students to target faculty members. From a list of options, respondents
most commonly described the cyberbullying messages they received as “disre-
spectful”, “aggressive or rude”, “defamatory”, and “demeaning”.The nature of the
messages parallel findings from prior studies of post-secondary incivility (Alberts
et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2012; DeSouza, 2010) and cyberbullying (Eskey et al.,
2014; Minor et al., 2013). Knowing the precursors, the platforms, and the content
of cyberbullying messages contributed to developing greater understanding of the
impact that cyberbullying had on targeted faculty members, findings which were
enriched by affording respondents the opportunity to describe and elaborate on
their experiences in open-ended responses and in the interviews.

Impact of cyberbullying

Physical and emotional impact

The following discussion focuses on the data obtained from respondents (n = 19)
who declared having a “serious” cyberbullying incident that resulted in detri-
mental effects. Of this group of respondents, most (80%) were cyberbullied “once
or twice”, and suffered detrimental physical and emotional effects (e.g., difficulty
sleeping, significant anxiety or distress, felt depressed, increased irritability, sudden
emotional responses, difficulty concentrating) following the incident. In addi-
tion, approximately 50% of the respondents reported fear and avoidance symp-
toms (e.g., fear of the aggressor, fear of being alone with the aggressor, tried to
avoid thinking about it), which is understandable considering the profane, aggres-
sive content of some messages received. Both the survey respondents (hereafter
referred to as SR) and the interview participants (hereafter referred to as IP)
articulated the inflammatory nature of such messages:

An anonymous email was sent . . . address line was “fuk (my first and last
names) @yahoo.ca” . . . claiming I marked students too hard . . . threatening
how students would treat me if they found me walking alone down the
street. . . . I was extremely shaken by this email.
(SR 8)

I received several messages referring to me as a bitch.

(SR 9)

Angry email messages . . . it was very upsetting. . . . [I] felt threatened . . .

shocked . . . didn’t know what to do. . . . I was just trying to help the student.
(IP Andrew)
130 Lida Blizard

The email messages . . . threatened to call the press, threatened to file a legal
complaint . . . tried to intimidate me into changing the grade . . . to me that
is bullying.
(IP Carol)

Furthermore, even a single egregious comment posted to a faculty polling site

(e.g., accessible to the public) or an online faculty evaluation site (e.g., accessible
to administrators) was deemed harmful to those who were targeted:

I was away on vacation . . . sitting in a coffee shop . . . opened the online

evaluation . . . read one of the comments and I was shocked. . . . I really
felt physically ill . . . I felt the tears coming. A woman sitting across from
me leaned over [said]. “Oh no . . . you’ve just received some really bad
news”. . . . I just got up and left . . . couldn’t stop thinking about it . . . lost
sleep over it . . . bothered me . . . tremendously.
(IP Debbie)

The online faculty evaluation comments were mean . . . unsubstantiated . . .

intended to hurt . . . and they did.
(IP Debbie)

“Rateyourprofessor.com” . . . if a student wants to get back at a faculty

member they can write a horrible review . . . on the site for everyone to
see . . . it can be psychologically damaging.
(IP Andrew)

This study also found that student aggression can transcend online platforms
and escalate to in-person altercations. For instance, both Andrew and Barbara
were recipients of numerous “angry email messages” that escalated to incidents of
“shouting and berating” them in-person. Whether male or female, the emotional
toll of cyberbullying on targeted faculty members became vividly clear during
the individual interviews. Physical and emotional responses varied among par-
ticipants, and, while most appeared calm at the onset of the interview, some indi-
viduals became more emotional and anxious (e.g., fidgeting, struggling to speak,
tearful) while sharing their stories:

(Crying) I was fine until this interview and now all of those emotions came
back up. . . . I’m reliving it again as I talk about it.
(IP Debbie)

(Fidgeting, looking at the floor) It was very upsetting. . . . I felt threat-

ened . . . shocked.
(IP Andrew)
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 131

(Crying) . . . one bad comment after so many years of positive feedback had
such an effect on me.
(IP Debbie)

Interestingly, some respondents attempted to minimize or normalize their cyber-

bullying experience, even while describing the harm inflicted upon them:

I thought I was over-reacting . . . it wasn’t as bad as what happens to other

people. . . . I didn’t think I was affected, but I was affected (tearful). . . . I have
a lot of experience. . . . I should be able to handle it.
(IP Debbie)

Compelling findings from this study emerged when participants were asked to
identify, from a checklist, the type and duration of negative effects (e.g., physical,
emotional, relational, and occupational) that occurred from their cyberbullying expe-
rience. The study found that one cyberbullying incident can be highly detrimental
to targeted individuals such that some faculty members reported multiple nega-
tive effects (five or more) that persisted from “a few days” to “more than one year”
(e.g., “sleep disturbances”, “felt significantly anxious or distressed”, “felt depressed”,
“increased irritability”, “sudden emotional responses when reminded of the event”,
“had difficulty concentrating”,“stress-related illnesses”,“tried not to think about the
incident”,“avoided making contact with the aggressor”,“afraid to be alone with the
aggressor”). More disturbingly, others experienced greater than nine of the afore-
mentioned negative effects for longer than one year, including thoughts of retaliation
(21%) and thoughts of self-harm (5%).These findings pose concern, since some par-
ticipants would have been experiencing these detrimental effects while attempting
to fulfill their teaching role, as well as the unfavorable consequences for the campus
community should thoughts of retaliation or self-harm be acted upon.
Notably – while this was not a psychological focused study – upon further
review of the literature, similarities were noticed between the study’s findings and
the American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5) criteria for Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Dis-
order (PTSD). According to the DSM-5 criteria, ASD occurs when an individual
has been directly exposed to a stressful or traumatic experience with a pattern of
symptoms that persist for three days to one month following the event, whereas
symptoms that last beyond one month constitute PTSD (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013). As such, faculty members who reported more than nine nega-
tive effects that persisted for one week to one month may have experienced ASD-
like effects. Likewise, participants who reported multiple negative effects that lasted
longer than one month in the form of: intrusion (e.g., “I couldn’t stop thinking
about it”, “I’m reliving it again as I talk about it”), avoidance (e.g., “I tried not to
think about it”), alterations in mood or cognition (e.g., “I was very bothered by
it”, “I felt threatened . . . shocked”), and arousal (e.g., “I lost sleep over it”), bear
132 Lida Blizard

similarities with the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. In light of these findings, it is impor-
tant to consider how targeted faculty members, afflicted with such effects, were able
to cope with the experience or interact with students thereafter.

Relational and occupational effects

In addition to the emotional and physical effects discussed, this study found that
cyberbullied faculty members (n = 19) predominantly encountered detrimental
effects in their relationships with students (74%), followed by colleagues (37%),
and Deans or administrators (37%). For example, Andrew stated: “I was unsure
how to interact with that student and other students after the [email] incident”,
while Carol explained: “My encounters with cyberbullying tell me that getting
involved too close with students can work against you”. Professional ramifica-
tions included loss of desire to go to work (68%), loss of productivity (53%), and
where victims felt like quitting (53%). Likewise, some participants lost confidence
in their ability to: manage student conflict (47%), work with students (42%), or
continue teaching students (37%). Respondents explained the perplexity of being
cyberbullied while fulfilling one’s teaching responsibilities:

I doubted my ability as a teacher . . . lost confidence . . . it was really upset-

ting . . . didn’t know what to think at the time . . . trying to make decisions
and you don’t know what to do.
(IP Andrew)

The first time . . . I didn’t know what to do . . . felt a tremendous amount

of emotions . . . thought I had to reply . . . they just came back with more
aggressive emails.
(IP Carol)

The adverse relational and occupational effects reported in this study are not
new, as similar findings have been reported in former academic and workplace
bullying research (Celep & Konalki, 2013; Lampman, 2012; Lampman, Phelps,
Bancroft, & Beneke, 2009; Luparell, 2004; Lutgen-Sandvik,Tracy, & Alberts, 2007;
McKay et al., 2008; Namie, 2003).
Interview testimonials illuminated the value participants placed on building
a positive, supportive relationship with students to help them succeed. Emo-
tions surfaced (e.g., tears, raised voices, trembling) as interviewees explained how
invested they were in providing feedback to assist students in learning, as well as
how “surprised”, “shocked”, “shattered”, “threatened”, or “defenseless” they felt
upon discovering that they had been cyberbullied:

I meet with the students . . . discuss their marks . . . give constructive feed-
back to prepare them for . . . their upcoming semester. . . .The student wrote
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 133

that I was the worst teacher they ever had . . . I was lazy. . . . I was shocked . . .
my confidence was shattered.
(IP Debbie)

Just because you have a good thing with a student doesn’t mean they won’t
come back on you. . . . I decided to keep distance. . . . I don’t want to be hurt.
(IP Carol)

Although one interviewee was targeted with very angry email messages from a
student, she was able to put it in perspective of a learning experience for the stu-
dent, while maintaining a distance emotionally:

I received some angry, angry, angry email messages from the student . . .
believing that it is not about me is my survival mechanism . . . students’
attempts to bully are just opportunities for them to learn . . . if they bully
they haven’t learned.
(IP Barbara)

Implications of reporting cyberbullying incidents

In this study, cyberbullied faculty members predominantly consulted with col-
leagues (84%), an immediate supervisor (74%), or friends (74%), while fewer
reported the incident to an administrator (37%). Furthermore, most respondents
(79%) held the opinion that students at their institution can cyberbully faculty
members with impunity. When faculty members are unsure of what constitutes
cyberbullying – or whether it will be beneficial to report such incidents – they
may choose to suffer in silence. Those who chose not to report their cyberbul-
lying experience reasoned that complaints would not be taken seriously; targets
would be viewed as incompetent; or, worse, may result in further retaliation by
students or administrators:

I didn’t report it . . . didn’t know who to report it to . . . or if there was any

point.
(SR 19)

I did not report it . . . had fear of further victimization. Administrators may

not act on it, or if they do . . . may be detrimental to the faculty member
who reports it.
(SR 23)

You just can’t tell people about these kinds of incidents . . . you have to be
really careful about who you tell and what you say.
(SR 22)
134 Lida Blizard

Regardless of whether cyberbullying incidents are reported, participants were

clear that faculty members should be supported in their ability to manage conflict
with students. They should not feel at fault when targeted by students:

When teachers are hired they should have training . . . it is important to

know that faculty members are supported when they feel threatened . . .
they shouldn’t feel as though they have done something wrong.
(IP Andrew)

Discussion

Limitations
The first limitation of this study pertains to the low response rate (N = 1040)
from the online survey (3.5%, n = 36) and the interviews (.38%, n = 4), which
could be attributed to the narrow 30-day implementation period imposed by
the university, the sensitive subject matter, faculty members’ uncertainty of what
constitutes cyberbullying, or faculty members’ concern with what might be done
with the findings. Yet, while some faculty members may have been wary about
sharing (and potentially reliving) intimate details of their cyberbullying experi-
ence, others chose to participate as an opportunity to effect change:

I realized in reading your research proposal that I too had been a victim of
cyberbullying and that this was a great opportunity to participate.
(IP Carol)

Second, due to the unique focus – a limited number of faculty members at one
institution – the findings are not generalizable across the institution (nor to other
institutions). However, despite the low response rate to the online survey, the
research process was enriched during the interviews by hearing the intimate
details and observing the emotional impact of faculty members’ cyberbullying
experiences. Participants’ testimonials gave voice to the detrimental impact of
student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying, advancing the literature in this way.

Implications and recommendations

The negative impacts of cyberbullying reported in this study parallel former stud-
ies of workplace bullying (Hoel & Einarsen, 2011; Namie, 2003), post-secondary
bullying (Lampman, 2012; McKay et al., 2008), and cyberbullying (Beran et al.,
2012; Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014). For example, fear of the aggressor
(Beran et al., 2012; Lampman et al., 2009; Lampman, 2012), loss of concentra-
tion, increased anxiety, stress-related illnesses, depression (Lutgen-Sandvik et al.,
2007; Namie, 2003), and suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010) have been
reported in the bullying and cyberbullying literature. Participants’ reluctance to
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 135

take action may be intertwined with the complexity of detrimental effects being
processed, the level of confidence in pursuing administrative or legal action, and
the trepidation of revisiting painful memories.
The type and duration of detrimental effects reported by study participants
that resemble the DSM-5 criteria for ASD and PTSD suggests that some par-
ticipants may have experienced ASD- and PTSD-like effects in the aftermath of
being cyberbullied. Although the survey instrument was not designed to capture
ASD or PTSD effects – nor pose a question to establish whether ASD or PTSD
symptoms existed prior to the study – these findings warrant further investiga-
tion in future research. Furthermore, it is important to consider how targeted
faculty members process or heal from the aforementioned negative effects, given
the plausibility that left untreated, and with repeated exposure, detrimental effects
may worsen (Namie, 2003). Of equal consideration is the question of how faculty
members who reported symptoms of fear and avoidance toward the aggressor
might interact with students thereafter, especially when under stress. For instance,
the communications literature informs us that teachers who exhibit positive man-
nerisms toward students (e.g., smiling, calmness, warmth) can positively influence
students’ attitudes toward their instructors and the tone of civility within the
classroom (Kearney, Plax, & Wendt-Wasco, 1985; Klebig, Goldonowicz, Mendes,
Neville Miller, & Katt, 2016; Miller, Katt, Brown, & Sivo, 2014).
Student-teacher interactions are further compounded by the element of grading
and the power that faculty have to impact students’ success in both the short and
long term. Knowing that students’ dissatisfaction with grades was a leading precur-
sor to cyberbullying affords the opportunity for faculty to discuss grading practices.
This also connects students with support services upon notice of academic or per-
sonal struggles. When tensions arise, it may be beneficial to acknowledge students’
distress, as well as equipping students with skills to better cope with their stressors.
Based on this study’s findings, it is not surprising that the participants (n = 22)
decided that the top-three priority measures needed to address this issue were:
(1) cyberbullying education for faculty (75%); (2) followed by clearly written,
well-communicated cyberbullying policies (65%) including sanctions to deter
cyberbullying (43%); and (3) support for targeted individuals such as counseling
and focus groups (30%). Cyberbullying education for students was also stressed by
interviewees, to ensure students would be able to recognize and understand the
ramifications of cyberbullying. At the time of this study (2012), the gaps in post-
secondary cyberbullying research, institutional policy, and cyberbullying educa-
tion programs left faculty members to manage cyberbullying incidents on their
own. In the absence of knowledge on how to recognize, prevent, or manage
cyberbullying, targeted individuals were left exposed and vulnerable to harm.The
importance of further research was aptly captured in the following excerpts:

This is really important research . . . needs to get out in the open to assist
faculty members in how to manage it when it happens.
(IP Debbie)
136 Lida Blizard

Your study is long overdue. It will improve this institution and the practice
for faculty for years to come.
(IP Carol)

As a result of the findings from this study, the institution advanced their devel-
opment of cyberbullying policies and procedures, provided education for fac-
ulty members and students (e.g., embedding cyberbullying into curriculum), and
increased support services (e.g., cyberbullying focus groups) to assist targeted indi-
viduals in their pathway to healing. Furthermore, the institution also enhanced
opportunities for students to engage in activities that promote self-care (e.g., yoga,
meditation, mindfulness) designed to optimize students’ resilience and their ability
to cope with academic stressors.

Significance
This study provided a platform for cyberbullied faculty members to give voice,
reflect upon, and be acknowledged for their individual cyberbullying expe-
riences – knowing that their testimonials could generate evidence to effect
change. Consistent with prior bullying and cyberbullying literature, this study
found that cyberbullied faculty members who encountered at least one incident
of bullying via electronic media experienced detrimental physical, emotional,
relational, and occupational effects. With the growing number of cyberbullying
cases that have come before the courts, the proliferation of online platforms to
engage in such behaviors, and the damage that can be inflicted upon targeted
individuals, a greater body of cyberbullying research is needed. Further explora-
tion into the impact on victims, as well as refinements to survey instruments
that capture psychological effects, could illuminate the extent of harm and the
support measures most imperative to healing. Finally, the voice of students in
this trajectory cannot be understated, as this would broaden the scope of under-
standing student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying for students and faculty
members alike.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington,VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Alberts, H. C., Hazen, H. D., & Teobald, R. B. (2010). Classroom incivilities: The challenge
of interactions between college students and instructors in the US. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 34, 439–462.
Alexander-Snow, M. (2004). Dynamics of gender, ethnicity, and race in understanding
classroom incivility. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 99, 21–31.
Baldridge, J.V. (2008). Civility, incivility, bullying, and mobbing in academe. In D. J.Twale &
B. M. DeLuca (Eds.), Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do
about it (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying 137

Beran, T., Rinaldi, C., Bickham, D., & Rich, M. (2012). Evidence for the need to support
adolescents dealing with harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progression, and
impact. School Psychology International, 33(5), 562–576.
Blizard, L. M. (2014). Faculty members’ perceived experiences and impact of cyberbullying from
students at a Canadian university: A mixed methods study. Ed.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, B.C. Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/13897
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but
how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology
International, 30, 383–401.
Celep, C., & Konalki, T. (2013). Mobbing experiences of instructors: Causes, results, and
solutions suggestions. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice, 13(1), 193–199.
Clark, C. M., Werth, L., & Ahten, S. (2012). Cyber-bullying and incivility in the online
learning environment, Part 1: Addressing faculty and student perceptions. Nurse Educa-
tor, 37(4), 150–156.
Daniloff, D. (2009). Cyberbullying goes to college. Bostonia. Boston University. Retrieved
from www.bu.edu/today/2009/cyberbullying-goes-to-college/
DeSouza, E. R. (2010). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher
education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 48(11), 1–27.
Eskey, M.,Taylor, C., & Eskey, M. (2014). Cyberbullying in the online classroom: Faculty as
the targets. Proceedings of TCC Worldwide Online Conference, 17, 30–41.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students: Gen-
dered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International, 2014, 1–10.
Frey Knepp, K. A. (2012). Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 32–45.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14(3), 206–221.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Investigating complaints of bullying and harassment. In
S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 341–358). Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learn-
ing in divergent classes. Communication Quarterly, 33, 61–74.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. (2010). Faculty experience with bullying in higher education.
Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48–70.
Klebig, B., Goldonowicz, J., Mendes, E., Neville Miller, A., & Katt, J. (2016). The com-
bined effects of instructor communicative behaviors, instructor credibility, and student
personality traits on civility in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports,
33(2), 152–158.
Lampman, C., Phelps, A., Bancroft, S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Contrapower harassment in
academia: A survey of faculty experience with student incivility, bullying, and sexual
attention. Sex Roles, 60, 331–346.
Lampman, C. (2012). Women faculty at risk: U.S. professors report on their experiences
with student incivility, bullying, aggression, and sexual attention. NASPA Journal About
Women in Higher Education, 5(2), 184–208.
Luparell, S. (2004). Faculty encounters with uncivil nursing students: An overview. Journal
of Professional Nursing, 20, 59–67.
138 Lida Blizard

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies,
44(6), 838–857.
McKay, R., Arnold, D., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia:
A Canadian study. Employee Responsibility and Human Rights Journal, 20, 77–100.
Miller, A., Katt, J. A., Brown, T., & Sivo, S. A. (2014). The relationship of instructor self-
disclosure, non-verbal immediacy, and credibility to student incivility in the college
classroom. Communication Education, 63, 1–16.
Minor, M., Smith, G., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Journal of
Educational Research and Practice, 3(1), 15–29.
Na, H., Dancy, B. L., & Park, C. (2015). College student engaging in cyberbullying victimi-
zation: Cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and psychological adjustments. Archives of
Psychiatric Nursing, 29(3), 155–161.
Namie, G. (2003). The WBI 2003 report on abusive workplaces. Bellingham, WA: Workplace
Bullying Institute.
Neville Miller, A., Katt, J. A., Brown, T., & Sivo, S. A. (2014). The relationship of instructor
self-disclosure, nonverbal immediacy, and credibility to student incivility in the class-
room. Communication Education, 63(1), 1–16.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health,
80(12), 614–620.
Prigden v. University of Calgary. (2012). ABCA 139. Canadian Legal Information Institute.
Retrieved from www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca139/2012abca139.
html
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative research.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Schenk, A., & Fremouw, W. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of cyber-
bully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 21–37.
Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Smith, A. (2007, January 19). Cyber-bullying affecting 17% of teachers, poll finds. The
Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com
Twale, D., & DeLuca, B. (2008). Faculty incivility:The rise of the academic bully culture and what
to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vance, J. W. (2010). Cyber-harassment in higher education: Online learning environments.
Ed.D. dissertation. Retrieved from University of Southern California Digital Library
(usctheses-m2954).
PART III

Solutions
10
IN THE E-PRESENCE OF OTHERS LORALEIGH KEASHLYIN THE E-PRESENCE OF OTHERS

Understanding and developing

constructive cyber-bystander action

Loraleigh Keashly

As this volume illustrates, e-communication has become the latest (and argu-
ably the most virulent) means through which bullying can occur, and academe
is particularly vulnerable. I am interested in faculty experiences with cyberbul-
lying because of a faculty’s central role in the governance and manifestation of
the university’s educational and research missions, as well as its students’ successes
(Keashly & Wajngurt, 2016). Bullying and cyberbullying undermine faculty well-
being and, if left unaddressed, will undermine students, the institution, and higher
education in general (Black, this volume).
In this chapter, I explore the role of bystanders in the context of faculty experi-
ences, with a particular focus on the interactions through e-communication. The
nature of faculty as a self-regulating profession – and the resultant importance
of peer review – draws attention to faculty colleagues as particularly influential
bystanders whose (in)actions have profound implications for specific cyberbully-
ing situations, and the department and university climate more broadly (Keashly &
Neuman, 2010). To that end, I briefly highlight what the research tells us about
faculty experiences with cyberbullying. I then discuss what we know about
bystander behaviour and decision-making, with respect to engaging in these situ-
ations. Within this broader discussion of bystanding, I explore the current think-
ing as to how bystanding occurs and is shaped in the electronic environment:
highlighting what remains the same as in regular bullying, and what unique influ-
ences and opportunities these e-media have for bystanders. I then conclude with
potential action points for universities to consider.

Nature and prevalence of cyberbullying

The majority of research on cyberbullying has focused on adolescents, with
an increasing attention to adults’ experience in a variety of contexts (Wingate,
142 Loraleigh Keashly

Minney, & Guadagno, 2013). The Pew Research Center (2014) reports that 40%
of adults identify as victims of cyberbullying, with 73% indicating they have wit-
nessed others being cyberbullied. This statistic is compelling from a bystander
intervention perspective, as it shows that what happens is often in the presence
of others and, thus, these people have the opportunity to take action. In work
environments, cyberbullying victimization rates range from 10% to 20%, with
email as the primary medium of harassment (Coyne et al., 2016; Forssell, 2016;
Heatherington & Coyne, 2014; Privitera & Campbell, 2009).
In terms of faculty experience as targets, the prevalence and nature varies by
context and actor. Cassidy, Faucher, and Jackson (2014) found that 17% of fac-
ulty respondents reported experiencing cyberbullying from students (12%) and
colleagues (9%) in the previous 12 months. Email was the primary means of
cyberbullying. Rates of students cyberbullying faculty are higher when the focus
is on online educational environments, wherein e-communication is the primary
means of interaction (Wankel & Wankel, 2012). Specifically, one-third to one-half
of faculty in online educational environments perceive themselves as having been
cyberbullied by students (Eskey & Eskey, 2014; Minor, Smith, & Brashen, 2013;
Vance, 2010). Cyberbullying in online education environments occurs through a
variety of mechanisms, including email, phone calls, and posting in public forums
(such as the course discussion boards).
Websites and social networking apps focused on campus life and permit-
ting anonymous postings, such as RateMyProfessor (Daniloff, 2009) and Yik Yak
(Mahler, 2015), are other e-forums where faculty may be vulnerable to hostility
and cyberbullying from students and others. Beyond campus boundaries, posting
of faculty thoughts and actions (by themselves or by others) to social media sites
such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube can result in vigorous discussion and, in
some instances, vicious e-firestorms that can have profound implications for the
faculty member and for the university (Flaherty, 2017). These publicly available
sites are interesting for cyber-bystanding because of the potential for an unlimited
audience, which magnifies impact but also provides an enormous pool of bystand-
ers with the opportunity to engage. These public venues also show the range of
bystander activities: from bystanders who “joined in” with critique, even attacking
and threatening (bullying), to bystanders who challenged these hostile actions and
interpretations, and many who – both online and offline – sent support to the
faculty who were targets.
Faculty also engage in cyberbullying and aggression. Students identify faculty
as engaging in incivility and bullying in online educational environments, primar-
ily through email, class chat, and discussion boards (e.g., Clark, Werth, & Ahten,
2012). Consistent with research on “traditional” faculty bullying (Keashly & Neu-
man, 2013), colleagues are also a source of cyberbullying and aggression, which is
predominantly done through email (Cassidy et al., 2014).
In sum, faculty experience cyberbullying and – more broadly – hostile and
aggressive communication from a variety of actors, in a variety of contexts, and
 In the e-presence of others 143

through a variety of media.The e-medium used is important, as it determines the

opportunity for the presence of bystanders, shaping the types of responses available
for them to enact (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Heatherington & Coyne, 2014). From
the research reviewed here, email is the most frequent medium for the cyber-
bullying of faculty. Media, like email and text messaging, are often one-on-one
in their communications (private). Bystander engagement with these media is
dependent upon those actions being deliberately shared; it requires another step
by the sender or the receiver (e.g., forwarding or copying on a message) (Cassidy
et al., 2014; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013; Eskey & Eskey, 2014; Minor et al., 2013).
In the case of more public media – such as social networking sites, listservs or
public websites, and blogs – once the message is posted, the audience becomes
whoever has access to those forums (i.e., unconfined) (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013).

What is bystanding?
A typical definition of a bystander is a person who, although “present” at some
event or situation, does not take part in it (“Bystander”, 2017). Inherent in this
definition is an assumption of passivity, specifically that bystanders do nothing
(i.e., the nonresponsive bystander) (Latané & Darley, 1970). There is also a pre-
sumption that any actions will be pro-social. Those who are present and aware,
however, often engage in a variety of actions: pro-social (helpful) and anti-social
(harming) (Allison & Bussey, 2016), direct and indirect (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross,
2009), and through more active or passive engagement. Paull, Omari, and Standen
(2012) articulate 12 constructive and destructive roles that bystanders can play.
Examples of destructive roles include actively joining in or assisting the actor,
passively succumbing by becoming another victim, or abdicating opportunities to
engage. The constructive roles tend to involve active engagement such as inter-
vening, defending or defusing, and the more behind-the-scenes/screens work of
sympathizing and empathizing. While developed in on-site situations, these roles
also manifest in cyber-contexts as well. Thus, to understand bystanding generally,
and cyber-bystanding more specifically, we need to consider all the ways (good
or ill) that bystanders can engage. This consideration helps us to identify ways in
which bystanders might move in more constructive directions.

Bystander intervention model

Bystander intervention research has a long and rich history reflected in a variety
of literatures, including specific types of bystanders, such as whistleblower (Miceli,
Near, & Dworkin, 2013), ally (Nelson, Dunn, & Paradies, 2011), and in third-
party conflict intervention (Ury, 2000). In response to the 1964 murder of Kitty
Genovese in New York City (and the case’s presumed bystander inaction), Latané
and Darley (1970) undertook a robust program of research to understand when
bystanders would – or rather, would not – take action to help another. Based on
144 Loraleigh Keashly

their work, Latané and Darley developed a five-stage model of bystander decision-
making regarding intervention. The first stage is noticing that something has hap-
pened; the second is assessing whether it is a problem requiring action; the third
is acknowledging responsibility for taking action; the fourth is choosing the action(s);
and the last is taking the action(s). This model has formed the basis of training to
build bystander efficacy in a variety of contexts (Swan, 2015), including univer-
sity campuses – particularly for addressing high-risk and discriminatory student
behaviour (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo, Blanchar, Petersson, Morris, & Goodwin, 2014;
Banyard, 2015; Nelson et al., 2011).While this model and much subsequent work
have focused on face-to-face situations, it is also being examined for the insight
it can provide regarding bystanding in the cyber-context (e.g., Dillon, 2014; Dil-
lon & Bushman, 2015). I use this model as a framework for exploring the nature
of, as well as influences on, cyber-bystanding decision-making and behaviour in
the context of faculty experiences with cyberbullying.

Notice: did something happen? what do I “see” and

“what” am I seeing?
Before a bystander can take action, they must be aware of the situation or behav-
iour taking place. Awareness requires that (a) the potential bystander is “present”
and (b) they detect the behaviour or interaction.
At its most basic requirement, the potential bystander needs to be “present”
or have the opportunity to be “present” (Allison & Bussey, 2016; Dillon & Bush-
man, 2015). If they are not there when or shortly after the behaviour or event
occurs, they have no opportunity to “notice” what has taken place. In the case of
email or texting, potential bystanders – such as other students or colleagues – are
not “present”. They can become present if the event is shared by the sender or
receiver. This could occur through being cc’d or bcc’d on the email or text, or by
having the message forwarded after the initial interaction. For example, in studies
of online class environments, faculty have shared the event with a program direc-
tor or chair, as well as with family, friends, and colleagues to gain support or in
seeking out a reality check (e.g., Eskey & Eskey, 2014). If the event has occurred in
shared space – such as a listserv for department e-communication or a discussion
board for class – anyone visiting the space becomes “present”.
Being present, however, is not enough to “notice”. To be “noticed”, the
behaviour must also be “out of the ordinary” (Latané & Darley, 1970). Behav-
iours become “visible” or “noticeable” in several ways: (1) when they contravene
expected behaviour; (2) when someone flags it; and/or (3) when the interaction
involves someone connected to the bystander in a meaningful way.
Behaviour is noticeable when it violates relational or interactional norms (Dil-
lon, 2014). In terms of emails from students or faculty colleagues, the use of capital
letters, swearing, or name-calling are considered violations of netiquette and, thus,
will draw the attention of potential bystanders (Shea, 1994).
 In the e-presence of others 145

Related specifically to content, delivering a critique of someone’s idea or

request may or may not be viewed as a violation. In the academic environment,
the culture of debate and critique is valued as an important way to help others
hone their ideas and arguments. A potential bystander, particularly if they are a
faculty member, may not see critique – even harsh critique – as out of the ordi-
nary. As such, they may not notice it or consider it worthy of further attention.
For students (staff and administrators, too), contrastingly, this manner of critique
may be viewed as harsh and perceived as an attack, as their relational norms are
different (Christy, 2010). To them, the behaviour is “noticed”.
For faculty, messages from a student threatening to tell the chair or launch a
lawsuit may be considered worthy of attention. These messages are viewed by
faculty as a violation of the norms of appropriate conduct regarding disagree-
ment (Clark et al., 2012). For student bystanders, these messages may be noticed
because they violate norms of addressing authority (the professor). However, if
the bystander subscribes to the notion of student as consumer and faculty as
service provider, such messages may not be viewed as “out of line”. In more
public online environments – particularly social media forums such as Twitter –
the boundaries of “appropriate” behaviour may be much broader, with rules of
politeness attenuated (Dillon, 2014; Madan, 2014). A cursory review of the com-
ment section of news sites, and even higher education publications, reveals the
broad range of behaviours that occur. As a result, what in other contexts (such
as in face-to-face communication or in private messaging) would be viewed as
“out of the ordinary” – and, thus, worthy of attention – may not be viewed as
unexpected. Therefore, the behaviour or event is not “noticed”.
Yet, even if the behaviour or incident is considered normative, if someone else
flags it as an issue, it becomes noticed. In terms of social networking sites, this may
occur by others flagging a post or comment as abusive, or using dislike and other
emoticons to express the intensity of disapproval. In email or text situations, the
forwarding of an exchange to others signals that something notable has happened
and draws the bystander’s attention.
Another influence is the connection between potential bystander and target, or
actor, or indeed with other bystanders. We are more likely to be attentive to situ-
ations involving those with whom we feel a connection, be it personal or social.
A behaviour or event will draw our attention if it involves someone we know
or with whom we feel a kinship (e.g., identity group) (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016;
Levine & Crowther, 2008).

Assess: is this a problem? is help needed?

Once a bystander has oriented themselves to the behaviour or interaction, they
need to discern if the situation is problematic and whether some action is required
to address it. In the Latané and Darley (1970) studies, the focus was on whether
the situation was perceived to be an “emergency”. Interactions or events are more
146 Loraleigh Keashly

likely to be perceived as an emergency, and in urgent need of action, when nega-

tive impact or harm is visible.
Harm can be at the individual and/or group level. For example, the negativity
of a post raising questions about a faculty member’s reputation can have profound
negative implications for an academic. Alternatively, the harm may be more at the
group level, in which behaviours contravene appropriate principles of the com-
munity (O’Reilly, Aquino, & Skarlicki, 2016) – that is to say, the community is at
risk of being harmed should such behaviour be allowed to continue. An example
of potential community harm is when a faculty member expresses their thoughts
on a controversial issue in social media, facing an e-firestorm of threats and calls
for their termination. For many academics, these actions by others contravene
academic freedom and freedom of expression, and the academic community is
subsequently put at risk (Flaherty, 2017).
The visibility of impact on the target is a challenge for text-only communication –
such as email, texts, tweets, and posts – as these media tend to be stripped of
key social cues like facial expression, tone of voice, and body language, whereby
bystanders interpret the meaning of what has taken place, as well as distinguish
the implications for others and the broader community (Dillon, 2014; Heather-
ington & Coyne, 2014). The resultant situational ambiguity makes it difficult for
witnesses to discern what has happened or what is happening. Is this a conflict
between equals; rudeness or incivility; or bullying or harassment? The latter is
most likely to be viewed as having negative impact and, thus, requiring action
(Shultz, Heilman, & Hart, 2014).
Another factor related to the determination of impact, generally and to harm
specifically, is whether what a bystander is “seeing” is the actor(s) being reac-
tive (e.g., responding to provocation by the target) or proactive (e.g., deliberately
targeting and being provocative) (Law, Shapka, Domene, & Gagne, 2012; Madan,
2014), with the latter perceived as negative and harmful. This assessment requires
being privy to the chain of events involved, which may or may not be accessible
to the bystander. For example, an email between two faculty members may sug-
gest prior conflict, or a long chain of emails reveal the development of the interac-
tion. If the judgement is that this is a conflict, then the bystanders may not view
this as an emergency, or else feel the urgency to do something. Rather, they may
continue to observe (i.e., non-action) (Law et al., 2012; Madan, 2014). Alterna-
tively, if they perceive the behaviours as being unfair to the other party, they will
perceive harm, and may determine an active response is needed to address the
perceived injustice (O’Reilly et al., 2016).
Another influence in assessing impact is the perceived severity of the action,
which is linked to the degree of harm to the target or to the community – that
is, the bystander can imagine that this would hurt and determine, therefore, that
some kind of action is warranted (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). For example, research
on adolescent cyberbullying (e.g., Allison & Bussey, 2016; Bastiaensens et al.,
2014) finds that compromising photos or videos are perceived as more severe than
 In the e-presence of others 147

posts and, hence, require action to address. Thus, when the specific behaviours are
viewed as severe and capable of harm, bystanders will view them as problematic
and be more likely to intervene.
The sense of emergency and subsequent need for action is also affected by
the asynchronous nature of much of our media, as media influences our percep-
tion as to the immediacy of an event’s impact. In the case of being copied on an
email, visiting a class discussion board, or viewing a Facebook post, for example,
if the event had occurred sometime earlier, a bystander may be unclear as to
whether – given the length of time – any urgency to respond remains. Further-
more, the delay may make it difficult to discern the specific impact on the victim.
Heatherington and Coyne (2014) argue that asynchrony, in combination with the
reduced social cue nature of e-communication, reduces the transmission of the
emotional reactions of targets. As a result, bystanders may not develop an empa-
thetic response, detect harm, or perceive the injustice required to call for action.
To the extent that the bystander assesses the situation as not requiring action, they
will not engage.

Responsibility: should I do something about it?

Having made the discernment that the situation requires action, the bystander
has to decide whether it is their responsibility to respond. The bystander’s social
bond with others, and the associated expectations, provide the basis for discerning
responsibility. People are more likely to assume responsibility for taking action
if they feel connected to the target or to the actor (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016;
Levine & Crowther, 2008). Relational norms may specify such action (e.g., stand-
ing up for the other/having the other’s back). These norms are closely tied to
empathy with, and duty of care for, the other. Thus, bystanders are more likely
to intervene if the target is a close friend or colleague and, more broadly, if they
socially identify with the target (i.e., shared identity group membership) (Lev-
ine & Crowther, 2008). Contrastingly, if the bystander feels a kinship with the
actor, they may decide they need to take action regarding the actor (Shultz et al.,
2014). Given cyberbullying research involving faculty peers shows how individu-
als are known to each other, or have relationships with each other, relational
expectations may be a particularly powerful influence in assuming responsibility
(e.g., faculty defend each other’s academic freedom). More pragmatically, if the
target or another person asks the bystander specifically to help – thus highlighting
their relationship to each other – the bystander is more likely to take responsibil-
ity and do so (Markey, 2000). For example, forwarding an email to a colleague
asking for advice or intervention is a clear request for involvement. This increases
the likelihood the bystander will see that personal action is needed.
Broader values, such as deontic justice or particular religious values, specify
that the individual has a moral obligation to intervene in situations where
harm/injustice is detected (O’Reilly et al., 2016). The developing literature
148 Loraleigh Keashly

on moral disengagement, and the cognitive and emotional effort required to

override these obligations, speaks to the power of these moral frameworks in
guiding behaviour (Dillon & Bushman, 2015; Shultz et al., 2014). These moral
frameworks are grounded in a very broad sense of social bonds to the actor and
target as human beings (i.e., “decent people help others who need it”). In the
broadest sense, the bystander recognizes that their behaviour in this moment
has implications. Their behaviour communicates their personal commitment to
this broader community and associated expectations, and, perhaps more impor-
tantly, their own sense of being a moral individual (Allison & Bussey, 2016;
O’Reilly et al., 2016).
In essence, bystanders are looking around to see what others are doing, who
these “others” are relative to the bystander, and getting cues as to what they should
do. At the most basic level, if there are a number of others present, the individ-
ual bystander may assume others will take action and, thus, refrain from taking
responsibility (i.e., diffusion of responsibility) (Latané & Darley, 1970). This is a
particular risk with specific e-media (Dillon, 2014). The “unconfined” spaces of
public postings of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, have the potential
to attract an enormous number of bystanders (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2013). With
regard to emails and texts, Allison and Bussey (2016) report that the more people
who were visibly copied, the less likely people were to help. This diffusion effect
is mitigated when the bystanders have a shared identity or sense of connection
to other bystanders (e.g., colleagues or fellow students) (Allison & Bussey, 2016;
Brody & Vangelisti, 2016; DeSmet et al., 2016). In this situation, the norms of this
“peer” group take precedence (i.e., the individual bystander is more likely to fol-
low the lead of other bystanders). Thus, if a close other has responded (e.g., mod-
elling dissent with the action) (Allison & Bussey, 2016), the individual believes
they should, too. This “conformity” can be positive or negative (e.g., ganging up
on the target or actor/mobbing).
The individual bystander’s visibility to others is also important. If the potential
bystander is invisible (anonymous), they realize they are not being seen or judged.
Being invisible may reduce their sense of connection and need to adhere to group
norms and, thus, their sense of personal responsibility. Alternatively, anonymity
can counteract the diffusion of responsibility and group norm effects. Anonymity
may encourage the bystander to take responsibility and, thus, to action (Freis &
Gurung, 2013).
To the extent that other bystanders’ actions are visible, asynchrony of
e-communication can be helpful in determining responsibility to respond. By
examining the history of responses, the individual bystander can see whether respon-
sibility has been taken and evaluate its impact. If the situation has been ameliorated,
then there is no need for response. If the situation has become more difficult or
has not been addressed, this may increase the individual’s sense of responsibility to
respond. Asynchrony may also provide time for the individual bystander to seek out
advice from others, and ask whether the person should respond.
 In the e-presence of others 149

Decide action: what can I do? what does “do something,

say something” mean?
Once a person has decided it is their responsibility to do something, they need to
decide what they can do.This decision involves knowing the actions that are pos-
sible in the specific context. Choosing from among these actions is influenced by
the goals the bystander wishes to achieve and a consideration of the cost-benefit
(risk) of these actions for those involved, including the bystander themself.
Research reveals that while bystanders frequently indicate they do not know
what to do, they do, in fact, engage, and often try out a number of different
actions (Keashly & Neuman, 2013). The challenge is in determining what actions
are possible. Features of e-media actually increase the flexibility and capabil-
ity for bystanders to respond beyond what is possible in face-to-face situations
(Dillon & Bushman, 2015; Gahagan, Vaterlaus, & Frost, 2016). First, the asyn-
chrony of much e-media provides the time for a bystander to think about their
options and plan their response. Second, bystanders can choose to respond online
or offline. Thus, even if the interaction has unfolded online – for example, in a
listserv or a discussion post – the bystander could reach out in a private message or
in person to the people involved. This behind-the-scenes and behind-the-screens
strategy (Dooley et al., 2009), which has been used by actors to amplify their
impact, can also be useful to the bystander.Third, and most broadly, actions can be
either direct or indirect (Dillon, 2014; Dillon & Bushman, 2015; Latané & Darley,
1970). For example, rather than confronting the actor or showing visible support
for the target, a bystander could seek to engage others in becoming involved,
such as a department chair, colleagues, and other students (i.e., rallying others to
help) (Eskey & Eskey, 2014). Finally, anonymity – which was highlighted earlier
as potentially having a negative impact on bystander responding – can be used
to a bystander’s advantage to the extent with which they are concerned about
how others will respond (e.g., fear of retaliation from the actor) or evaluate their
response (e.g., evaluation apprehension) (Allison & Bussey, 2016; Latané & Darley,
1970). Indeed, in some e-environments, the bystander has the option of announc-
ing themself when they intervene, or else remaining hidden behind a screen name
or in clicking an abuse button.
A model that is helpful in demonstrating the range of possibilities for bystander
action is Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly’s (2005) characterization of the
decision-making of observers of sexual harassment. Briefly, in choosing an action,
observers of sexual harassment consider the immediacy of their action (at the
moment or after the fact) and the involvement or degree of visibility of their
actions (i.e., behind the scenes, low visibility vs. visibly public). The crossing
of these two dimensions opens a world of possibilities that may not have been
considered by potential bystanders of cyberbullying. While Bowes-Sperry and
O’Leary-Kelly’s model was developed in responding to face-to-face situations,
an examination of the variety of responses shows actions that could be suitable
150 Loraleigh Keashly

for online environments. For example, actions that are available in the immedi-
ate situation that can also be done below detection offline (high immediate, low
involvement) include changing the topic, asking clarifying questions (e.g., “what
do you mean?”), using nonverbals (emoticons or dislikes, in the case of email and
social media) to communicate disapproval or concern, affirming the target by
highlighting their strengths, or a process observation about the discussion (Nelson
et al., 2011). Involvement could become more direct and visible (high immedi-
ate, high involvement) by telling the actor to stop, invoking group norms (e.g.,
against classroom discussion norms; disruption of free exchange of ideas), letting
the target know they should report conduct, or by stating that the bystander is
reporting the conduct. Actions that are low involvement and after the event (low
immediate) would include not forwarding or sharing the negative image or mes-
sage; advising the target offline to report; advising the person to stay off the media;
getting others involved in the form of active intervention by a chair, program
director, or other colleague; or posting positive messages regarding the target.
Bystander choice of action will be influenced by the goals they have for their
action (i.e., what is it the bystander wants to have happen?). Table 10.1 includes
possible goals or desired outcomes for bystander action.
To illustrate, if the goal is to name an inappropriate behaviour so that it is not
ignored, relevant actions include naming the behaviour directly, invoking group
norms, calling for civility, and confronting the actor – all of which communicate
the unacceptability of the behaviour and affirm the group norms.The goal of pre-
venting or stopping harm can be accomplished in a number of ways. Immediate

TABLE 10.1 Goals for Bystander Action

• Name/identify inappropriate behaviour, so it is not ignored or glossed over

• Uphold a community norm/value: making clear that this behaviour is not supported
in this space
• Communicate that the behaviour is unacceptable without embarrassing the offending
person; save face
• Phrase concern/give feedback in a way that the offending person is able to hear
without being defensive
• Create an opening for discussion
• Protect someone from being hurt/offended or prevent further injury
• Protect someone else from causing harm – something they may regret!
• Create an open dialogue to eliminate misunderstanding; tension between people may
be due to miscommunication
• Surface a concern that has been festering to prevent escalation into conflict or violence
• Express personal values of the bystander
• Enable an upset person to take a rational view of the situation
• Get help from someone who is better placed to intervene or who has the skill or
capacity to handle it
• Make those responsible for the unit know what is going on
 In the e-presence of others 151

and visible action (direct) includes confronting the actor and telling them to
stop, which can be done online (public or private) and offline (public or private).
Regarding faculty experiences of cyberbullying, given that much of it occurs
through email and those involved are known to each other, this makes one-on-one
action more possible. For example, if a colleague shares an email from a student
threatening to go to the chair, the colleague bystander could help reframe this as
an anxiety response on the part of the student. They could explain that it is noth-
ing to fear and, thus, that no response, or else a more tempered response, may be
most appropriate.
Multiple actions are often needed to achieve the bystander’s desired goal(s).
These could occur simultaneously or sequentially. For example, in the situation of
a hostile email from one colleague to another, the bystander may take action and
disrupt the interaction, preventing or reducing harm (e.g., suggest that this is not
the forum for these discussions).They could then follow up with the actor and/or
target regarding what happened, thereby exploring alternative strategies to address
the situation moving forward.
While the desired goals or outcomes for the action help narrow the focus to
particular actions, these actions need to be considered in light of the cost/risk
and benefits for those involved. The virality or immortality of the action is an
important influence. Virality, which is an aspect that makes cyberbullying potent
in terms of its harm and the powerlessness of the target to manage, has impli-
cations for the bystander as well. By being visible/public, the bystander needs
to consider that their response, and they themselves, can be immortalized and
become part of the overall narrative (Dillon, 2014; Dillon & Bushman, 2015).
This carries with it a certain amount of risk, both personally and socially, for the
bystander (Banyard, 2015; Dillon, 2014). Personal risk includes retaliation and
becoming a target themselves. Social risk includes evaluation apprehension (fear
of embarrassment; DeSmet et al., 2016); creating disharmony in relationship with
the actor, target, or others (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016); and the potential stigma of
being associated with a disliked target (Mulder, Pouwelse, Lodewijkx, & Bolman,
2014; Nelson et al., 2011).
Pending the bystander’s risk assessment and their evaluation of their own
capacity to handle possible blowback, they may choose to go ahead with a vis-
ible action and publicly identify themselves. The bystander’s power relative to
the actor and target is influential in this calculus, with higher-power bystanders
assessing less personal and social risk – they are, therefore, more likely to engage
directly (Banyard, 2015). Alternatively, and often more frequently, bystanders may
choose more low-involvement action.This includes going private or one-on-one
with the actor, target, or other bystanders (Dillon, 2014), thereby allowing the
bystander to shield themself from unwanted attention. Such indirect action tends
to be favoured in cyberbullying situations for these reasons (Freis & Gurung,
2013). While appearing “safe”, going behind the scenes or being indirect does
involve risk. Because these actions are not visible, they may appear as inaction
152 Loraleigh Keashly

to others. For example, not forwarding the negative email or image to others is
a way of disrupting the negative action. However, the invisibility and ambiguity
of this action may be perceived as not providing support for the target; the actor
may perceive this “inaction” as consent to continue. For other bystanders who are
seeking cues on how to respond, the lack of visibility (and, thus, the perceived
inaction) may increase their reluctance to engage.
An important analysis for potential bystanders to undertake is the cost of tak-
ing no action (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). The potential cost includes the indi-
vidual’s sense of self as a caring person (asking themselves, “would a caring person
choose not to do something?”), their relationship with the target (e.g., sense of
betrayal), the potential for de-sensitization to harmful actions, and contributing
to the development of tolerance for such actions in the e-community and the
on-site community. Inaction is a particular challenge in cyberbullying situations
involving faculty colleagues, when there are connections to both the actor and the
target.The spillover effects of both action and inaction to personal relationships, as
well as to department and university climate, can be profound.

Taking action: how do I do it?

Once the bystander has decided the action(s) they will take, they need to enact
them. Enactment is dependent upon the bystander’s skills and knowledge and,
even more importantly, their sense of efficacy that they can apply these skills effec-
tively in the situation (Allison & Bussey, 2016; DeSmet et al., 2016).
What skills are needed is dependent upon the action chosen. Some actions are
relatively simple. For example, forwarding the email to the chair with a request
for action, or letting the target know that the bystander values or supports them.
Some actions can be implemented through the use of mini-scripts or “backpocket
phrases”. For example, if the goal is to clarify the situation, a handy phrase is:
“What do you mean by that?”. When problematic situations can be anticipated
due to their recurring nature (which is often the case with cyberbullying, par-
ticularly involving faculty colleagues or “typical” situations with students), there is
an opportunity to develop mini-scripts and backpocket phrases that can be easily
accessed when the situation arises again.
Other actions are more complex in terms of skills required and the sequencing
of these actions. A complex and particularly challenging action is confronting the
actor about the behaviour. This action is complex because the enactment needs
to convey a clear message, while also anticipating and mitigating possible negative
impact, such as defensiveness and retaliation. If the bystander has a connection to
the actor, the confrontation also needs to be enacted in a way that preserves their
relationship (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2011). The confrontation
action is often not a single statement. Frequently, it involves responding to the
actor’s reaction and working to manage that. These complex (indeed all) actions
benefit from practice. A key focus of bystander training is to have people try out
 In the e-presence of others 153

actions in specific situations and to receive feedback to fine-tune their response

(Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2011). Bystanders can also gain prac-
tice with trusted others. As noted earlier, the nature of some e-media provide
the bystander with the space and time to seek advice, plan, and practice potential
actions (Dillon & Bushman, 2015; Gahagan et al., 2016). Practice builds a sense of
efficacy to enact the chosen actions as intended.

Action steps
What is clear from bullying and cyberbullying research is that these behaviours
occur in the presence of others.The question this chapter sought to answer was the
how and why of cyber-bystanding, considering the decisions an observer makes
along the path to take action. Universities can influence community members’
decisions to take constructive action to address cyberbullying and, more broadly,
bullying incidents, as well. It is critical, however, that whatever policy, education,
and training efforts are undertaken, they be developed with campus members, and
must be grounded in a deep understanding of the character and profile of the
institution and its members. The issue of cyberbullying, bullying, and the actions
taken to address them create opportunities for sustained meaningful engagement
with all campus members. This process of engagement is a living embodiment of
the values of the institution, and, in and of itself, has profound implications for the
development of a university culture and climate that is antithetical to bullying and
cyberbullying (Keashly & Neuman, 2018).
Specific actions are presented using the framework of the bystander interven-
tion model:

• Notice and Assess: Education about what cyberbullying is, the types of
behaviours involved in cyberbullying, how it is different from behaviours
such as constructive critique and debate, and the impact of these interactions
is vital. More broadly, this education needs to be embedded in a value-driven
discussion about what kind of learning and working environment the uni-
versity is committed to, and how actions like cyberbullying contravene those
values. These discussions need to be grounded in a deep appreciation of, and
commitment to, academic freedom.These visions and discussions provide the
normative guidelines for community member behaviour.
• Responsibility: The discussion of normative guidelines should include
articulation of the roles and responsibility of community members in achiev-
ing and maintaining this environment (i.e., the learning and working climate
is jointly determined). This articulation includes members’ responsibility and
duty of care vis-à-vis others, particularly when the actions of others can/may
negatively affect the working and learning environment. Alongside these pol-
icies and codes, there need to be mechanisms that support bystander action
by reducing the risk of retaliation (e.g., secure reporting mechanisms).
154 Loraleigh Keashly

• Deciding and taking action: University community members need to

have clear ideas about what actions are possible and supported by the institu-
tion. This chapter has provided a framework and other resources for consid-
ering a variety of actions. University members need specific and structured
opportunities to practice these actions in the context of specific scenarios
in order to build up their skills and their confidence, knowing they can take
effective action when faced with problematic behaviours (Banyard, 2015;
Swan, 2015). Skill development and efficacy can be most effectively accom-
plished through more broad-based bystander action training, with specific
modules focused on cyberbullying.

References
Allison, K. R., & Bussey, K. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature
on witnesses’ responses to cyberbullying. Children andYouth Services Review, 65, 183–194.
Ashburn-Nardo, L., Blanchar, J. C., Petersson, J., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2014).
Do you say something when it’s your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice
confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 615–636.
Banyard,V. L. (2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship
violence: Action coils to engage communities. New York: Springer.
Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bour-
deaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites: An experimental study into
bystanders’ behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers
in Human Behaviour, 31, 259–271.
Black, T. (this volume). Designing healthy and supportive campus communities: An exam-
ple from Simon Fraser University. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyber-
bullying at university in international contexts (pp. 162–167). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced
by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306.
Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communica-
tion Monographs, 83(1), 94–119.
Bystander. (2017). Wiktionary: The free dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.wiktionary.
org/wiki/bystander
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the Ivory Tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Christy, S. C. (2010). Working effectively with faculty: Guidebook for higher education staff and
managers. Berkeley, CA: University Resources Press.
Clark, C. M., Werth, L., & Ahten, S. (2012). Cyber-bullying and incivility in the online
learning environment, Part 1: Addressing faculty and student perceptions. Nurse Educa-
tor, 37(4), 150–156.
Coyne, I., Farley, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C., Best, L., & Kwok, O. (2016). Understanding the
relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain
and job satisfaction: A dysempowerment approach. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 28(7), 945–972.
Daniloff, C. (2009). Cyberbullying goes to college. Bostonia, Spring. Retrieved from www.
bu.edu/bostonia/spring09/bully/
 In the e-presence of others 155

D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2013). Navigating the extended reach: Target experiences of
cyberbullying at work. Information and Organization, 23(4), 324–343.
DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Cardon, G., &
De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016). Deciding whether to look after them, to like it, or leave it:
A multidimensional analysis of predictors of positive and negative bystander behaviour
in cyberbullying among adolescents. Computers in Human Behaviour, 57, 398–415.
Dillon, K. P. (2014). The unresponsive cyberbystander: A proposed cyberbystander intervention
model of the mediated social forces inhibiting intervention online. Paper presented at the meet-
ing of the Annual National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Dillon, K. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Unresponsive or un-noticed? Cyberbystander inter-
vention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behaviour, 45,
144–150.
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying:
A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188.
Eskey, M. T. Sr., & Eskey, M. T. Jr. (2014). Cyberbullying in the online classroom: Faculty as
the targets. In Proceedings of TCC Worldwide Online Conference 2014 (pp. 30–41). Hawaii:
TCC. Retrieved June 27, 2018 from https:www.learntechlib.org/p/149826/
Flaherty, C. (2017, June 26). Old criticisms, new threats. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/26/professors-are-often-political-lightning-
rods-now-are-facing-new-threats-over-their
Forssell, R. (2016). Exploring cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying in working life –
Prevalence, targets and expressions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 58, 454–460.
Freis, S. D., & Gurung, R. A. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behaviour in online
bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 11–19.
Gahagan, K.,Vaterlaus, J. M., & Frost, L. R. (2016). College student cyberbullying on social
networking sites: Conceptualization, prevalence and perceived bystander responsibility.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 55, 1097–1105.
Heatherington,W., & Coyne, I. (2014). Understanding individual experiences of cyberbul-
lying encountered through work. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behav-
iour, 17(2), 163–192.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2013). Bullying in academia: What does current theorizing
and research tell us? In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (pp. 1–22).
London: Routledge.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2018). Workplace bullying and mobbing in U.S. higher
education. In M. Duffy & D. Yamada (Eds.), Workplace bullying and mobbing in the U.S.
(pp. 507–538). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Keashly, L., & Wajngurt, C. (2016). Faculty bullying in higher education. Psychology and
Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 53(1/2), 79–90.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander:Why doesn’t he help? New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts.
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Gagne, M. H. (2012). Are cyberbullies really bul-
lies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 28, 664–672.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group member-
ship and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429–1439.
Madan, A. O. (2014). Cyber aggression/cyber bullying and the dark triad: Effect on work-
place behaviour/performance. International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and
Business Engineering, 8(6), 1725–1730.
156 Loraleigh Keashly

Mahler, J. (2015, March 8). Who spewed that abuse? Anonymous Yik Yak app isn’t telling.
New York Times.
Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Com-
puters in Human Behaviour, 16(2), 183–188.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2013). Whistle-blowing in organizations. London:
Psychology Press.
Minor, M. A., Smith, G. S., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Jour-
nal of Educational Research and Practice, 3(1), 15–29.
MIT Ombuds Office. (2004). Active bystander program and mediation@MIT. Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/bystanders/strategies/index.html
Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H., & Bolman, C. (2014). Workplace mobbing and
bystanders’ helping behaviour towards victims: The role of gender, perceived respon-
sibility and anticipated stigma by association. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4),
304–312.
Nelson, J. K., Dunn, K. M., & Paradies, Y. (2011). Bystander anti-racism: A review of the
literature. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 263–284.
O’Reilly, J., Aquino, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2016). The lives of others: Third parties’ responses
to others’ injustice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 171–189.
Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typol-
ogy of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 50(3), 351–366.
Pew Research Center. (2014, October). Online harassment. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.
org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bully-
ing? CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 12(4), 395–400.
Shea,V. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco, CA: Albion.
Shultz, E., Heilman, R., & Hart, K. J. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An exploration of bystander
behaviour and motivation. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,
8(4) article 3.
Skarlicki, D., & Kulik, C.T. (2004).Third party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A jus-
tice perspective. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 26, 183–229.
Swan, S. L. (2015). Bystander interventions. Wisconsin Law Review, 2015(6), 975–1047.
Ury, W. (2000). The third side:Why we fight and how we can stop. London: Penguin Books.
Vance, J. W. (2010). Cyber-harassment in higher education: Online learning environments.
Ed.D. dissertation. Retrieved from University of Southern California Digital Library
(usctheses-m2954).
Wankel, L., & Wankel, C. (Eds.). (2012). Cutting-edge technologies in higher education, Volume 5:
Misbehaviour online in higher education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
White, C. H., & Malkowski, J. (2014). Communicative challenges of bystander interven-
tion: Impact of goals and message design logic on strategies college students use to
intervene in drinking situations. Health Communication, 29(1), 93–104.
Wingate, S. V., Minney, J. A., & Guadagno, R. E. (2013). Sticks and stones may break your
bones, but words will always hurt you: A review of cyberbullying. Social Influence, 8,
87–106.
11
THE FAIRNESS LENS NATALIE SHARPETHE FAIRNESS LENS

A university ombudsperson’s perspective on

building a kinder online culture on campus

Natalie Sharpe

Ombudspersons (also known as ombuds) in higher education appeared in North

America in the mid-1960s in response to various social and civil rights move-
ments, which led to student unrest and campus conflict. Since then, the role of
ombudspersons in higher education has proliferated in other parts of the world:
Australia in the 1970s; areas of Europe, Mexico, and Central and South America in
the 1980s; with post-secondary student representatives from Africa, Asia, Australia,
Europe, and North America also advocating for a global ombudsperson in higher
education to UNESCO in 2009 (Europe: Students call, 2009, 15 Feb.). Globally,
associations of ombudspersons in post-secondary settings have established linkages
to promote the growth of the ombuds’s role in higher education since the 1980s
(Behrens, 2017), meeting at various national and international conferences and
establishing journals to promote the exchange of ideas.
Ombudspersons play a critical role on campuses. They respond to complaints
related to almost every academic and social aspect of university life, and they are
expected to do so in an unbiased, safe, and confidential manner. They examine
and recommend policies and procedures for administrative and procedural fair-
ness, and note where there are gaps, delays, and outdated practices within the
university system. They help the client, whether that person is a student, staff, or
faculty member, to holistically examine the situation, review available options,
and develop empowerment skills to voice their concerns.Those who come to the
Ombuds Office for help are often from marginalized or vulnerable populations
and have experienced bullying from those in more privileged positions.
The ombudsperson also works with the institution to reveal the implications
of a policy or decision (or lack thereof), such as the short- and long-term impact
of cyberbullying on the complainant, the classroom, the faculty/administrative
unit, and the reputation of the university. Unveiling the damage cyberbullying
158 Natalie Sharpe

causes to these different stakeholders can prompt a university-wide dialogue on

how to foster a healthier work culture – one that is proactive rather than reactive.
Hollis (2016, p. 24) describes the ombudsperson as an “early alert figure” to toxic
work and study environments, like the canary in a coal mine, warning of impend-
ing problems that may harm already marginalized populations within a university,
or else ruin a university’s reputation of institutional fairness and integrity.
This chapter explores one ombudsperson’s views on ways to prevent and cur-
tail cyberbullying on university campuses. The ombudsperson is ideally situated
to address cyberbullying and its repercussions, since they are perceived as being a
fair and impartial arbitrator of faculty, staff, and student issues.

Fairness as a working principle

Ombudspersons use the principle of multi-partiality when working with various
university populations: the ombudsperson is not an advocate for one party in a
given conflict, but rather an advocate for fairness. Working with fairness as the
underlying principle, the ombuds strives to ensure that all perspectives are heard,
particularly from those who are more vulnerable and, therefore, more likely to
experience hardship and inequitable treatment.
The lens of fairness that guides the ombudsperson in formal and informal
redress processes demands consideration of four points: procedural, substantive,
relational, and equitable fairness. Procedural fairness asks whether the person was
given timely notice and sufficient information to know the case before them;
whether they were given an appropriate forum, with sufficient amount of time
to be heard; and whether they were provided with reasons for the decision in a
timely manner by an unbiased decision-maker (Ombudsman Saskatchewan, 2016,
p. 1). Substantive fairness focuses on the decision-maker and whether they had the
authority or jurisdiction to make the decision, and whether all relevant informa-
tion was considered in order to reach a just decision (Ombudsman Saskatchewan,
2016, p. 1). Relational fairness examines how the party was treated, and whether the
authority was approachable and respected confidentiality: was the decision-maker
“honest and forthright [and] was an apology offered if a mistake was made?”
(Ombudsman Saskatchewan, 2016, p. 1). According to Crean (2016), equitable fair-
ness acknowledges the uniqueness of individual experiences and the importance
of recognizing marginalization and inequities, meaning that treating parties with
different backgrounds and histories in the same way may not be the best strategy
to ensure fairness. In fact, in none of the cyberbullying cases I have heard during
my many years as an ombudsperson has the harmed party been a member of a
dominant group or someone in a position of power.
An ombudsperson must operationalize all four aspects of fairness (procedural,
substantive, relational, and equitable) when developing policies, protocols, and best
practices to ensure fair treatment of all parties. Cyberbullying cases often involve
heightened emotionality and tensions, making it all the more important for
 The fairness lens 159

parties to feel like they have been treated fairly. Adopting this fairness lens allows
the ombudsperson to work towards transforming campus culture by addressing
the often-tacit condoning of cyberbullying and, instead, fostering more respectful
online behaviour. Campuses can only begin to cultivate a safer and kinder online
culture when the university administration acknowledges addressing cyberbul-
lying as a priority. Such top-down proposals can be complemented – indeed
magnified – by collaborative initiatives from students, staff, faculty, and student
and staff associations and unions.

Two cyberbullying examples

The first example involves a conflict between students who were assigned a group
project as part of their coursework. Because the students all had different sched-
ules, they divided up the tasks, with the intention of communicating through
Facebook as there was no online class forum to exchange views.When some team
members failed to complete their parts on time, one team member expressed
frustration and concern for the project’s successful completion and its academic
quality. This angered those members who were behind in their contributions,
with these students voicing their outrage at the suggestion that the quality of
their work was being questioned.That night, the female student who had initially
expressed concern received multiple online threats mainly from other students
who were not participating in the project, but who were upset for their friends.
They used strong language that escalated in threats to: “find her on campus, isolate
her, and beat her up.”
The following day, the targeted student approached the professor, who
minimized her complaint, and refused to intervene. When the student’s family
approached the department chair, her complaint was taken seriously. The chair
met with the ombudsperson (myself) to come to a solution that met the student’s
needs, but also would help the bullies to understand the harm they had caused.
For the student this meant a safe place: a speedy resolution that would allow her
to finish the project and an end to the threats to her safety. After meeting with
those who were bullying, no sanctions were imposed on those who threatened
her, although they were aware that further actions would be taken if the behav-
iour continued. As a result, the group was able to complete the project without
further interference.
Unfortunately, despite the resolution in this particular case, there were no plans
to incorporate guidelines for respectful online behaviour or information about
redress procedures for cyberbullying in the course syllabus, nor were there initia-
tives for a dialogue around these issues with students in the current or subsequent
class. The professor remained adamant that online behaviours were outside the
classroom code of conduct and did not want to discuss it any further. As final
exams approached, the bullying momentum abated as quickly as it had started.
The “friends” who had offered negative commentary simultaneously stopped
160 Natalie Sharpe

sending it, but without any direct intervention taking place with others beyond
the members of the group. On-going restorative practices could have provided an
important learning opportunity about respectful online behaviour.
The second example involves a request from one of the professional faculties
for an intervention to address the targeting of a student with disabilities. Other
students in the faculty had been gossiping about this student on Instagram and
Facebook, leading the latter to feel that his confidentiality had been breached and
his professional reputation tarnished.The incident raised broader concerns for the
faculty because it called into question the effectiveness of its code of ethics, to
which students were required to adhere in their classes and professional clinical
placements. Rather than sanction the perpetrators individually, the faculty decided
to ask the ombudsperson to facilitate educational sessions that would engage the
students in discussions on professionalism and appropriate use of social media. As
the ombudsperson, I worked with the students to review common myths about
personal gossip and its potential impact on their professional lives. For the session,
I designed three classroom case studies based on the following scenarios: (1) a
student breaching a client’s confidentiality on social media; (2) a student making
unprofessional comments about a worker during a clinical placement; and (3)
students gossiping about a classmate with special needs. The students discussed
the harm caused by each of these breaches, as well as more professional alternative
approaches in these situations. Finally, they explored positive options to use social
media for professional connections. As a follow-up to the session, the students,
faculty, and ombudsperson decided to collaborate to create best practices guide-
lines that can offer support in the future.

Action items
While developing protocols and intervening in cases of cyberbullying and other
unfair treatment are important aspects of the ombudsperson’s role, the function
also focuses on prevention through initiatives that actively cultivate healthy online
communication. In our annual report for 2016–2017, the Office of the Student
Ombuds (OSO) at the University of Alberta made the following recommenda-
tion, which has been endorsed by our Senate:

As the number of cyberbullying incidents increases on postsecondary

campuses, the OSO recommends that faculty and student groups explore
informal modes of conflict resolution to respond to conflicts and restore
relationships.The digital citizenship approach to healthy use of social media
can serve as a model to mitigate conflicts and teach students ways to defuse
conflict in social media discourse.

Furthermore, the OSO has developed A Guide to Healthy Social Media Usage,
delivers workshops on best practices in social media usage, and offered a summary
presentation of the guide at a recent Student Advisors’ Conference.
 The fairness lens 161

Some additional practical suggestions are outlined as follows (see also Hoover,
2003; Jones & Scott, 2012; UNESCO, 2014; Walker, 2014):

1 Include a section on civility, social media (mis)use, and sanctions in course

syllabi;
2 Hold seminars with undergraduate and graduate students to discuss cyber-
bullying and encourage positive online behaviour;
3 Establish opportunities for faculty and staff to engage in discussions and
develop protocols for addressing cyberbullying;
4 Invite an ombudsperson to class and to faculty and staff meetings to pre-
sent case scenarios and provide opportunities for participants to engage with
issues of fairness and due process, and to develop measures for promoting and
modelling digital citizenship;
5 Develop ways to better involve vulnerable student populations in policy and
practice – listen to their needs, provide safe spaces to address their issues, and
provide support;
6 Work collaboratively across all stakeholder groups (ombudsperson, Human
Rights Office, student groups, faculty associations, unions, etc.) to develop
codes of conduct, harassment and anti-bullying/cyberbullying policies, and
communicate these policies effectively through various media.

References
Behrens, R. (2017). Being an ombudsman in higher education: A comparative study.Vienna, Aus-
tria: European Network of Ombudsmen in Higher Education.
Crean, F. (2016). The fairness lens in a changing landscape. Retrieved from www.oct.ca//
media/PDF/College%20Conference%202016%20Workshop%20PDF/Series%202/
The%20Fairness%20Lens%20in%20a%20Changing%20Landscape.pdf
Europe: Students call for a global ombudsman. (2009, February 15). University World News,
63 [online edition].
Hollis, L. (2016). Canary in the mine: Ombuds as first alerts for workplace bullying on
campus. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 9(1), 23–31.
Hoover, L. (2003). Developing a communication protocol. University of California
David Developing Departmental Protocols, 4(1). Retrieved from www.campus-adr.org/
CMHER/print/hoover4_1.pdf
Jones, J. C., & Scott, S. (2012). Cyberbullying in the university classroom: A multiplicity of
issues. In L. A. Wankel & C. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education: Cutting-
edge Technologies in Higher Education (Volume 5, pp. 157–182). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Ombudsman Saskatchewan. (2016). What is fairness? Retrieved from www.ombudsman.
sk.ca/uploads/document/files/what-is-fairness-feb-2016-en.pdf
UNESCO. (2014). Paris Declaration calls for renewed emphasis on media and information
literacy in the digital age. In Focus. [online article].
Walker, C. (2014). Cyberbullying redefined: An analysis of intent and repetition. Interna-
tional Journal of Education and Social Science, 1(5), 59.
12
DESIGNING HEALTHY AND
SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS
COMMUNITIES TARA BLACKDESIGNING HEALTHY CAMPUS COMMUNITIES

An example from Simon Fraser University

Tara Black

In recent years, there has been a growing movement among Canadian higher
education institutions to enhance students’ and faculty’s state of well-being – since
well-being is unquestionably impacted by the settings in which people learn,
work, and live. The release of the Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for
Health Promoting Universities and Colleges (2015) provides further impetus for uni-
versities to focus on this settings-based approach, calling on higher education
institutions to embed health into all aspects of campus culture: across administra-
tion, operations, and academic mandates. Consistent with that rationale, Simon
Fraser University (SFU)1 has focused on executing forward-thinking, healthy,
campus community efforts. These efforts are worth highlighting, given their
potential links with (and opportunity for the development of) upstream anti-
bullying strategies nationwide.
In first designing healthy and supportive campus communities, the Okanagan
Charter recommends creating supportive environments and generating thriv-
ing communities to promote a culture of well-being. As the Charter points out,
higher education institutions are uniquely positioned to develop and model
thriving communities.They can cultivate an individual’s well-being through their
transformational teaching and learning environments: inspiring students, staff, and
faculty to become healthier and more engaged citizens and leaders. A number of
Canadian institutions, including SFU, have formally adopted the Charter, there-
fore, at the Presidential level.
SFU, specifically, has implemented a whole-campus settings approach and suc-
cessfully created a more healthy and supportive community on site. The Healthy
Campus Community (HCC) initiative at SFU has focused on facilitating collec-
tive, systemic, and innovative action for well-being to improve its campus culture
and environments. This goal has been addressed through action areas, including:
 Designing healthy campus communities 163

policies and processes, learning and working environments, physical spaces, and
services. The vision behind the initiative is as follows: “Simon Fraser University is
a healthy campus community where the people, programs, practices, policies and
spaces foster well-being, supporting campus members to thrive and succeed at
SFU and beyond” (SFU Healthy Campus Community, 2014). The HCC initia-
tive is facilitated by SFU’s Health Promotion team and, ultimately, aims to impact
prescribed student and faculty health outcomes, such as: thriving, sense of com-
munity, social connection, resilience, and social, physical, and emotional health.
This has all been, or sought to be, achieved through the settings and systems-
defined approaches.
While no one-size-fits-all intervention can effectively lead to more supportive
campus communities – given the complex nature of higher education institutions –
it is through such comprehensive and innovative projects that real differences
have been shown to be enacted in a system. SFU’s whole-campus emphasis has
catalysed comprehensive action through the engagement of diverse campus
stakeholders outside of traditional health fields, drawing attention to the role that
all departments and faculties have in impacting both individual and community
well-being. Its project engagement has intentionally focused on building relation-
ships and gaining individual and institutional commitment from all levels of the
university (from students up to SFU’s President and executive team). Addition-
ally, in order to develop targeted action on key elements of the campus setting,
strategic partnerships have been established with key campus stakeholders, such as
the Teaching and Learning Centre, Senate and Academic Services, Simon Fraser
Student Society, and Facilities Services.
SFU’s HCC initiative has already resulted in the development of a number of
programs that contribute to a supportive campus culture. The learning environ-
ment, for example, was affected, as it was identified early on by the university as
having a central role in students’ experiences, with a powerful ability to impact
their well-being (either positively or negatively). Two examples of such potential
negative impacts are stress and isolation – and the prevalence of both stress and
isolation in higher education has been increasing among higher education stu-
dents (Robotham & Julian, 2006). In the most recent National College of Health
Assessment Data (ACHA, 2016), 63% of SFU students reported feeling exhausted
(with a national average of 65%), 81% felt overwhelmed by all they had to do
(with the national average at 89%), over 63% reported overwhelming anxiety at
least once in the last 12 months (compared to a national average of 65%), and 64%
felt lonely (vs. the national average of 67%). Therefore, much like other Canadian
universities, SFU does manifest similar issues, although at consistently lower aver-
ages than at a national level.
One source of such stress (anxiety) and isolation can be caused by student,
staff, and faculty experiences with bullying and cyberbullying on campus, both
of which can have similar effects to mental and emotional health (Blizard, 2014;
Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2014, this volume; Celep & Konalki, 2013; Clark,
164 Tara Black

Werth, & Ahten, 2012; Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, 2015; Faucher, Jackson, &
Cassidy, 2014; Hollis, 2012). A way to generate more positive effects, as exem-
plified by SFU, was through the provision of supportive environments. In that
regard, university professors had the opportunity to create supportive classroom
conditions by building a positive, inclusive, and welcoming classroom culture by
establishing a tone of respect. They also contributed to building social connec-
tions among students through team and group-based activities, assignments, and
grading. This learning environment focus evolved through a partnership estab-
lished between SFU’s Health Promotion Team and the Teaching and Learning
Centre, in which professors were involved in the development of the Well-being in
Learning Environments program.The purpose was to engage instructors in creating
supportive learning environments through teaching pedagogy, as well as course
design and delivery.
The program itself embodies principles of participatory action, collaboration,
and asset-based approaches that build on actions and activities (which can create
conditions for well-being). A number of conditions for well-being in learning
environments were identified through a literature review and stakeholder inter-
views, with positive examples, tools, and strategies made available on a website. An
annual event was developed to create a platform for professors to share strategies
and learn from each other’s examples.
In addition to increasing awareness and capacity amongst professors, there have
also been efforts to engage staff through dialogue sessions about how they, in
their various capacities, can contribute to a culture of well-being on campus. For
instance, the staff student advisors participated in a session that drew attention to
the opportunity they have to create positive, supportive, and respectful environ-
ments, and to impact the emotional wellness of the students with whom they
interact. Students have also been integrally involved in all aspects of SFU’s Healthy
Campus Community initiative, and a Student Health Advisory Committee has
been working to engage students and student leaders across campus to consider
their role in creating a healthier, collaborative community.
A consideration of health in all policies has been established in the health
promotion field as a key action area (de Leeuw, Clavier, & Breton, 2014); how-
ever, few examples exist as to how this strategy can be applied in the context
of higher education. SFU’s Health Promotion team formed a partnership with
the Associate Registrar, engaging stakeholders, in a collaborative process, to
develop a tool by which universities could apply a well-being lens to policy
development and review. The tool, Well-being through SFU Policies & Procedures:
A Guide for Action, provides a framework that intentionally considers how poli-
cies and procedures impact campus well-being when reviewing or creating
new policies and procedures. Overarching principles were established, suggest-
ing that all aspects of these policies and procedures should embody a culture
of respect and support. Guidelines, such as ensuring the tone and content of
 Designing healthy campus communities 165

the university’s guidelines are positive, supportive, and respectful, and using
inclusive language when writing such documents, are examples of how such a
culture may be fostered.
The guide also recommends that the application of policies and procedures
should set a positive, respectful, and supportive tone within a learning environ-
ment (as opposed to being punitive). This application should be seen as an exten-
sion of students’ formal education, using discussions with students as teachable
moments that contribute to their learning and development.
Despite this positive outreach, there remain many opportunities at SFU to con-
tinue to increase institutional will and action, as based on whole-campus meth-
ods. It is promising that SFU, however, among other institutions, is beginning to
take notice and prioritize Healthy Campus Community efforts. Although more
institutions are taking action, published studies are still sparse. To date, minimal
focus has been spent on evaluating the impact of bullying/cyberbullying on cam-
pus culture/wellness specifically; instead, attention has been given more substan-
tially to overall campus community wellness, wherein “it is widely accepted that
health and well-being are essential elements for effective learning” (El Ansari &
Stock, 2010, p. 2). Campus communities thrive when attention is paid to the well-
being of their students, instructors, staff, and others in a healthy campus culture –
what has been missed is that, as a result, bullying/cyberbullying decreases as well
(Cassidy et al., 2014; Clark et al., 2012; DeSouza, 2010; Faucher et al., 2014, 2015;
Hinduja & Patchin, 2012; Hollis, 2012; Knepp, 2012).
There is still a lot to be learned about systemic and settings approaches to health
and well-being in higher education. While one can appreciate that the results of
settings approaches are often long-term and challenging to measure (given the
complex nature of higher education institutions), at SFU specifically, there are
further opportunities for students to engage with these issues. For example, on
the SFU Healthy Campus Community website, there are materials and resources
which address such matters. Some of these include: the healthy university commu-
nity; the rationale for well-being in learning communities (Dhaliwal & Stanton,
2014); overcoming university stress and academic pressures; well-being through
policies and procedures; and a video, “Designing Healthy Campus Communities:
Enhancing Student Well-being & Academic Success.” In addition, on the SFU
Safety and Risk Services website, other personal safety guides and workshops of
relevance to wellness are listed for students, faculty, and staff alike to access (SFU
Safety & Risk Services, n.d.).
In conclusion, it has been shown that there is a connection to be made
between healthy campus community efforts that aim to create supportive, con-
nected, thriving people and communities – in that they create a culture of campus
wellness – and the prevention of bullying/cyberbullying. This link presents an
opportunity for shared learning and collaboration for campus anti-bullying and
healthy campus community strategies and action.
166 Tara Black

Note
1 For context, Simon Fraser University is a comprehensive university with 30,000 stu-
dents, 6,500 staff and faculty, and three campuses, located in British Columbia, Canada.

References
American College Health Association – National College Health Assessment II (ACHA-
NACHA II). (2016). Canadian Reference Group: Executive Summary [online]. Retrieved
from http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ncha-ii%20spring%202016%20canadian%20
reference%20group%20executive%20summary.pdf
Blizard, L. M. (2014). Faculty members’ perceived experiences and impact of cyberbullying from
students at a Canadian university: A mixed methods study. Ed.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser
University: Burnaby, BC.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2014).The dark side of the ivory tower: Cyberbul-
lying of university faculty and teaching personnel. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
60(2), 279–299.
Cassidy,W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (this volume).“You need a thick skin . . .”: Impacts of
cyberbullying in Canadian universities. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 112–125). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Celep, C., & Konalki, T. (2013). Mobbing experiences of instructors: Causes, results, and
solutions suggestions. Educational Sciences:Theory & Practice, 13(1), 193–199.
Clark, C. M., Werth, L., & Ahten, S. (2012). Cyber-bullying and incivility in the online
learning environment, Part 1: Addressing faculty and student perceptions. Nurse Educa-
tor, 37(4), 150–156.
Dhaliwal, R., & Stanton, A. (2014). SFU health promotion: Well-being in learning environments
rationale. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University [online].
de Leeuw, E., Clavier, C., & Breton, E. (2014). Health policy – Why research it and how:
Health political science. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(1), 55–64.
Designing Healthy Campus Communities: Enhancing Student Well-being and Academic Success.
(2013). Canadian Mental Health Association, BC Division, & SFU Health Promotion: BC
Healthy Minds/Healthy Campuses. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University [online].
DeSouza, E. R. (2010). Frequency rates and correlates of contrapower harassment in higher
education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 48(11), 1–27.
El Ansari, W., & Stock, C. (2010). Is the health and wellbeing of university students asso-
ciated with their academic performance? Cross sectional findings from the United
Kingdom. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(2), 509–527.
Faucher, C., Cassidy,W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Comparing
the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the work-
place. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111–125.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students: Gen-
dered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International, 2014, 1–10.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one
classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hollis, L. P. (2012). Bully in the ivory tower: How aggression and incivility erode American higher
education. Wilmington, DE: Patricia Berkly.
Knepp, K. A. F. (2012). Understanding student and faculty incivility in higher education.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 33–46.
 Designing healthy campus communities 167

Okanagan Charter: An international charter for health promoting universities and colleges.
(2015). International Conference on Health Promoting Universities & Colleges. Kelowna, BC
[online].
Robotham, D., & Julian, C. (2006). Stress & the higher education student: A critical review.
Journal of Further Higher Education, 30(2), 107–117.
SFU Healthy Campus Community. (n.d.). Well-being through SFU policies & procedures:
A guide for action. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University [online].
SFU Healthy Campus Community. (2014). SFU vision for a healthy community. Burnaby, BC:
Simon Fraser University [online].
SFU Safety & Risk Services. (n.d.). Personal safety guides. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser Uni-
versity [online].
13
PREVENTIVE MEASURES AGAINST
CYBERBULLYING AT A UNIVERSITY
IN JAPAN KENICHI KANAYAMA AND SHINJI KURIHARAPREVENTIVE MEASURES AT A UNIVERSITY IN JAPAN

Kenichi Kanayama and Shinji Kurihara

Cyberbullying may not appear to be problematic on university campuses. It is

more likely, however, that universities have not fully grasped the magnitude of
the problem, and therefore, its effects remain undetected. This chapter describes
one pioneering model used at “University A” in Japan to detect and tackle cyber-
bullying among university students. This is a research-based, structured model,
designed to support students using a widespread peer-support scheme, specially
designed courses and seminars, testing for potential problems, and counselling.

A comprehensive student support system at University A

The following Comprehensive Student Support system provides three levels of
support for individual students, extending from matriculation to graduation.

First level of support: a sense of belonging and

preventive measures
At the first level of support, University A incorporates peer support programs
into its academic programs. Classes encourage peer-to-peer interactions that help
to build informed relationships outside of school hours. Students also sign up for
seminars over a one- or two-year period – lab-like classes – that foster group dis-
cussion among both peers and the designated instructor.These classes are designed
to build relationships and create a sense of community on campus, which helps to
act as a preventive measure against cyberbullying behaviour.
In addition, every student at the beginning of their first year must complete
the UPI (University Personality Inventory), a screening of potential mental
health problems. Students in their first year must also complete a course called
“Internet morality education,” taught by cyberbullying prevention experts. This
 Preventive measures at a university in Japan 169

course provides tips and guidance on preventive measures against cyberbullying.

For example, students learn a variety of legal measures that can be taken against
those who upload messages that abuse others. Another example is that students
are introduced to typical cyberbullying cases and discuss what one could have
done to prevent it from happening or to intervene if one similar to the typical
case occurs.

Second level of support: team-based support

and peer support
Cyberbullying causes distress. Students facing problems like cyberbullying are
often absent from school. The second level of support is founded upon the idea
that the university supports students as a team. Specifically, it seeks to ensure
that faculty, typically seen as merely academic advisors and lecturers to students,
attend to the psychological needs of their students. One way this is implemented
is through regular communication between the Office of Student Affairs and
faculty members. The former regularly shares students’ status regarding credit
acquisition, tuition payment, student loan and scholarship applications, and class
attendance, with the latter, while the latter communicates reports of students’
well-being in classes. Each student is assigned to a faculty member as a tutor, who
serves not only as a mentor of academic life but also of emotional and social life.
Faculty members are required to go through training involving counselling tech-
niques. As part of the tutoring process, faculty members use the information they
have learned from their regular meetings with the Office of Student Affairs to
help assess their students’ well-being. In addition, the peer support system among
students (detailed later in this article) and the services offered by the Counselling
Room for Students are also available to the identify students with needs.

Third level of support: a close relationship with

medical institutions
Distress from problems such as cyberbullying can lead to mental suffering includ-
ing, but not limited to, cases of depression. As the third level of support, the
Counselling Room for Students assists students with mental health problems,
offering guidance and care in consultation with hospitals.This counselling service
is offered at no cost to any student who requires this service. Occasionally, coun-
sellors accompany students with medical needs to a local hospital.

Counselling services for students at University A

Screening test
Every year, all undergraduate and graduate students participate in the UPI, a
mental health screening test for university students, developed by the University
170 Kenichi Kanayama and Shinji Kurihara

of Tokyo and the University of Kyoto. This mandatory system helps University
A keep track of its students’ mental health status from matriculation to gradua-
tion. The test screens for general mental illnesses, depressive states, and suicide
ideation/intentions.

Personalized support plan

Based on the UPI results, counsellors devise a personalized mental health plan for
each individual student, which includes some or all of the following four types
of support: (1) providing them with a tutor, as well as the previously mentioned
team-based system of support with faculty and staff; (2) collaborating with the
Department of Student Support and School Nurses; (3) having the student partic-
ipate in the peer-support program; and (4) suggestions to receive medical support.

Educational programs to prevent cyberbullying

“Mobile Phones and the Law” class in the first-year

compulsory curriculum
A large number of universities in Japan require the “Internet morality education”
class as part of their mandatory first-year curricula. University A also offers a
course on “Mobile Phones and the Law,” incorporating quiz sessions, for example:

Question 1. What would happen if you spread messages on social media such as
“Ms. B works at a brothel” or “C was caught shoplifting”?
Answer:You could be accused of the crime of defamation (libel); up to three years
of imprisonment or a fine of up to 500,000 JPY.
Question 2. What would happen if you posted “D is annoying” or “E is disgust-
ing” on a group chat with other students in your seminar?
Answer: You could be accused of the crime of insult; up to 30 days of detention
or a fine of up to 10,000 JPY.

This course informs students that posting such abusive comments online can sub-
ject them to criminal responsibility.We believe that these educational efforts deter
students from posting similar abusive comments, thereby reducing cyberbullying
and cybercrime.

“Cyber Police” class (a branch of the police department

designated to tackle cyber-crimes)
The “Cyber Police” seminar series, offered at University A, further introduces stu-
dents to procedures university counsellors may use to report cases of online abuse
to the police. This class is a series of five separate 90-minute seminars, offered by
 Preventive measures at a university in Japan 171

faculty and non-faculty lecturers. Procedures such as the following are discussed:
when a student receives an abusive post online, he or she will be asked by a coun-
sellor to take a screenshot of the image.The counsellor then presents a photocopy
of this saved image to the cyber police as a piece of evidence, so that the police
may investigate further, or perhaps take the case to trial. Student feedback follow-
ing the class reinforces the deterrence factor, as noted by this student: “By trying
out what I learned from the class, I was able to stop cyberbullying.”

Peer support system at University A

The peer-support system, designed to bring students closer together and help
them form social bonds, is helpful in supporting students who use social media
but are uncomfortable socializing offline. This system also assists students who
have been targets of cyberbullying in that it facilitates help-seeking behaviour
among peers.
The peer-support system is open to all who are registered, regardless of
whether a student requires mental health assistance or is facing cyberbullying.
Research conducted by Kanayama (2014) shows there is no difference in the
effectiveness of peer support for students with or without needs for mental health
support; rather, it is equally beneficial for all its participants.
For students who do require mental health support, counsellors help them
develop and implement small-step goals, enabling them to build on the experi-
ence of more minor successes and to gain self-confidence. This approach builds
trust among the student body and empowers individual learners to better adapt
to life on campus (Kanayama, 2015).
Outside of University A, peer support is becoming more widely utilized across
universities in Japan. In 2015, 49.3% of all universities in Japan (83.5% of national
universities, 34.9% of other public universities, and 46.4% of private universities)
implemented a peer-support system: a dramatic increase from only 12.9% in 2005
(JASSO, 2017).
Based on the success of the program at University A, we suggest that other uni-
versities may wish to implement a comprehensive student support system includ-
ing screening tests, preventive educational programs, and a peer-support system,
as a complement to other anti-cyberbullying measures.These measures have been
helpful in reducing cyberbullying among the university student population at
University A, as well as maintaining and assisting with students’ mental health and
general well-being.

References
Kanayama, K. (2014).Yōshiengakusei taishō no piasapōto kenshū puroguramukaihatsu no
tameno kisotekikenkyū [Basic research for developing peer support training program
for students with mental health support needs]. Japanese Annals of Peer Support, 11, 1–10.
172 Kenichi Kanayama and Shinji Kurihara

Kanayama, K. (2015).Yōshiengakusei to ippangakusei no piasapōto ni taisuru PAC bunse-

kiniyoru taidokouzō no hikaku [Comparison of attitudinal structure toward peer sup-
port between students with and without mental health support needs]. Japanese Annals
of Peer Support, 12, 27–38.
JASSO. (2017). Daigakunado ni okeru gakuseishien no torikumijōkyō ni kansuru 2015
nendo chōsa [Research into student support programs at institutions of higher learn-
ing]. Retrieved from www.jasso.go.jp/about/statistics/torikumi_chosa/torikumi_
chosa_2015.html
14
INTERVENING AGAINST
WORKPLACE CYBERBULLYING SAMUEL FARLEY AND IAIN COYNEINTERVENING AGAINST WORKPLACE CYBERBULLYING

Samuel Farley and Iain Coyne

In an age of technology-imposed challenges – including phishing scams, surveil-

lance monitoring, and social media spill-over – how universities limit the risks of
workplace cyberbullying is another difficult question that human resources pro-
fessionals (HRPs) must consider. Unfortunately, HRPs are not able to draw upon
a wealth of evidence-based recommendations that specify how to address this
problem. Practitioners seeking inspiration on how to limit cyberbullying within
the university context must, therefore, turn to more developed disciplines to iden-
tify empirically evaluated intervention methods. This chapter examines studies
on youth cyberbullying and traditional workplace bullying interventions, as well
as recommendations from the evidence-based practice movement, to highlight
sources that can help university practitioners move towards online solutions.
Developing the most effective intervention to address an issue is a complex
process. The evidence-based practice (EBP) approach contends that it should
be informed by four different sources: (1) practitioner expertise and judgement;
(2) evidence from the local context; (3) a critical evaluation of the best avail-
able research evidence; and (4) the perspectives of those affected by the problem
(Briner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009). The consequences of not using different
sources of evidence when developing interventions is that the intervention itself
may not provide any tangible benefits or, worse, it may harm the intended recipi-
ents (Briner, 2012). It seems prudent, therefore, to assess each source of evidence
in turn when making a decision on how to intervene against workplace cyber-
bullying. In this chapter, we limit our discussions to the best available research
evidence that can assist university practitioners during the development of cyber-
bullying interventions.
Pioneers of the EBP approach recommend examining the problem, ques-
tion, or issue at hand thoroughly before consulting different sources of evidence.
174 Samuel Farley and Iain Coyne

As noted in Chapter 6 (Coyne & Farley, this volume), workplace cyberbullying

has been conceptualized in the same manner as traditional workplace bullying.
Accordingly, practitioners may feel that the most effective method of intervening
would be to reduce bullying at a broad level, without tailored efforts to reduce its
online manifestation. At the same time, cyberbullying differs from traditional bul-
lying in notable ways, which may influence intervention strategies. For instance,
it is easier for “organizational outsiders” to enact cyberbullying, as the perpetrator
and target do not need to occupy the same physical location.Taking the university
context as an example, this means that members of the public can abuse academics
who use social networking websites to disseminate their research – the methods
that practitioners adopt, therefore, will likely be influenced by investigation of
cyberbullying at the local level.
In order to coherently explain bullying intervention efforts, researchers have
categorized these efforts as being either primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary
interventions focus on preventing bullying before it occurs; secondary interven-
tions focus on providing employees with coping resources, in case bullying does
occur; and tertiary interventions aim to reduce the negative consequences of bul-
lying after it has occurred (Hershcovis, Reich, & Niven, 2015). Primary interven-
tions are naturally seen as the most effective, because they address the causes of
bullying, rather than reacting once it has become a problem.
In the university context, there is a lack of evidence for primary interven-
tions geared towards preventing bullying and other forms of harassment. Indeed,
a systematic review of bullying interventions across working contexts revealed
that only one could be considered effective – and this focused on incivility rather
than bullying (Hodgins, MacCurtain, & Mannix-McNamara, 2014). Evaluations
demonstrate that the civility, respect, and engagement at work (CREW) pro-
gram can reduce incivility, absenteeism, and burnout (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, &
Oore, 2011). CREW involves work units participating in weekly meetings to
discuss and model civil ways of interacting. Since some of the beneficial impacts
of CREW were sustained over a 12-month period (Leiter, Day, Gilin-Oore, &
Laschinger, 2012), it has been suggested that CREW training could be adapted to
address cyber-forms of harassment (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2015).
In the youth context, a few notable primary interventions have been con-
ducted which report efficacy in reducing cyberbullying. These include the ViSC
program, an aspect of Austria’s national strategy for reducing traditional bullying
and aggressive behaviour in secondary schools. During ViSC, teachers encourage
students to take responsibility for preventing bullying, as well as giving them an
opportunity to practise their social skills. The program also contains secondary
intervention elements, as teachers are trained in how to recognize and tackle acute
bullying cases (Gradinger, Yanagida, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2016). A randomized
control design showed that an intervention group decreased in self-reported
cyberbullying enactment compared to a control group. Interestingly, these effects
 Intervening against workplace cyberbullying 175

were observed despite the fact that the program did not contain any specific
cyberbullying elements.
In Finland, the KiVa program has also reported success in reducing cyberbul-
lying (Williford et al., 2013). KiVa aims to reduce bullying by promoting empa-
thy, self-efficacy, and anti-bullying attitudes in bystanders. The program involves
universal actions (primary intervention): classroom lessons that raise awareness of
bullying and promote empathy. These are combined with indicated actions (sec-
ondary intervention): guidance on how to react to bullying cases, including peer
support for the victim and discussions with bystanders on how to support the tar-
get. Evaluation showed that there was significantly less cyber-victimization among
an intervention group who received KiVa training compared to a control group
(Williford et al., 2013). Specific aspects of the training may have been respon-
sible for this effect, including lessons on respect during cyber-communication
and computer-simulated scenarios of cyberbullying events.
Organizational researchers have not yet evaluated secondary interventions on
resources that help employees cope when faced with traditional workplace bul-
lying (Hershcovis et al., 2015). However, theoretical frameworks which specify
the development of workplace bullying and detrimental computer-mediated
communication have both emphasized conflict escalation as an antecedent factor
(Friedman & Currall, 2003; Zapf & Gross, 2001). It has been suggested, therefore,
that conflict de-escalation could be a valuable skill that allows employees to cope
with negative acts before they develop into protracted conflicts (Branch, Ram-
say, & Barker, 2013). A component of conflict de-escalation training could involve
guidance on informal resolution strategies, as studies have reported that victims
may be cautious about reporting through official channels, often preferring to
cope informally using their own resources and support networks (D’Cruz &
Noronha, 2010; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Yet, the responsibility to resolve conflicts
should not lie solely with victims. A recent study exploring leadership behaviour
after bullying events suggested that managers could also benefit from conflict
management training (Woodrow & Guest, 2017).
At present, we are not aware of tertiary interventions that have been evalu-
ated using quantitative methods. Mediation is often cited as a potential method
for addressing traditional workplace bullying (Saam, 2010), although its efficacy
is not yet fully understood. Slonje, Smith, and Frisen (2013) state that an impor-
tant component of youth bullying programs involves helping the bully to under-
stand the consequences of their actions. The authors comment that if this is true,
then helping cyberbullies realize the extent of their actions is particularly impor-
tant, as they appear less remorseful than traditional bullying perpetrators (Slonje,
Smith, & Frisen, 2012). Thus, mediation for workplace cyberbullying cases may
promote understanding and remorse. Counselling for victims is another method
that falls under the bracket of tertiary interventions. Online modes of counsel-
ling are used in employee assistance programs and, intuitively, these methods may
176 Samuel Farley and Iain Coyne

provide an outlet for cyberbullying victims. One question is whether they can
provide the same level of support as face-to-face counselling, however? Yet, meta-
analytic evidence suggests little difference in the latter’s effectiveness (Barak, Hen,
Boniel-Nissim, & Shapira, 2008).
At the start of the chapter, we asked what universities could do to limit the
risks of workplace cyberbullying. Given the lack of dedicated research on work-
place cyberbullying intervention methods, we sought to provide the best avail-
able evidence on methods from related disciplines, providing university employees
with an idea of what might work. The most compelling research to date has
evaluated primary interventions, which is perhaps unsurprising given their focus
on prevention. Policies and legislation are two factors that were outside the scope
of this chapter, but they should nonetheless inform intervention efforts alongside
the practitioner’s own expertise, the views of those affected by cyberbullying and
knowledge from the local context. If the local context is the university, practi-
tioners should seek to understand the nature and source of the cyberbullying,
as this context may enable a particular form of behaviour such as abuse towards
academics via social media. In summary, further empirical research is needed to
develop and evaluate cyberbullying interventions within the university context;
yet, we hope the ideas presented in this chapter provide an initial starting point
for researchers and practitioners to evaluate and implement cyberbullying policies
at the university level.

References
Barak, A., Hen, L., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Shapira, N. A. (2008). A comprehensive review
and a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of internet-based psychotherapeutic interven-
tions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26(2–4), 109–160.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013).Workplace bullying, mobbing and general har-
assment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 280–299.
Briner, R. B. (2012). Developing evidence-based occupational health psychology. In J.
Houdmont, S. Leka, & R. R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary occupational health psychology
(pp. 36–56). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Con-
cept cleanup time? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19–32.
Coyne, I., & Farley, S. (this volume). Cyberbullying within working contexts. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 80–96). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010). Protecting my interests: HRM and targets’ coping with
workplace bullying. The Qualitative Report, 15, 507–534.
Friedman, R. A., & Currall, S. C. (2003). Conflict escalation: Dispute exacerbating elements
of e-mail communication. Human Relations, 56(11), 1325–1347.
Gradinger, P., Yanagida, T., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2016). Effectiveness and sustain-
ability of the ViSC social competence program to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-
victimization: Class and individual level moderators. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 181–193.
 Intervening against workplace cyberbullying 177

Hershcovis, S. M., Reich, T. C., & Niven, K. (2015). Workplace bullying: Causes, consequences,
and intervention strategies. SIOP White Paper Series, Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, UK, London.
Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Workplace bullying and
incivility: A systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health
Management, 7(1), 54–72.
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin-Oore, D., & Laschinger, H. K. (2012). Getting better and stay-
ing better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility
intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 425–434.
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K., Day, A., & Oore, D. (2011). The impact of civility interven-
tions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(6), 1258–1274.
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2015). Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating
roles of resources at work and home. Journal of Management, 16(4), 457–467.
Saam, N. J. (2010). Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevel approach. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 51–75.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2012). Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of
remorse by bullies: A pilot study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 244–259.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32.
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2017). Leadership and approaches to the management
of workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2),
221–233.
Williford, A., Elledge, L. C., Boulton, A. J., DePaolis, K. J., Little, T. D., & Salmivalli, C.
(2013). Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on cyberbullying and cybervictimiza-
tion frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,
42, 820–833.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying:
A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10(4), 497–522.
PART IV

Policy
15
CYBERBULLYING IN THE
AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY
CONTEXT COLETTE LANGOS AND MARK GIANCASPROCYBERBULLYING IN THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

The shades of harm and implications

for law and policy

Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

Introduction
Bullying is not a phenomenon limited by age. Although there has been an empha-
sis on exploring the concept in relation to school-aged children (Cross et al.,
2009; Olweus, 1978), studies examining adult bullying in the workplace inform
us that such conduct transcends the context of youth (House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Parliament of Australia,
2012; Leymann, 1990). Cyberbullying, too, does not abate when students gradu-
ate from high school (Phippen, 2011; Privitera & Campbell, 2009). While less
research has focused on cyberbullying in the post-secondary education context,
preliminary findings from studies conducted in various countries indicate that it
occurs within colleges and universities, as well (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2014).
Research examining the incidence of cyberbullying in an Australian university
context is in its infancy, however, and – as such – published studies are not gener-
alizable.They do, however, provide us with useful “prevalence snapshots”, suggest-
ing that a significant percentage of students studying at Australian universities are
exposed to the conduct. A 2010 study surveying 134 students of the University of
New South Wales reported that 62% of respondents experienced cyberbullying
in the past year, and that 40% of respondents had personally cyberbullied oth-
ers (Zhang, Land, & Dick, 2010). In 2012, a study surveying 528 undergraduate
students from an Australian university reported that 11.6% of participants had
been victims of cyberbullying in the preceding 12 months (Wensley & Campbell,
2012). Lack of a uniform definition, standardized measurement techniques, and
variance in survey design make it difficult to determine the prevalence of cyber-
bullying accurately; yet, with 1.4 million students studying at Australian universi-
ties nationwide (Norton, 2016), it would be useful to gain greater clarity on the
rate of incidence by way of future research.
182 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

The question is whether all cyberbullying behaviours are equally harmful or if

there are multiple “shades” of cyberbullying, wherein some behaviours have more
severe psychological consequences for its victims compared to others. To date,
the only Australian research to examine this issue has been based on a theoretical
model (Langos, 2015). Research conducted in the UK and Sweden suggests that
not all forms of cyberbullying – when compared with traditional bullying – are
perceived as being equally harmful, with cyberbullying via video/photograph
regarded as being the most damaging (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008).
Findings from other European countries also suggest that non-consensual public
distribution of visual content is considered to be more serious than text-based
cyberbullying, given the intense public humiliation associated with the misuse
of visual content (Nocentini et al., 2010). However, there is very scant empirical
research to inform our understanding of the severity of harm associated, or the
“shades” within various manifestations of the conduct, as experienced by victims
(Menesini, Nocentini, & Calussi, 2011).
A comprehensive understanding of the nature and implications of these vari-
ous behaviours (identified as forms of cyberbullying) enables law and policymak-
ers to tailor regulatory measures accordingly. Findings based on lived experience
are particularly useful, as they provide an evidence base for designing and imple-
menting strategies (law and policy), which educate and protect against harms that
may arise as a result of cyberbullying. This pilot study thus examines:

• The levels of harm Australian university students experienced as victims of

various cyberbullying behaviours;
• The levels of harm Australian university students perceive as being associated
with various cyberbullying behaviours;
• Australian university students’ understanding of existing criminal laws which
regulate instances of cyberbullying;
• Australian university students’ awareness of university policies governing
cyberbullying.

Part 1 of this chapter explains the research method employed in examining these
questions and the results obtained. Furthermore, the authors make several sug-
gestions to explain the somewhat paradoxical findings. Part II considers how the
findings may impact law and policy reform, and the authors make a series of
recommendations in that regard, as well.

Part I. Method

Participants
Participants self-selected to complete an online survey.This survey was distributed
through a research panel provider to an enlisted group of student volunteers: ran-
domly selected from a sample of its registered members, as drawn from various
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 183

Australian universities. The research panel provider’s invitation email contained a

link to the online survey. Students were then directed to an information sheet,
which described participation criteria and details about the survey. Criteria for
participation in the survey included being over the age of 18, studying at an
Australian university, and having experienced cyberbullying. Respondents were
informed that they were not obliged to complete the survey and were assured
that their answers would remain anonymous. A total of 444 students attempted
the survey between January and July 2016. The total number of participants who
completed the survey was 213 (115 male, 93 female, and two who identified as
“other”). Of the 213 respondents, all were between the ages of 18 and 24.

Measures
The authors formulated a 22-item questionnaire consisting of closed-ended ques-
tions. The survey provided participants with a description of cyberbullying1 and
a list of various cyberbullying behaviours before respondents were asked prelimi-
nary questions relating to age, gender, and frequency of victimization. The next
part of the survey required respondents to indicate whether they have experi-
enced any of the 10 different cyberbullying behaviours listed (Table 15.2) and
then to rate, on a Likert scale (scale range of 1 to 5, with 1 being not harmful to
5 being the most serious harm), the level of harm they actually experienced as a
result of exposure. Information describing each level of harm on the Likert scale
was provided.2 Participants were then asked to consider the same list of cyberbul-
lying behaviours and to rate, on a Likert scale, the level of harm (scale range of
1 to 5, with 1 being not harmful to 5 being the most severe harm), they think
would be associated with each of the behaviours. The final part of the survey
asked respondents about their awareness and understanding of criminal laws, as
well as university policies governing cyberbullying.

Results

Frequency of cyberbullying
Table 15.1 reflects how often respondents were cyberbullied after turning 18 years
of age.

TABLE 15.1 Frequency of Cyberbullying

How often have you been cyberbullied since turning 18 years of age? Responses

Once or twice 50.2%

A few times (More than twice, but not frequently) 43.2%
Frequently (monthly) 5.6%
Very frequently (weekly or more often) 0.9%
Never 0%
184 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

Not all cyberbullying is equally harmful

Findings reflected in Table 15.2 provide insight into the complex nature of
cyberbullying. Its manifestations are varied, as are the consequences of expo-
sure. Table 15.2 captures both the level (extent) of harm actually experienced by
respondents as a result of exposure to any of the listed cyberbullying behaviours, as
well as the participants’ perceptions of harm – that is, the level of harm they think
would be associated with each of the behaviours.The number of participants who
have been exposed to each behaviour type is shown in the last column (n = actually
experienced), as well as the number of respondents who replied to the question
about perception (n = perceived harm). For purposes of reporting, this table col-
lapses the first two levels (not harmful and minimal harm momentarily) and the
last two levels (harmful for some time and significant harm ongoing). Level 3 is
the mid-range – some harm, for some time.
Interestingly, almost all of the respondents commented on the perceived harm
associated with exposure to the various cyberbullying behaviours (“n” ranged
from 209 to 213), compared to the number of participants who responded to
actual harm experienced.The most common forms of cyberbullying experienced
by respondents were, in the following order of frequency: sent offensive messages
(n = 201), exclusion from online discussion forums (n = 188), and being the sub-
ject of a humiliating photo distributed electronically without consent (n = 180).
The least commonly experienced behaviour was being the subject of a sexually
explicit, nude, or nearly nude photo taken with consent but distributed without
consent (n = 155).

Criminal law
Most respondents were not aware of any criminal laws regulating cyberbullying
(61.8%). Of those who were aware (38.2%), most were aware that both state and
federal laws may regulate instances of cyberbullying. However, half indicated that
they were confused about precisely which cyberbullying behaviours were con-
sidered “criminal” behaviour. Of the 213 respondents, an overwhelming majority
(n = 204) indicated that lawmakers should do more to educate people about laws
that apply to instances of cyberbullying. The majority of respondents (n = 180)
indicated that there should be one specific cyberbullying offence which gov-
erns serious instances of cyberbullying, instead of various laws regulating different
kinds of cyberbullying behaviours.

University policy
The majority of participants (57.1%) had no knowledge of a behaviour code
or university policy that addresses cyberbullying. Of those who knew of such
a policy (n = 92), most indicated that the cyberbullying policy was effective.
TABLE 15.2 The Shades of Harm Associated With Cyberbullying

CB behaviours Harm Levels 1–2 Level 3 Levels 4–5 n

Least Most
harmful harmful

I have been sent offensive Actually 35.3% 30.4% 34.4% 201

messages via electronic experienced
technology repeatedly Perceived 28.2% 30.1% 41.8% 213
(e.g., social media, SMS, email)
I have been the subject of a Actually 55.8% 24.4% 19.8% 172
“rating list” on a website or experienced
on social media inviting nasty Perceived 28.1% 28.1% 43.8% 210
public comment and remark
I have been the subject of Actually 47.7% 23.3% 29% 180
a humiliating photo(s) experienced
distributed via electronic Perceived 14.1% 22.5% 63.4% 213
technology (e.g., posted
to social media, websites,
YouTube)
I have been the subject of a Actually 69% 10% 21% 155
sexually explicit, nude or experienced
nearly nude photo which was Perceived 13.2% 9.5% 77.3% 211
taken with my consent but
distributed to others without
my consent
I have been the subject of Actually 57.6% 20.9% 21.5% 163
a humiliating film/video experienced
distributed via electronic Perceived 10.6% 21.5% 67.9% 209
technology (e.g., posted
to social media, websites,
YouTube)
I have been stalked using Actually 48% 20.8% 31.2% 173
electronic technology experienced
(someone repeatedly sent me Perceived 16.3% 21% 62.7% 209
communications which made
me fear for my personal safety)
I have been purposely excluded Actually 41% 25% 34% 188
from online discussion groups/ experienced
chat rooms repeatedly Perceived 40.2% 32% 27.8% 209
Someone pretended to be me Actually 55% 18.4% 26.6% 158
by creating a fake social media experienced
profile or website and posted Perceived 26.2% 25.2% 48.6% 210
offensive material/messages on
the fake profile/website

(Continued)
186 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

TABLE 15.2 (Continued)

CB behaviours Harm Levels 1–2 Level 3 Levels 4–5 n

Least Most
harmful harmful
Someone threatened to Actually 48.2% 20.4% 31.4% 172
physically harm me using experienced
electronic technology via Perceived 16% 19% 65% 211
communication tools such
as social media, chatrooms,
websites, email or SMS where
there are multiple recipients
Someone tricked me Actually 56% 20.5% 23.5% 166
into disclosing personal experienced
information and then Perceived 15.3% 26.7% 58% 210
distributed this information
using electronic technology
communication tools such
as social media, chatrooms,
websites, email or SMS where
there are multiple recipients

A large majority of the total number of respondents (66.4%) indicated that a

post-secondary education institutional policy can be an effective deterrent to
cyberbullying and most (62%) indicated that they would seek help from a post-
secondary institution counselling service. Results show that the large majority of
respondents (88.2%) consider an anonymous online reporting system a useful way
of encouraging students – who are either victims, bystanders, or perpetrators of
cyberbullying – to report instances.Two-hundred-and-one of the total number of
respondents also indicated that online reporting systems should provide users with
a range of self-help resources.

General discussion
Empirical studies examining the implications of cyberbullying provide us with
a growing evidence base that exposure can be potentially devastating: that vic-
timization may result in an array of negative health implications for its targets
(Faucher et al., 2014). Responses from participants in this survey echo this con-
clusion, with 95.3% indicating that they consider cyberbullying to be a serious
issue. Additionally, in line with scholarship in this field, it was found that almost
86% of respondents were targets of cyberbullying before turning 18. This dem-
onstrates that cyberbullying continues across multiple educational contexts and
fields; it does not cease once students leave high school. Moreover, victimization
prior to turning 18 may be a determinant of participants’ recognition of cyberbul-
lying as being a serious issue.
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 187

Frequency of victimization
Most respondents indicated that they experienced cyberbullying “once or
twice” or “a few times” (Table 15.1). However, 14 (or 6.6%) of the 213 respond-
ents were victimized on a “monthly” or “weekly or more frequent” basis. This
percentage is higher than findings published to date (MacDonald & Roberts-
Pittman, 2010) – yet, further cross-cultural research is required to provide us
with a more comprehensive understanding as to whether this higher frequency
of victimization is unique to the Australian post-secondary context or also per-
sists in other contexts.

Not all cyberbullying is equally harmful

Data reflecting respondents’ lived experiences denote that not all cyberbullying
behaviours are equally harmful. Disparity as to the severity of harm experienced
by respondents is shown by the spread of the data within each behaviour type.
Every manifestation of cyberbullying was associated with all five possible shades
of harm. For interpretative purposes, it is useful to observe the extent of harm
associated with each behaviour type viewed cumulatively – that is, harm falling
within the levels 3 to 5 on the Likert scale.3

Individual behaviours: harm experienced vs. perceived harm

It is interesting to consider how respondents’ perceptions of harm (in relation to
each behaviour) compared with the actual harm experienced by victims. Notably,
on the whole, respondents tended to overestimate the extent of perceived harm
associated with each of the listed cyberbullying behaviours, compared to actual
harm experienced.This finding was particularly pronounced in relation to certain
behaviours (discussed as follows):

Non-consensual distribution of a humiliating photo: This behaviour occurred fre-

quently, with 85% of all respondents indicating exposure to this manifesta-
tion of cyberbullying. The largest percentage of respondents overestimated
the extent of harm associated with this behaviour: 63.4% thought that
exposure would result in level 4–5 harm, and almost 86% perceived vic-
timization to result in harm between levels 3–5. Notably, nearly half of all
respondents victimized in this manner (47.7%) did not regard the behav-
iour as harmful or experienced minor harm in the form of momentary
negative emotional reactions.
Non-consensual distribution of a sexually explicit photo: This form of cyberbullying
was also perceived as significantly harmful behaviour. Approximately 77%
of all respondents thought that exposure would result in harm in between
levels 4–5. In contrast, the data indicate that 69% of respondents targeted in
this way reported experiencing harm in the 1–2 category: no subsequent
188 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

harm or minimal harm (momentary negative emotional reactions). This

behaviour was the least common manifestation of cyberbullying, with 73%
of respondents reporting exposure.
Non-consensual distribution of humiliating film: Exposure to this behaviour type
was perceived as approximately three times more harmful (level 4–5) to
victims in general than to those respondents who actually experienced that
form of cyberbullying (67.9% vs. 21.5%). Cumulatively, over 89% perceived
this form of cyberbullying to result in harm between levels 3–5. In stark
contrast to these findings, the data revealed that 57.6% of victims did not
experience any resulting harm or experienced minimal harm (momentary
negative emotional reactions) as a result of exposure (level 1–2 harm).
Being stalked online: The majority of respondents (62.7%) thought this behav-
iour would result in significant or ongoing harm (levels 4–5). Again, con-
trary to perceptions, approximately half of those victimized in this manner
(48%) experienced level 1–2 harm (no harm or momentary negative emo-
tional reactions).
Visual forms of cyberbullying: One of the more unanticipated aspects of our find-
ings relates to the level of harm experienced by the majority of respondents’
cyberbullied by way of non-consensual distribution of visual content –
sexually explicit, nude, or nearly nude photograph(s); or humiliating film
or image(s) depicting the victim. The majority of respondents indicated
cyberbullying of this kind to be among the least harmful behaviours
(Table 15.2). These results lie in contradistinction to research published
to date, which suggests that the public humiliation associated with non-
consensual distribution of private or embarrassing film or images makes
non-consensual distribution of visual content particularly harmful. On this
point, we should highlight that previous findings are informed primarily
by data obtained from perception-based studies (Nocentini et al., 2010).
Interestingly, and in line with existing research, findings from our study
suggest non-consensual distribution of visual content – sexually explicit,
nude, or nearly nude photograph(s); or humiliating film or image(s) depict-
ing the victim – is perceived to be among the most harmful manifestations
of cyberbullying.

The disparity in our findings on harm experienced and perceived harm may be
explained on a number of bases. First, it is possible that human error is to blame.
Respondents may have misunderstood the survey items. However, the authors
consider this unlikely for two reasons: (1) the questions were worded clearly and
unambiguously, and there appears to be very little scope for misinterpretation; and
(2) the marked inverse trend in survey responses in regards to harm based on lived
experience and perceived harm associated with each cyberbullying behaviour. No
notable outliers were identified. There is, therefore, nothing suggestive of error in
the interpretation of the scoring scale.
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 189

Second, the study may have been affected by the social desirability bias: the
tendency of respondents to self-report questionnaires to give socially approved
answers about oneself (Weiten, 2016, p. 50). The bias is particularly prevalent
when a questionnaire canvasses sensitive issues (Weiten, 2016, p. 50). Cyberbully-
ing and its associated harms are certainly sensitive issues, and so respondents may
have sought to answer in a manner which made them appear more “resilient”.
This theory is plausible, although not appropriately convincing, given that the
likelihood of socially desirable responding decreases in proportion to the level of
anonymity offered (Randall & Fernandes, 1991, p. 813). The online survey in this
study was entirely anonymous and administered electronically, such that there was
no “human” interaction whatsoever.
It is also of note that there were many more participants who responded to the
question asking them to rate the level of harm they perceived would be associ-
ated with exposure to each form of cyberbullying vs. respondents who identified
as victims having actually experienced any of the listed behaviours. It is possible
that those respondents who had not experienced a particular form of cyberbul-
lying overestimated the impact of victimization, therefore skewing the responses
to that factor.

Part II. Discussions surrounding criminal law and policy

As a prelude to the following discussion, it is important to consider that the crimi-
nalization of conduct deemed harmful to the community is but one tool lawmak-
ers may resort to when harmful behaviour requires proactive management. Any
criminal law response to cyberbullying should be only one part of a rounded
management effort. To that end, it is imperative that an array of non-penal policy
responses – including targeted education campaigns across multiple contexts and
the development of self-help resources – be implemented simultaneously.

Criminal law
There is no single body of criminal law governing the whole of Australia (Findlay,
Odgers, & Yeo, 2009, p. 7). Australian states and territories are responsible for their
own criminal laws. The Commonwealth government may enact federal criminal
legislation pursuant to the powers vested in it by virtue of the Commonwealth
Constitution (Australian Constitution s 51).
At present, there is no specific cyberbullying offence. Rather, a complex matrix
of state and federal laws criminalize cyberbullying behaviours as they fall within
the scope of existing offences (Langos, 2014). For example, non-consensual dis-
tribution of visual content may be regulated by state “filming offences” (Part 5A
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA)). Equally threatening content may be governed
by state offences, such as “unlawful threats” (s 19 Criminal Law Consolidations
Act 1935 (SA)), “assault” (s 20 Criminal Law Consolidations Act 1935 (SA)), or
190 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

“stalking” (s 19AA Criminal Law Consolidations Act 1935 (SA)). Federal law, too,
may regulate cyberbullying (Australian Constitution s 51(v)). The provision that
has the greatest relevance, so capturing a broad range of cyberbullying behaviours,
governs “harassing, menacing, or offensive” material transmitted electronically
(s 414.17 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)).

Community education
Interestingly, most of the respondents were not aware of any criminal laws regu-
lating cyberbullying. Of those respondents who were aware of existing cyberbul-
lying laws, half indicated that they were confused about which cyberbullying
behaviours amount to criminal conduct. Of the 213 respondents, 204 indicated
that lawmakers should do more to educate people about the laws that apply to
instances of cyberbullying. This finding suggests that community education sur-
rounding the relationship between cyberbullying and criminal law is warranted.

Cyberbullying as a single offence

It is also of note that findings indicate that 84.9% of respondents believe that there
ought to be one single cyberbullying offence that governs serious instances of this
misconduct. It may be that this legal response is viewed as a way lawmakers could
clarify concerns surrounding the criminalization of cyberbullying. One can safely
argue that a benefit of enacting such an offence would be the formulation of a
legal cyberbullying definition, which would clarify both the meaning and scope
of the phenomenon. However, a specific cyberbullying offence would need to
be drafted with extreme care so as to avoid being overly broad and overly inclu-
sive (i.e., capturing behaviours not sufficiently serious to attract criminal penalty)
(Langos, 2013).

Harm associated with cyberbullying is complex

Data illuminating the shades of harm associated with cyberbullying may be helpful
to lawmakers. It could assist lawmakers postulating law reform, or else reviewing
existing laws, ensuring the community is adequately protected from potentially
harmful behaviours. Our findings suggest that different behaviours result in vary-
ing levels of harm. Furthermore, each cyberbullying behaviour is capable of caus-
ing a spectrum of harm; no manifestation is purely one-dimensional. In addition,
it is useful to consider that none of the cyberbullying behaviours listed can com-
fortably be described as resulting in negligible harm. Of the behaviours, being
the subject of a rating list on a website or social media inviting nasty public com-
mentary had the least number of respondents indicate that they experienced pro-
tracted harm (i.e., of the kind reflected in level 4 or 5 of the harm scale). However,
19.8% of victims experienced harm lasting a few months, ongoing psychological
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 191

harm, or self-harm. This behaviour cannot be described as resulting in trivial

harm. A greater percentage of respondents suffered serious harm of a monthly or
ongoing nature for all other behaviours, with the greatest number of respondents
(34.3%) indicating that they experienced this extent of harm as a result of being
sent offensive messages electronically. Findings may provide lawmakers with an
evidence base for investing further in awareness-raising and prevention initiatives,
and may also serve as empirical support when justifying comprehensive regulation
of cyberbullying behaviours by way of the criminal law.
One aspect of this data – which ought to be treated cautiously by lawmakers,
however – relates to the finding that the majority of respondents did not find
non-consensual distribution of visual content to be particularly harmful. Possible
explanations for this finding have been discussed. It has also been canvassed that
this finding should not be considered in isolation, and that a holistic interpretation
to this data is preferred – given that the data also inform us that a significant per-
centage of respondents who experienced this kind of cyberbullying (whether by
humiliating film or image(s), or sexually explicit, nude, or nearly nude image(s))
suffered harm lasting a few months, ongoing emotional harm, or self-harm. It is
imperative that lawmakers do not treat the data as irrefutable evidence that exist-
ing laws criminalizing these behaviours should be repealed, or, where no laws
exist, that laws governing such conduct should not be enacted. The data should
always be read as a whole.

University policy
The present study also provides an informative basis for cyberbullying policy
development in the post-secondary education context.

Awareness of cyberbullying policy

Findings corroborate existing prevalence studies by demonstrating that cyberbul-
lying continues to be a significant issue, affecting a large number of Australian
post-secondary students. Furthermore, the results also paint a concerning picture
regarding post-secondary student awareness of cyberbullying policies (or related
behavioural codes) at their respective institutions. As the data indicate, the major-
ity of respondents had no knowledge of such policies or codes. This finding is
perhaps unsurprising given that many universities currently lack these types of
preventative or educational measures (Campbell, 2015). A recent study by Camp-
bell sampled 20 Australian universities from New South Wales, Queensland, South
Australia, and Victoria, examining the anti-bullying policies each (if any) had in
place (Campbell, 2015).The universities were chosen wherein they were the insti-
tutions with the highest numbers of student enrolment in each state for the year
2013. Conclusively, it was found that only seven of the policies sourced, from each
of the universities, specifically mentioned bullying amongst students.
192 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

Perceived efficacy of a cyberbullying policy

Respondents in the present study who did know of existing university cyberbul-
lying policies noted that they were effective and, overall, two-thirds believed that
a policy directly addressing cyberbullying would be an effective deterrent. There
is empirical support for these sentiments. Several studies speak to the general
efficacy of policies in educational institutions as an effective strategy to combat
bullying and cyberbullying behaviours amongst students (Cowie, Bauman, Myers,
Porhola, & Almeida, 2013; Hatzenbuehler, Schwab-Reese, Ranapurwala, Hertz, &
Ramirez, 2015). Given the prevalence and new empirical data (based on victims’
lived experiences, which inform us of the potential harms of such behaviours),
it is imperative that universities develop specific policies to address bullying and
cyberbullying among their student body.

Educating students and staff

The majority of respondents (57.1%) in the present study reported having no
knowledge of any behaviour code or other policy at their university that specifi-
cally addressed the issue of cyberbullying. According to the literature, this seems
to be an endemic problem in higher education institutions (Minor, Smith, &
Brashen, 2013; Campbell, 2015). It is essential, once a policy addressing cyberbul-
lying behaviours is generated, that both students and staff at universities are made
aware of this policy and given easy access. To this end, ongoing educational cam-
paigns – catered to raising awareness of the issue of cyberbullying, as well as the
availability and effect of the university policies addressing it – should be imple-
mented. A university’s cyberbullying policies should be prominent and accessible
in hard copy, as well as online: not only for convenience, but to demonstrate insti-
tutional commitment to addressing a prevalent issue (Jackson, Faucher, & Cassidy,
this volume; Marsh, McGee, Hemphill, & Williams, 2011). This exposure is likely
to have a destigmatizing effect, encouraging victims to seek support. It is also
likely to have a deterrent effect upon actual or potential perpetrators. Reiteration
of the message that cyberbullying will not be tolerated is one way to negate the
dissuasive influence of Australia’s culture of aforementioned “resilience”.
It is also essential that university staff, particularly counselling staff, are ade-
quately equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to support cyberbully-
ing victims. Appropriate and specific procedures (as opposed to vague aspirational
directions) should be in place, ensuring that staff are confident in addressing
instances of cyberbullying (Campbell, 2015). Such measures would help to foster
a “telling culture”, in which students are made to feel confident that university
staff will understand and accommodate their issues, working constructively and
collaboratively to resolve them (Marsh et al., 2011). In particular, Cowie et al.
(2013) recommend that university counselling staff be careful not to trivialize
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 193

student concerns regarding cyberbullying; routinely screen for depression and

anxiety; sufficiently familiarize themselves with the appropriate technology, to
be able to recommend “technological strategies (e.g., blocking, reporting) that
could be helpful to victims” (p. 170); understand the law and inform victims of
legal options where necessary; thoroughly understand university cyberbullying
policies; and advocate for effective and accessible mechanisms to address such
malevolent behaviour (Cowie et al., 2013). A failure to have such adequate proce-
dures in place, and to respond to reported instances of cyberbullying accordingly,
may well expose a university to legal liability should a victim initiate an action in
negligence.

Anonymous online reporting system

Findings indicate that 88.2% of respondents felt that an anonymous online
reporting system would be a useful way of encouraging students – whether vic-
tims, bystanders, or perpetrators – to report instances of cyberbullying. Previous
research supports this view (Cunningham et al., 2015; Faucher, Cassidy, Jackson,
Waterhouse, & MacDonald, 2014). Some possible explanations as to why this
initiative is perceived as being so advantageous include that it simplifies report-
ing procedures; may limit the risk of retaliation; and that it encourages victims,
witnesses, and even perpetrators to speak out against cyberbullying anonymously
(Cunningham et al., 2015, p. 380). Additionally, it is important that 201 respond-
ents (94.37%) indicated they believed online reporting systems should provide
users with a range of self-help resources: including such resources provides victims
suffering severe psychological distress, or those who feel at risk of self-harm, with
access to immediate assistance.

University counselling services

It is encouraging that most respondents (62%) indicated they would seek help
from a post-secondary institution counselling service if necessary. Needless to say,
universities should ensure that they are able to adequately assist students victim-
ized by cyberbullies.Yet, having policies prohibiting such behaviour is not enough:
these must also be supplemented by effective support (e.g., referral to counselling
services) and enforcement (e.g., internal retribution for perpetrator, referral to
law enforcement authorities) measures. To encourage victims to speak up, they
must have confidence that their grievances will be appropriately dealt with. As
Kenworthy’s (2010) study revealed, university students affected by cyberbullying
were, perhaps unsurprisingly, strongly disinclined to report the behaviour where
apprehended perpetrators were perceived not to be adequately reprimanded
(Kenworthy, 2010). In that study, a mere 14% of the 452 respondents indicated
that their formal complaints had resulted in disciplinary action.
194 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

Recommendations
This pioneering research is the first Australian study to explore whether all
cyberbullying behaviours are equally harmful. Furthermore, it explores whether
university students have knowledge of existing criminal laws which govern cyber-
bullying, and whether lawmakers ought to implement strategies aimed at better
educating the community as to those laws.
Given the scarcity of empirical data surrounding the shades of harm associated
with particular forms of cyberbullying, data from this study has the potential to
influence law reform in this area. It provides decision-makers with a preliminary
evidence base. Based on these discussions, it would be opportune for lawmakers
to consider:

• Increasing community education on the legal implications of cyberbullying

to raise awareness and clarifying when cyberbullying is unlawful behaviour;
• Enacting a carefully crafted specific federal cyberbullying offence that gov-
erns serious instances of cyberbullying;
• In the absence of introducing new uniform federal legislation, conducting
regular reviews of criminal laws in all jurisdictions to ensure cyberbullying is
governed comprehensively.

The data also provide us with useful information surrounding university students’
awareness of institutional policies that prohibit cyberbullying, whether such poli-
cies may act as an effective deterrent, and whether implementation of an anony-
mous online reporting system could encourage reporting by victims, perpetrators,
and bystanders. To that end, post-secondary institutions would be prudent to
consider:

• Developing and implementing anti-bullying and cyberbullying policies;

• Ensuring university students and staff are aware of anti-bullying and cyber-
bullying policies;
• Developing an anonymous online reporting system for victims;
• Ensuring students and staff have access to counselling services and other self-
help resources.

Limitations
These findings must be considered in light of the limitations of the study.Although
the sample of survey participants was drawn randomly from a research panel pro-
vider whose membership base comprised university students Australia-wide, data
are not generalizable based on the sample size. Further research drawing upon a
larger sample is required to provide a more comprehensive data set. Given the lack
of Australian research examining the prevalence of cyberbullying in this context,
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 195

it would be useful to explore the rate of incidence among university students

so we can better understand the extent of the problem in university institutions
nationwide.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Law Foundation of South Australia
for providing the authors with funding support for this exploratory study.

Notes
1 Cyberbullying was described as “bullying that takes place using electronic technology
such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including
social media sites, text messages, chat and websites”.
2 A rating of ‘1’ indicates that the behaviour was not harmful. A rating of ‘2’ indicates that
the behaviour resulted in minimal harm (emotional reactions you felt were not long
lasting such as momentary fear, grief, anger). A rating of ‘3’ indicates that the behaviour
resulted in some emotional harm (anger, anxiety, fear, grief, humiliation for some time (a
few weeks)). A rating of ‘4’ indicates that the behaviour resulted in harm (either emo-
tional harm where you felt negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, fear, grief, humilia-
tion for some time (a few months); or where you were physically harmed). A rating of ‘5’
indicates that the behaviour resulted in significant harm (either emotional harm where
you felt ongoing negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, fear, grief, humiliation; or
where you self-harmed as a result of the behaviour).
3 Note, as the harm scale defined a rating of level 1 as ‘not harmful’ and level 2 as ‘minimal
harm’ akin to fleeting emotional reactions, harm associated with these levels is construed
as negligible.

References
Campbell, M. (2015). Policies and procedures to address bullying at Australian universi-
ties. In H. Cowie & C. A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national
perspectives (pp. 157–171). London: Routledge.
Cowie, H., Bauman, S., Myers, C.-A., Porhola, M., & Almeida, A. (2013). Cyberbullying
amongst university students: An emergent cause for concern? In P. K. Smith & G. Stef-
fgen (Eds.), Cyberbullying through the new media: Findings from an international network
(pp. 165–177). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., Thomas, L., & Data Anal-
ysis Australia. (2009). Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study. Joondalup, Australia:
Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University.
Cunningham, C. E., Chen, Y., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H., Deal, K., Cunningham, L. J., &
Ratcliffe, J. (2015). Modeling the anti-cyberbullying preferences of university students:
Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 41(4), 369–385.
Faucher, C., Cassidy,W., Jackson, M.,Waterhouse,T., & MacDonald, L. (2014). Cyberbullying
at Canadian universities: Linking research, policy and practice. Parameters of the Issue: Work-
ing Paper 1. Simon Fraser University.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students: Gen-
dered experiences, impacts and perspectives. Education Research International, 2014, 1–10.
196 Colette Langos and Mark Giancaspro

Findlay, M., Odgers, S., & Yeo, S. (2009). Australian criminal justice (4th ed.). South Mel-
bourne: Oxford University Press.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz, M. F., & Ramirez, M.
R. (2015). Associations between antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA
Pediatrics, 169(10), e15241.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Parlia-
ment of Australia. (2012). Workplace bullying:We just want it to stop. Canberra: Parliament
of Australia.
Jackson, M., Faucher, C., & Cassidy, W. (this volume). What’s policy got to do with it? The
focus on cyberbullying policy at the university level. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 198–211). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Kenworthy, A. (2010). One goal, one community: Moving beyond bullying and empower-
ing for life. Bond University Centre for Applied Research in Learning, Engagement,
Andragogy and Pedagogy. Retrieved from https://bond.edu.au/intl/news/44434/
one-goal-one-community-moving-beyond-bullying-and-empowering-life
Langos, C. (2013). Cyberbullying, associated harm and the criminal law. Doctoral thesis, Univer-
sity of South Australia. Retrieved from http://arrow.unisa.edu.au:8081/1959.8/151636
Langos, C. (2014). Regulating cyberbullying: A South Australian perspective. Flinders Law
Journal, 16(1), 73–109.
Langos, C. (2015). Cyberbullying:The shades of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(1),
106–124.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,
5, 119–126.
MacDonald, C., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among college students:
Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9,
2002–2009.
Marsh, L., McGee, R., Hemphill, S. A., & Williams, S. (2011). Content analysis of school
anti-bullying policies: A comparison between New Zealand and Victoria. Health Promo-
tion Journal of Australia, 22(3), 172–177.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying:
Dimensional structure and relative item severity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 14(5), 267–274.
Minor, M. A., Smith, G. S., & Brashen, H. (2013). Cyberbullying in higher education. Jour-
nal of Educational Research and Practice, 3(1), 15–29.
Nocentini, A., Juan, C., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini,
E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European coun-
tries. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(2), 129–142.
Norton, A. (2016). Mapping Australian higher education.Victoria, Australia: Grattan Institute.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere Publishing.
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Smith, P. K., . . . &
Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims:
A European cross-national study. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 342–356.
Phippen, A. (2011). The online abuse of professionals-research report from the UK safer internet
centre. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying?
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 395–400.
 Cyberbullying in the Australian university context 197

Randall, D., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991).The social desirability bias in ethics research. Journal
of Business Ethics, 10, 805–817.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandina-
vian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-
bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Weiten, W. (2016). Psychology:Themes and variations (10th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and non-heterosexual young university
students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behav-
ior and Social Networking, 15(12), 649–654.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhang, A., Land, A., & Dick, G. (2010, July). Key influences of cyberbullying for university stu-
dents. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei,
Taiwan.
16
WHAT’S POLICY GOT
TO DO WITH IT? MARGARET JACKSON, CHANTAL FAUCHER, AND WANDA CASSIDYWHAT’S POLICY GOT TO DO WITH IT?

The focus on cyberbullying policy

at the university level

Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and

Wanda Cassidy

Just as it is important in the context of the (lower grades) to address the

problems of cyberbullying in an informed way, so it is important to develop
research-based policies and programs at the post-secondary level that prevent
and/or curtail CB, and also provide victims with clear avenues of reporting, as
well as offer support and counselling when harm has occurred.
– (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2017, p. 26)

Part I. Introduction – policy foundations

Since educators became concerned with the effects of face-to-face bullying in
primary and secondary (K–12, in Canada) school populations many years ago,
suggested solutions frequently speak to the need for appropriate policy develop-
ment or reform to address the concerns. Similarly, as issues with cyberbullying
began to emerge in these same school age groups eight years ago in Canada, calls
for policy reform were heard once again.
The turning point for Canada in this process can be argued to have occurred
beginning with earlier media coverage of high-profile cases involving cyberbul-
lying in the younger-aged student population, such as the 2012 Amanda Todd
suicide case in British Columbia, or at the university level, such as with the 2012
University of Calgary Pridgen brothers’ case in which it was alleged the broth-
ers’ (both students) Facebook bullying of their instructor occurred. The right to
freedom of expression held sway over the right to security of person in the court
decision, the outcome in favour of the brothers (see also Blizard, this volume).
Cyberbullying subsequently began to emerge as a major issue in Canada.
In even more recent times, the same policy approach to solutions as had
been proposed for the younger-aged children has been recommended for
 What’s policy got to do with it? 199

university-level cyberbullying issues (Campbell, 2016; Cassidy, Faucher, &

Jackson, 2017; Langos & Giancaspro, this volume). It is thus worth examining
the role that policy responses might reasonably play today when dealing with
cyberbullying concerns at the university level. We start first by examining what a
policy really is.
Policies are values-based statements. Procedures and actions can be assessed
for being effectively derived from policy (or not), if those procedures and actions
secure the policy’s values-based intent and goals. A policy often even specifies
within itself, or in its related procedures, what those actions are. The values to be
considered may be in conflict, or a tension may exist between different policies’
values. The policy itself establishes the balance between, for example, individual
and societal values. When policy sets out the balance between the values in ten-
sion, the balance can become incorporated into actions to address the behaviour
or problem (Dunn, 2008; Dye, 2017; Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2015).
Each policy’s intent refers to an action which can be set out to secure the stated
value balance. So, one set of tensions, for example, in a cyberbullying situation,
might be between an individual’s right to freedom of expression and another’s
rights to have security of person, as in the right to freedom from harassment
(Brown et al., 2006). For the latter group, the harassment may affect their quality
of life, possibly even their safety. If the expression does cause harm, then limits
must be placed on the expression to the extent that is reasonable. The right to
privacy may hold the key to that balance (Mathiesen, 2014).
Within the context of cyberbullying at the university level, policy refers to
institutional protocols and directives governing behaviour within and related to
the university. In the first part of the chapter, we attempt to make meaning of
having one type of policy or another governing cyberbullying behaviour, whether
a student conduct policy, a human rights policy, or an information communica-
tions technology (ICT) policy. In the second part, recommendations for values/
elements to consider when developing policy to address cyberbullying at the
institutional level, as gleaned from the literature, our own studies’ findings, and
from the reflections of contributors in this volume are discussed.

Rights and intersecting factors in policy for cyberbullying

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a high-level policy document,
which clearly sets out rights balances of the type discussed prior. It is there-
fore appropriate to reference the Charter in terms of the scope of rights which
should be considered when developing policy at the university level to address
cyberbullying.
In terms of scope, it has been argued that policymakers should consider fac-
tors such as gender and sexuality, age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
disability when developing rights policy solutions; however, other than the first
two variables, there is little information about how those factors do interact with
200 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

cyberbullying behaviours (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2015). Even so, authors
continue to support the consideration of these factors in developing appropri-
ate cyberbullying policy at the university level; in fact, cultural differences have
been thought important to include as well (Kanetsuna, Aoyama, & Toda, this
volume). Finally, there are also concerns expressed about the need to address
inherent power imbalances, an especially troubling factor often at play with uni-
versity-level cyberbullying.
Pescitelli (this volume) makes an argument in her chapter on LGBTQ post-
secondary students and cyberbullying that is consistent with a rights-based anal-
ysis. She indicates there is a need for administrators to consider both gender
and sexuality when drafting policies and procedures related to online activities
(see also Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, this volume). Along with that, there is also
the need to pay attention to possible discrimination/possible homophobia and
transphobia when creating policy. Since LGBTQ individuals have been shown
to experience cyberbullying and harassment more seriously than non-LGBTQ
youth, their needs should be addressed. For example, in one study by Cooper and
Blumfeld (2012), as cited by Pescitelli, LGBTQ youth were shown to experience
much higher levels of depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts were also
higher than for non-LGBTQ individuals. Therefore, their associated needs are
higher with respect to responses and support. Finally, more generally, there is a
need for sensitivity to overall diversity as well (see also Blizard, this volume).
Overall, then, there are strong arguments made for a rights-based frame to the
policies (Faucher et al., 2015) because of the nature and impacts of cyberbullying
behaviour. In addition, Campbell (2016) argues that all forms of bullying should
be included under the policy frame: physical, verbal, relational, and cyberbullying
(p. 163). In her article entitled, “Human Rights for the Digital Age,” Mathiesen
(2014) argues that there should even be a Declaration of Digital Rights. She sug-
gests that one can use the concept of human rights to provide an ethical frame-
work since ethics are “the well-founded standards of right from wrong” (pp. 2–3),
thus forming moral rights. Furthermore, moral rights can be used as a standard
against which “legal rights can be evaluated or demanded” (p. 3). She states that
“we have human rights because they are needed to protect us from certain kinds
of threat; for example, violence [. . .]” (p. 8).
Mathiesen continues by citing Cohen (1993) that humans also have “a fun-
damental interest in being able to communicate with one another . . . without
the right to access such communications, the right to express oneself is mean-
ingless” (p. 10).
Therefore, here again is an occasion in which different values/different rights
tend to compete: the right to be protected from violence (or from harm) and
the right to freedom of expression, in keeping with Charter rights. The policy’s
role, through legal interpretation, is to determine the balance between the com-
peting values.
 What’s policy got to do with it? 201

Which is most effective: policy or law?

In order to achieve the desired policy intent of effectively addressing cyberbully-
ing issues at the university level, one question which can emerge is whether using
the law instead of policy might prove to be a better approach.
In fact, arguments have been put forward for the value of creating new cyber-
bullying law at both the provincial (e.g., Cyber-Safety Act of Nova Scotia)1 and
federal levels (e.g., the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act) to deal
with cyberbullying in the educational context. While other arguments state that
such law, as in the case of the federal one, by criminalizing harassing and annoying
behaviour via electronic communication, may actually exacerbate the problem
of nondisclosure and may unnecessarily involve youth becoming caught up in
the criminal justice system (Coburn, Connelly, & Roesch, 2015; in Australia, see
Young et al., 2016).
Three recent court decisions in Canada suggest that using the law to regulate
this kind of cyber behaviour raises questions about the enforceability of those
two specific pieces of legislation. That, in fact, those decisions can be expected to
limit the extent to which Canadian legislators and law enforcement agencies can
successfully prosecute cyberbullies (Cartwright, 2016).2 As Cartwright concludes,
“(t)he question remains whether it will ever be possible – at least in Canada – to
legislate moral and civil behaviour in cyberspace” (p. 6).
Going back then to the original question asking whether law or policy is
more effective in addressing cyberbullying at the university level, we juxtapose
another study, also from Australia. Young et al. (2016) examined the opinions
of 12 influential, authoritative employees from the education and legal systems
who were interviewed about their perceptions of the role of law and cyberbul-
lying. The pros for introducing a specific cyberbullying law were seen to be
that it can provide a specific deterrent and punishment for the offender. Just
as Campbell (2016) argued could be true at the institutional level, Young et al.
argue that specific law can set up a norm or standard at the societal level and can
provide compensation to targets and provide an imperative for schools to create
effective cyberbullying policies. As well, Young et al., quoting Langos (2013), a
specific law may lead to increased awareness and understanding more generally
around cyberbullying.
However, as mentioned earlier, one major point against such an approach in
using law, is the reality that a law with a broad focus and application risks criminal-
izing young people, who normally would not be, whereas the practice in Australia
according to Young et al., referencing Keeley et al. (2014), is that the police only
take formal action if the harm resulting is serious, using existing young offender
legislation. With regard to the question of which system should manage the issue,
the legal or the educational system,Young et al.’s participants were divided in their
support for the introduction of a specific cyberbullying law.
202 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

Following the policy route

Since, as stated earlier, university policies refer to institutional protocols and
directives governing behaviour within and related to the university, what are the
needed elements to include in policy to achieve the policy intents of a safe learn-
ing environment and the reduction of cyberbullying? Using British Columbia
as an example, the Ministry of Education has a Safe and Caring School Com-
munities Policy that basically affirms all students’ rights to an education free from
discrimination, bullying, intimidation, and other forms of violence – a very clearly
stated directive (PREVNet, 2018).
Furthermore, under the British Columbia’s School Act, school boards must
establish codes of conduct that define what is unacceptable behaviour, including
both bullying and cyberbullying, and to identify the consequences of engaging in
such behaviour. This follows from a Ministerial Order, the Provincial Standards
for Codes of Conduct Order (PREVNet, 2018). Thus, it appears that there are
institutional directives that can address these issues.
Policy can become actionable through the creation of practice, procedure,
and/or law, but each of those must be consistent with the policy intent (e.g., the
reduction of cyberbullying/the safety of victims). Therefore, while policy is not
law, it sets the foundational value direction for the creation of law.
We can look for guidance from the earlier literature on cyberbullying in
younger school-aged children, in terms of the policy values which informed
cyberbullying case outcomes. By comparing values of note in cyberbullying
case outcomes emerging at the university level, we can see a notable shift from
the protection-from-harm values for the younger school-aged children group
case outcomes. At the university level, with an older student population (often
young adults), decisions appear to weight and value freedom of expression over
protection-from-harm issues. Some authors, on the other hand (Larrañaga,Yubero,
Navarro, & Ovejero, this volume), still argue that universities have the responsibil-
ity to protect students by providing students with safe physical and digital envi-
ronments, and that, therefore, the focus should similarly also be on protection
from harm and victimization issues.
Just as it has been argued that specific laws be established to address bullying
and cyberbullying (Langos & Giancaspro, this volume), it has also been consist-
ently argued that a specific policy should be developed to address bullying and
cyberbullying, whether at the younger-aged school level or university level – not
just considered in a subsection of another policy such as harassment (Faucher
et al., 2015; Langos & Giancaspro, this volume). It should be noted, however, that
other recent developments at the university level in Canada have affected how
the problem has come to be framed. For example, even in the last year or so, it
can be argued that cyberbullying has shifted from being a single-focus behaviour
of concern for university administration to being one of a variety of troubling
interpersonal behaviours umbrellaed under a harassment, sexual harassment, and/
 What’s policy got to do with it? 203

or sexual misconduct label. Indeed, sexual harassment has become a watershed

topic in the news more generally across the globe. Thus, policy reform in these
areas has taken on the broader-scope focus – one in which the definition of the
various troubling behaviours, and the specification of which of those behaviours
fall under the university’s jurisdiction for appropriate response, and which of those
behaviours are to be streamed to external law enforcement’s jurisdiction, become
all important. Does it constitute a criminal offence or is it misbehaviour that the
university can legitimately respond to within to resolve? Apart from that level of
institutional jurisdictional question – that is, is it internal to university governance
or external? – another question which remains for the university is under which
mandate within the university the cyberbullying problem should fall.
In fact, three years ago, in our scan of 74 Canadian universities’ policies directed
to cyberbullying behaviours (Faucher et al., 2015), several rather divergent sites
in the university portfolio could legitimately be assessed as the most appropri-
ate to handle the problem. Whether the policy is housed in the Human Rights
Office, the student conduct office, or the office for regulating appropriate com-
puter usage (ICT), cyberbullying could be framed in several different ways for
developing procedures and protocols for responding. But when we finished our
policy scan, we found that of the 74 universities’ websites examined, few had any
specific policies dealing with cyberbullying. As well, even fewer provided a clear,
consistent definition of cyberbullying or a description of the process by which
one could determine the most appropriate policy to engage, or similarly, even the
department or office most appropriate to contact.
Three main types of policies were found in our 2015 policy study, which pro-
vided some indication of the directions the universities were taking to determine
the most appropriate sites for handling cyberbullying issues. The most common
were those categorized as codes of student conduct and discipline; the second
most common were those relating to electronic communications (ICT); and the
third most frequent were ones dealing with harassment or discrimination (includ-
ing sexual harassment, racism, hate speech, etc.) (Faucher et al., 2015).
And so the question must be asked, given the differing types of policies found
and the differing possible sites from which responses to cyberbullying could
be made: what does it mean, first, when differing policies with differing policy
intents are employed to respond to the behaviour? Second, and related, how does
one determine which lens is the appropriate one to handle a cyberbullying situ-
ation? As indicated earlier, rather divergent lenses could be involved. Framing it
as a human rights issue, for example, suggests that a foundational right has been
broken, while framing it as communications usage violation suggests it might not
be as serious an infraction (Faucher et al., 2015). It has been suggested actually
that a roadmap of the offices associated with the various lenses (e.g., human rights
office, student conduct office, ICT office), along with a procedure explaining
each focus, should be helpful in directing students, staff, and faculty to the appro-
priate office and policy. It was also thought this roadmap exercise could be a most
204 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

appropriate one to take place near the beginning of an individual’s arrival at the
university (Jackson, 2015).
A comparison of some of the descriptor findings from examining actual poli-
cies from our Canadian study can be made with a similar study conducted in
Australia by Campbell in 2016. She did an examination of website policies for
universities with the largest enrolments in each state with respect to their listed
bullying policies. She referenced the work of Smith and colleagues (2008) as
being the first researchers to analyse the content of school anti-bullying policies.
They employed four primary categories: the definition of bullying behaviour;
reporting/responding to bullying incidents; recording/reporting/responding to
bullying incidents; and strategies for preventing bullying.
Only seven of the Australian universities’ policies which were examined men-
tioned bullying specifically. For some of the universities the anti-bullying policy
was prominent, clearly set out, and in one place. But for a majority, any mention of
student-to-student bullying was hard to find, which the author argued indicated
a lack of commitment to “real” prevention and intervention of bullying among
the students.
As well, also in Australia, Langos and Giancaspro (this volume) undertook a
pilot study using a survey with randomly selected university students. Two of the
questions enquired first about the students’ understanding of existing criminal law
regulating cyberbullying and, second, about their awareness of university policies
governing cyberbullying. Similar to our Canadian study findings, a majority of
students were unaware of the existence of such university policies. Most were
also unaware of any criminal laws regulating cyberbullying and, in fact, for those
who were aware, there was confusion about which cyberbullying behaviours were
criminal. In that regard, one recommendation emerging from the survey was that
there should be one specific criminal offence of cyberbullying, which clearly
defines the serious behaviours covered. It was also noted that not all cyberbully-
ing behaviours are equally harmful. Along with that discussion, it was suggested
that criminalization was to be seen as only one tool for proactive management of
the behaviour.
On the other hand, the argument found for the perceived efficacy of cyber-
bullying policies came from the students who were aware of existing policies,
and they felt they were successful in that policy directly addressing cyberbullying
would be an effective deterrent. And there is empirical evidence for this per-
ception, argue Langos and Giancaspro, which emerges from several studies. The
recommendation here is that, especially in light of the potential harms of cyber-
bullying behaviour, specific policies should definitely be developed.
Similarly, it is also argued that one value of having policies specific to anti-
bullying itself is they can formalize an institution’s social norms and can be used
to modify behaviour through the influence of sanctions and punishments as well
(Campbell, 2016). The ultimate aim (the policy intent) here is to reduce bullying
at the institutional level.
 What’s policy got to do with it? 205

Part II. Cyberbullying policy at the university

institutional level: recommendations
From our own studies and from others in this volume and in the literature, a
number of recommendations about how policy can best address the issues of
cyberbullying at the university level emerged. These are set out in the following
paragraphs of Part II. It was first recommended there is a need to have a clear
definition of the behaviour of cyberbullying that is under the policy, including
its nature and scope. If it is a stand-alone policy, dealing with the behaviour, then
it should indicate not only where a concern/complaint should be registered but
also what actions might be taken when a breach of policy occurs, and indicate the
range of sanctions/penalties as well.
But both definition and actions must be set within the context of the values to
be supported. This again raises the important point of the values to be established
in the policy. The importance of equality has already been discussed. In addition,
as stated earlier, certainly there is an interest in student, faculty, and staff well-
being, and that value is supported at our university in the form of health promo-
tion more generally. Broadly speaking, it is felt that health and well-being should
be established in all university policies, but it is especially important in having
well-being as a value and lens for policy development and review. It should be a
guide to the types of actions possible. Along with that, all aspects of policy and
procedure should embody a culture of respect and support (Black, this volume).3
In addition, as Cassidy and Jackson (2005) argue, expansion of existing policies
on harassment and bullying or creation of a new policy specific to cyberbullying
should set out the social values underpinning the policy, such as:

1 Caring and respectful behaviours in . . . exchanges;

2 Safe and nurturing environments for healthy development of identity and
netizenship, and,
3 The principles of tolerance and impartiality.

Similarly, the value of civility has been mentioned (Keashly, this volume). In the
U.S. chapter, Keashly argues that civility is needed not only specific to a particular
cyberbullying situation between the victim (target) and the offender, but for the
entire campus community more broadly, such that even a bystander will see the
need to act civilly and responsibly within that setting. It is also a value that can
be “operationalized” when actually developing policy, practice, and procedure as,
for example, is appropriate when working collaboratively among all stakeholders
(Sharpe, this volume). A related value to civility is cyber-kindness, with the ethic
of kindness encouraging moral good behaviour for the whole university learning
environment/community (Beck & Cassidy, 2009).
Mentioning practice brings to the fore the next steps to be taken after develop-
ing the values-based policy, and that is the need to develop protocols and legislative
206 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

frameworks (Larrañaga et al., this volume) that are derived from the policy and its
intent, and assist in securing that intent. As well, university community members
need to have clear ideas about what actions are not only possible in response to
the behaviour but are also supported (Keashly, this volume).
Associated with the value of defining the behaviour, Campbell (2016) indi-
cates that one of the first steps toward prevention of bullying behaviour is the
articulation of policy, which actually describes the unacceptable behaviours and
the values that they offend, such as equity and the safety and security of the learn-
ing environment. Interestingly, few of the policies we examined dealt with the
issue of prevention (less than one-quarter), but the Université de Montréal harass-
ment policy is one example where prevention is made a priority.
Once a clear cyberbullying policy has been developed for a university (ideally
with input from institutional administrators, as well as other key stakeholders, such
as students, staff, and faculty), another important consideration noted by a number
of authors (Faucher et al., 2015; Jones & Scott, 2012) is the importance of having
those same individuals become aware not only of its existence but also of how
to apply it. If the policy is disseminated to those in the institution, they become
knowledgeable about the unacceptable behaviours and learn of the values the
university upholds. If there is no policy, Campbell (2016) argues, it is difficult to
establish the mandate of protection of those bullied and to implement change in
the organization.
In our study in which university administrators were interviewed, one noted
the importance of relevant policies that are also accessible to students and staff,
and for immediate supervisors (such as Deans) to effectively address the problems
when they first surface, so that the issues do not fester and become even more
widespread (Driver, this volume; Cassidy et al., 2017). In order to be truly acces-
sible, there is also the need to provide information on how to navigate the vari-
ous possible sites in the university for submission of complaints and for receiving
support (Driver, this volume). Interestingly, specific to actions to be taken, some
policies we examined provided great detail about the complaint procedure and
the steps to be taken by various involved parties, including possible sanctions,
whereas others did not.
As Larrañaga et al. (this volume) point out, education and training is needed
in that regard. Others have commented on this by saying that not only greater
awareness and accessibility but also education and information are needed about
cyberbullying and available support services (Blaya, this volume; Langos & Gian-
caspro, this volume; Keashly, this volume).
With respect to the last point about support services, it must be stressed that
having policies to prohibit cyberbullying are clearly not enough in and of them-
selves; these must be supplemented by effective support (e.g., referral to coun-
selling services) and, as mentioned earlier, enforcement measures and sanctions
(e.g., internal retribution for perpetrator, referral to law enforcement) (Langos &
Giancaspro, this volume).
 What’s policy got to do with it? 207

In the chapter by Faucher et al. (this volume), the authors suggest a comple-
mentary set of recommendations: to develop, implement, communicate, enforce,
and review university policies that speak to the issue of cyberbullying.They argue
that the campus should be held responsible for upholding standards of conduct
(including online conduct) that support the well-being of all community mem-
bers and promote an engaging learning environment. Within educational institu-
tions, policy also can establish the direction for the management of change within
the institution. Policy at this level is also more proximal to actual institutional
operations.
In addition, more research is needed. As Blizard puts it, more research is needed
to actually inform policy development (Blizard, this volume). This is consistent
with the Chilean argument (Condeza, Gallardo, & Reyes, this volume) that evi-
dence could promote the development of policies and new practices with proac-
tive approaches at both the university and state levels, to reduce the effects and
impacts of cyberbullying (see also Myers & Cowie, 2017; Walker, Sockman, &
Koehn, 2011).
Specific to the Chilean context, another educational value of policy, it is argued,
is for the (Chilean) government to consider the existence of specific policies and
protocols in this area as a requisite for university accreditations, thus stimulating
the institutional attention to and awareness of the students’ well-being (which
includes social relationships) across the country.
Finally, Cassidy and Jackson (2005), in referencing Farrington (2001), discuss
the critical need to evaluate the effectiveness of policies in order to determine if
they are actually achieving their policy intent and not undermining other relevant
policies and systems already in place. In Australia, in the university study (Camp-
bell, 2016), there was no mention of evaluation of policies; however, most policies
had a review date. However, in an earlier article, Campbell (2005) emphasized that
policies must be in force on a continual basis in order for them to be effective.
Brown et al. (2006), in referencing Lewiston and Sutton (2001), also caution that,
in order to be effective, the policies need to be locally informed in the making of
meaning in practice with reference to their own jurisdictional culture.
Overall, the evaluation component of such policies appears to remain less
focused upon in many of the studies reported in this volume. It is often dif-
ficult to know how to evaluate such policies, given the often-confounding
cause-and-effect challenges, but indicators should be developed. However, it must
be acknowledged that another reason for the lack of evaluation of the policies
may also be the lack of available funding to do so.

Discussion
While policy exists at a “higher” governmental level (e.g., Canada’s Charter of
Rights and Freedoms), even with legislation aimed at cyberbullying specifically,
that clearly targets misconduct and harmful behaviours, policy at the institutional
208 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

university level came to be the primary focus of this chapter on cyberbullying

behaviour. Nonetheless, the guarantees, rights, and values set out in the higher-
level documents must also be compatible with and inherent in the policy intents
of the institutional policies developed. There should not be disjunctures between
the two in that regard. Rights such as freedom of expression and security of per-
son need to be considered and balanced at the institutional level as well.
It is true that policy at the university level has a more “local” context (the
university itself) in which to operate and must be sensitive to the wider needs of
that environment, with the values of a civil community profiled in policy. That
implies not only participation of the differing and diverse community members
in the development and application of the policy, and reflections of that diversity
contained within it, but also mechanisms in place to assure awareness of, acces-
sibility to, and education about the policy once placed into force.Whether the site
for responses under the policy emerges from the ICT centre, the human rights
centre, student conduct centre, etc., it must be clear to the affected persons which
site to contact.
Finally, a policy of this nature, even though it targets one particular troubling
behaviour, does need to consider the wider context of factors that may be impact-
ing the behaviour for both the affected victim and the offender.Those factors may
require attention by way of available support services, such as counselling and
even safety measures, in order to assure that the well-being and security of the
university is encouraged and sustained.

Notes
1 Nova Scotia’s Cyber-Safety Act was struck down as being unconstitutional in Decem-
ber 2015. Bill 27, the Intimate Images and Cyber-Protection Act, is a new bill which was
brought forward in October 2017 with the intent of replacing the previous act.
2 R. v. Spencer, by the Supreme Court of Canada (2014); Crouch v. Snell, by the Supreme
Court of Nova Scotia (2015); and R. v. Elliott, by the Ontario Court of Justice (2016).
3 But the need for self-care at the individual level is also emphasized (see Blizard, this
volume).

References
Beck, K., & Cassidy,W. (2009). Embedding the ethic of care in school policies and practices.
In K. Riele (Ed.), Making schools different: Alternative approaches to educating young people
(pp. 50–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Black, T. (this volume). Designing healthy and supportive campus communities: An
example from Simon Fraser University. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson
(Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 162–167). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
Blaya, C. (this volume). Cyberbullying among university students in France: Prevalence,
consequences, coping and interventions strategies. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jack-
son (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 9–22). Oxford, UK:
Routledge.
 What’s policy got to do with it? 209

Blizard, L. M. (this volume). Student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying: The impact on

faculty. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in inter-
national contexts (pp. 126–138). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Brown, K., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2006). Cyber-bullying: Developing policy to direct
responses that are equitable and effective in addressing this special form of bullying.
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 57, 1–36.
Campbell, M. (2005). Cyberbullying: An older problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 15(1), 68–76.
Campbell, M. (2016). Policies and procedures to address bullying at Australian universities.
In H. Cowie & C.-A. Myers (Eds.), Bullying among university students: Cross-national per-
spectives (pp. 157–171). London: Routledge.
Cartwright, B. (2016, June 12–14). Cyberbullying and the law: A Canadian perspective. Paper
presented at IEEE International Conference on Cybercrime and Computer Forensics,
Vancouver, BC.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2017). Adversity in university: Cyberbullying and
its impacts on students, faculty and administrators. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, Special issue Cyber Pathology: Cyber Victimization and Cyber
Bullying, 14(8), 888–890.
Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2005). The need for equality in education: An intersectionality
examination of labeling and zero tolerance practices. McGill Journal of Law and Educa-
tion, 40(3), 435–456.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Faucher, C. (2016). Gender differences and cyberbullying
towards faculty members in higher education. In R. Navarro, S.Yubero, & E. Larrañaga
(Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health. Basel, Switzerland:
Springer.
Coburn, P., Connelly, D., & Roesch, R. (2015). Cyberbullying: Is federal criminal legisla-
tion the solution? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57(4), 566–579.
Condeza, R., Gallardo, G., & Reyes, P. (this volume). Experiences of cyberbullying per-
ceived at a Chilean university: The voice of students. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 36–51). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Coyne, I., & Farley, S. (this volume). Cyberbullying within working contexts. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 80–96). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Driver, J. (this volume). Faculty members who are bullies. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 212–214). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Dunn,W. (2008). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Publishing.
Dye, T. (2017). Understanding public policy (15th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Publishing.
Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson. M. (this volume). Power in the tower: The gendered
nature of cyberbullying among students and faculty at Canadian universities. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 66–79). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university students:
Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives. Education Research International,
2014, 1–10.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2015).When on-line exchanges byte: An examina-
tion of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 102–121.
210 Margaret Jackson, Chantal Faucher, and Wanda Cassidy

Jackson, M. (2015). Roadmap for the university: How can policy serve as a solution? Paper pre-
sented at the Justice, Law, and Ethics in Education M.Ed. cohort mini-symposium on
Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Harassment at the University, Simon Fraser University,
Surrey, BC.
Jones, J. C., & Scott, S. (2012). Cyberbullying in the university classroom: A multiplicity of
issues. In C. Wankel & L. Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 157–
182). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kanetsuna, T., Aoyama, I., & Toda, Y. (this volume). Relationships among university stu-
dents/faculty and cyberbullying in Japan. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 23–35). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Keashly, L. (this volume). In the e-presence of others: Understanding and developing con-
structive cyberbystander action. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyber-
bullying at university in international contexts (pp. 141–156). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Langos, C., & Giancaspro, M. (this volume). Cyberbullying in the Australian univer-
sity context: The shades of harm and implications for law and policy. In W. Cassidy,
C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 181–197). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Larrañaga, E.,Yubero, S., Navarro, R., & Ovejero, A. (this volume). From traditional bully-
ing to cyberbullying: Cybervictimization among higher education students. In W. Cas-
sidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts
(pp. 99–111). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Mathiesen, K. (2014). Human rights in the digital age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(1),
2–18.
Myers, C.-A., & Cowie, H. (2017). Bullying at university: The social and legal contexts
of cyberbullying among university students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(8),
1172–1182.
Pescitelli, A. (this volume). MySpace or yours? An exploratory study of homophobic and
transphobic cyberbullying of post-secondary students. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 52–65). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
PREVNet (2018). Policy & legislation (BC): Resources for educators: Promoting relation-
ships & eliminating violence network. Retrieved from www.prevnet.ca/resources/
policy-and-legislation/british-columbia/for-educators
Sharpe, N. (this volume). A university ombudsperson’s perspective using a fairness lens to
build a kinder online campus culture. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M. Jackson (Eds.),
Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 157–161). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Walker, C. M., Sockman, B. R., & Koehn, S. (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying
with undergraduate university students. Tech Trends, 55(2), 1–38.
Young, H., Campbell, M., Spears, B., Butler, D., Cross, D., & Slee, P. (2016). Cyberbullying
and the role of law in Australian schools: Views of senior officials. Australian, Journal of
Education, 60(1), 86–101.

Legislation and legal cases

Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, 2nd Sess., 41st Parl. 2015 (Assented
to 9 December 2014, into force March 2015 – with Criminal Code amendments).
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Canada.
 What’s policy got to do with it? 211

Safe and Caring School Communities Policy, BC Ministry of Education (in force, 2005;
revised 2017).
School Act [RSBC 1996], Chapter 412, BC Ministry of Education (in force, 1996).
The Provincial Standards for Codes of Conduct Ministerial, School Act, sections 85(1.1)
168 (2) (s.1) (in force, 2007; amended, 2012).
Pridgen v. University of Calgary, ABCA 139 (2012).
R. v. Spencer, SCC 43 (2014).
Crouch v. Snell, NSSC 340 (2015).
R. v. Elliott, ONCJ 35 (2016).
17
FACULTY MEMBERS WHO
ARE BULLIES JON DRIVERFACULTY MEMBERS WHO ARE BULLIES

Jon Driver

I have dealt with faculty bullies throughout my 20 years in university administration –

as Faculty Association President, Department Chair, Dean, and Provost. Although
faculty bullies are relatively rare, the damage they inflict can be significant. They
can poison academic departments and make life miserable for staff and students.
Worst of all, they model behaviour that other faculty colleagues come to believe
is appropriate or even normal for a university employee.
Most of the faculty bullies that I have encountered share a number of char-
acteristics. First, when someone complains about their behaviour, they use the
principle of academic freedom to justify actions that would not be tolerated in
most workplaces. Second, they have little experience of the world outside the
Ivory Tower; they have never had to be part of a normal workplace or a team,
and their performance has never been evaluated on qualities such as empathy,
cooperation, or leadership. Third, they are amateur lawyers, in that they delight
in intimidating others, but run to the administration or the union when they
feel they have been treated unfairly. Fourth, they almost always underperform
in service to the institution or the discipline, and not infrequently in other areas
as well.
I have learned the following about dealing with bullies:

1 Nip the problem in the bud. Whenever a bully acts up, tell them they are out of
line. This is particularly important when faculty members bully administra-
tive staff or students. Make it very clear where they have crossed a line, and
explain that such behaviour will not be tolerated. Document the warning.
2 Don’t play the email game. The rest of the world may have moved on to other
forms of social media, but (at least in 2017) email still forms the platform
 Faculty members who are bullies 213

for communication in many institutions. Bullies use email to intimidate col-

leagues, subordinates, and administrators, and they delight in copying widely.
Do not reply to them via this medium (or through other social media) –
you need to set the communication process. Use face-to-face meetings and
old-fashioned memos. Limit involvement to those who really need to know.
Make sure that other people involved understand this tactic and that they also
limit their communications.
3 Ensure that the bully’s immediate supervisor deals with the behaviour. Provide
appropriate guidance, support, and backup to the bully’s supervisor – but
have the problem dealt with locally. It is far more effective for a department
chair to rectify the situation than for senior administration to interfere in
local governance. Most department chairs have little experience in supervis-
ing anyone except graduate students, so they will need training, help, and
support.
4 Get good advice. Before taking action to deal with a bully, check with legal
counsel, or the director of faculty relations, or whomever else can help you
navigate policies and collective agreements.
5 Don’t bully the bully. It is very tempting for administrators to find ways to
“punish” bullies – perhaps by denying a sabbatical on a technicality, or else
scrutinizing expense claims especially carefully. You have to deal with the
bullying behaviour directly. There is no ethical basis for an “eye for an eye”
approach. Any perceived unfairness will give the bully the moral high ground
(and there is no one more hypocritically virtuous than a bully with a legiti-
mate grievance).
6 Incentivize the bully’s department to behave better collectively. By the time bully-
ing behaviour reaches the attention of the Dean or Provost, it has usually
caused damage within a department, and may have already sparked retalia-
tion that provokes serious divisions between colleagues and further bullying
of staff and students (especially graduate students). Deans and Provosts usu-
ally have a number of tools to improve such situations. Once administered
to one department, word will spread rapidly that unacceptable behaviour is
not tolerated. Don’t worry that you are “punishing” a department for the
misbehaviour of one or two people – it will not make your reputation as
an administrator any worse than it already is. While not all institutions will
have policies and collective agreements that allow all of the following, I have
found them highly effective when bullying behaviour infects a department:
• If you are a Dean or Provost, refuse to approve or fund any new faculty
positions until a more positive atmosphere is created.
• Work with the Dean of Graduate Studies to suspend graduate admis-
sions to the department, on the grounds that one cannot admit students
to such a dysfunctional environment.
214 Jon Driver

• Cut off access to discretionary funding until bullying stops.

• Bring in an experienced department chair from another unit on an
interim basis to re-establish a more collegial environment.
Finally, remember that there will be a large silent majority of people who will not
stand up to a bully themselves, but they will be very grateful that you have taken
action. They may even quietly thank you.
18
CYBERBULLYING IN THE
SHELTERING DARKNESS OF
DIGITAL ANONYMITY DOV SCHAFERCYBERBULLYING AND DIGITAL ANONYMITY

Dov Schafer

During undergrad, I took a sociolinguistics course. In this class, the teacher would
often solicit feedback, stories, and comments. It was a small class of about 17
students. Early on, I emerged as one of the more active participants in discussion.
Perhaps I was speaking too often; I must admit I have a clear propensity toward
over-contribution. Someone in the class felt that I was negatively affecting their
ability to learn, but rather than confronting me about it or going to the profes-
sor, they took it upon themselves to cyberbully me. They created a fake Face-
book profile and made a page called “Shut Up Dov” and posted a long, scathing
criticism of me. They made it look like a few other students had liked the page.
I stopped attending class since it was past the withdrawal date.
I caved to the pressure of anonymous criticism because I did not want to
have to sit in a class wondering who hated me enough to make a fake Facebook
account and a special page to “let [me] know that everyone hates [me] and wants
[me] to shut up”. That emotional decision earned me a failing grade, 34%. Prior
to graduation, I approached the Dean to get the class removed in light of the
cyberbullying, but they were not understanding. I ended up taking the class again
in my final semester, with a significantly improved grade, just so I could explain
the first grade away in future graduate admissions applications. The net effect of
the bullying was a drastic reduction in my GPA during that term, loss of honours
standing that year, and the time/money to take that course over again. It was a
costly incident.
Cyberbullying is not just for kids; research indicates that adults often have
to deal with forms of bullying/cyberbullying in the workplace and institutional
settings (Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2015). Jackson, Faucher, and Cassidy (this
volume) draw attention to the notion of power imbalance in cyberbullying; they
note that this is an especially pressing concern at the university level. My own
216 Dov Schafer

personal experiences have made me aware of the asymmetrical power relation-

ship at the heart of cyberbullying. Bullies change the rules of the game to benefit
themselves.When the bully chooses to move an exchange from the physical realm
to an anonymous space, they are emboldening themselves and shifting the balance
of power (Faucher et al., 2015; Myers & Cowie, 2017) in order to minimize ego
threat and potential reciprocity or punishment.
I hesitate to use the terms victim and offender to describe the cyberbully/target
relationship because it ignores the evolving power dispute between the people
involved. The cyberbully is seeking to feel dominant by suppressing the target,
and when the bullying is anonymous, they gain power and are strengthened in
their malicious intent to berate, humiliate, or criticize another person. Anonymity
and the perceived lack of consequences are key issues. I argue that if the target of
cyberbullying had a tool to unmask the source of the anonymous digital criticism,
and the institutional support to arbitrate that power struggle in person, we would
see a reduction in the incidence of cyberbullying. It is the fuzzy embrace of digital
anonymity that emboldens the bully.
As a strange twist of fate, another experience of cyberbullying happened as
I was writing this essay. While playing an online competitive card game called
Hearthstone (Blizzard, 2018) during lunch, I faced an opponent and ended up
winning quickly.The opponent added me as a friend so they could type a message
to me. I was happy to accept the friend request. Without adding people as friends,
they can only use pre-made emotes instead of typing whatever they want to you.
Instead of saying “good game, you were really lucky there” or something similar,
they were full of profanities and anger. They started off sounding harmless – “you
should play the lottery”, to which I replied “Yah, that was really lucky . . . good
game”. Then they came back with “Fuck you faggot” and “I hope your family
dies in a car crash and you have to watch”. I was really horrified at the rage this
person was expressing and the deep level of violent anger they felt towards me,
simply for losing a friendly game of Hearthstone.
The ego threat my opponent suffered for that quick loss needed an outlet.
The only suitable vent they could release was to spew the most hurtful thing
they could muster at a complete stranger on the internet. That person escalated
the friendly anonymous interaction we had for the sole purpose of trying to
hurt me. My opponent continued to try to insult me, so I removed them from
my friends list. I was happy to move on with my day and forget about the whole
event but could only imagine how that might have made me feel when I was
younger and more easily hurt by strangers’ words. I knew how that anonymous
hatred would have felt if it was a classmate of mine. I would want the university to
be aware of that student’s behaviour so they could monitor and take disciplinary
action if it proved to be a trend. Additionally, a report button in the game chat
interface would have been nice; I want this person to be suspended from playing
for a day or two to think about how they are treating others online.
 Cyberbullying and digital anonymity 217

Making people feel like the internet is a public space, rather than a private
one, is essential to reducing this sort of behaviour. Along with design features that
allow user reporting, I think technologies that actively eliminate anonymity may
reduce bullying. One potential solution could be using the power of distributed
ledger technology. Essentially, cryptocurrencies are shared digital books which are
used to track transactions by recording public records of each trade. This technol-
ogy can also be used to digitally fingerprint online activity. Some cryptocurrency
companies, such as Self-Key and Dock, are already using cryptocurrency (distrib-
uted ledgers) that are tied to identity data in order to transmit user information
across social networks. It seems reasonable to assume that a lack of systemic ano-
nymity in online interaction would reduce the likelihood that potential bullies
would feel emboldened to act maliciously when speaking online to both peers
and strangers.
In this chapter I gave two personal examples of cyberbullying: one clear exam-
ple of student-to-student bullying at the post-secondary level using Facebook
and one example of stranger-to-stranger incivility that occurred, ironically, while
I was writing this chapter. Both examples show cyberbullying as an asymmetrical
power struggle; a sneak attack from bully to target designed to make the bully feel
better about themselves at the cost of the target in an anonymous setting with
little to no risk for the attacker. I feel that an increased focus on software inter-
face design features that eliminate the anonymity of online behaviour can begin
eroding the confidence of would-be bullies. When we feel like we are in public,
we tend to act in a more outwardly civil way. Fewer crimes of opportunity are
committed in plain sight than in the sheltering darkness.

References
Blizzard Entertainment. (2018). Hearthstone: Heroes of warcraft [online game]. Retrieved
from http://battle.net/hearthstone/
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy,W. (2015).When on-line exchanges byte: An examina-
tion of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at the university level. Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 102–121.
Jackson, M., Faucher, C., & Cassidy, W. (this volume). What’s policy got to do with it? The
focus on cyberbullying policy at the university level. In W. Cassidy, C. Faucher, & M.
Jackson (Eds.), Cyberbullying at university in international contexts (pp. 198–211). Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Myers, C. A., & Cowie, H. (2017). Bullying at university: The social and legal contexts
of cyberbullying among university students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(8),
1172–1182.
REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS WANDA CASSIDY, CHANTAL FAUCHER, AND MARGARET JACKSONREFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and

Margaret Jackson

In this book, we have endeavoured to bring together a diverse set of perspectives

that cross jurisdictional as well as disciplinary lines. Our purpose was twofold.
On the one hand, we wanted to offer a wide examination into the ways that
cyberbullying manifests itself at the post-secondary level, the forms it takes, how
prevalent it is, the reasons why it occurs, the impacts on those who are targeted,
as well as the broader effects such incidents have on university life. On the other
hand, we also wanted to focus on the development of solutions to the problem
and the role that policy can and should play in addressing cyberbullying on uni-
versity campuses. In this chapter, we review the key points that emerge from the
different contributions offered in this book and reflect on areas for future research
in order to further what we have learned to date.

Nature, extent, and rationale

Student-to-student cyberbullying
Although the studies described in this book use different instruments, employ
slightly different definitions of cyberbullying, and use different methods to exam-
ine the phenomenon, the results of these studies indicate that cyberbullying
among university students who participated in the studies is occurring at rates
varying from 3% (Japan) to 46% (Chile). Since cyberbullying occurs through the
venues that students regularly access, it is no surprise to see hurtful messages and
unwanted pictures posted on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Skype, Snapchat,
WhatsApp, chat rooms, gaming sites, email, text messaging, etc. (Chapters 1–8,
15 and 18). Cyberbullying among students who know each other appears to be
more common than cyberbullying from strangers. This fits with those authors
 Reflections and conclusions 219

who discuss relational aggression theory as a way to understand aggression within

friendship groups and dating/partner relationships (Chapters 5, 7, and 8). The
primary reasons given for the targeting is also relational: the person upset them;
they were targeted first and are fighting back; the person is not liked or is “dif-
ferent”; and/or because it is “fun.” Pescitelli (Chapter 4) discusses homophobic
and transphobic cyberbullying experienced by LGBTQ students, who were tar-
geted because of their “differences,” with the perpetrators being strangers, but also
members of the LGBTQ community.
While students are more likely to be targeted by someone they know, anony-
mous cyberbullying is also a factor, particularly towards male students (Chapter 5)
and those involved in the gaming community. As noted by Kanetsuna, Aoyama,
and Toda in Chapter 2, beliefs about anonymity play a role in aggressive and
deviant online behaviour because this perception either weakens personal and
collective norms to morally disengage or strengthens students’ conformity to a
particular group norm. Furthermore, it affects students’ perception of risk of vic-
timization and the measures they take to protect themselves. Schafer (Chapter 18)
also identifies anonymity as a contributing factor in the cyberbullying he experi-
enced as an undergraduate student, as well as while playing an online game.
University students, like their younger counterparts in school (Cassidy, Jack-
son, & Brown, 2009), tend to see cyberbullying as a “normal” part of the online
world, rather than a problem that can be eliminated (Chapter 3). This perception
has implications regarding how we engage youth and young adults in finding
solutions.

Cyberbullying of faculty
There are fewer studies examining student-to-faculty and faculty-to-faculty
cyberbullying. The authors of Chapters 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 examine these relation-
ships, using such theoretical constructs as contra-power harassment – where one
group, such as students who normally have less power, change the power imbal-
ance through nefarious actions such as ruining a professor’s reputation on rating
sites or writing negative evaluations. The literature on academic entitlement and
on classroom incivility may also factor into students’ aggressive behaviour towards
their professors, as described in Chapters 5, 8, and 9. Indeed, the reasons students
give for cyberbullying faculty primarily relate to the professor’s teaching style, the
courses they teach, and their grading practices. Students primarily rely on email,
online course sites, and professor rating sites to cyberbully their professors.
Faculty members who cyberbully each other, especially those who are in posi-
tions of leadership in the academy, may also be seeking greater power and control,
lending support to the Power and Control theoretical model discussed by the
authors of Chapters 5 and 8. Coyne and Farley (Chapter 6) also identify power
imbalance, along with frequency and duration, as characteristics that differentiate
workplace cyberbullying from other related aggressive acts.
220 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

The studies reported in this book indicate that between 15% and 52% of
faculty members who participated in the studies report being cyberbullied by
students, with one study (Chapter 8) reporting that 12% of participating faculty
were cyberbullied by colleagues, primarily over email and by those known to
them. Although fewer studies have been conducted on workplace cyberbully-
ing compared to workplace bullying, Coyne and Farley refer to three university
workplace studies in the UK, which show a cyberbullying frequency rate among
faculty of between 13.6% and 20.8%.

Gender issues
Gender appears to be a factor in cyberbullying at post-secondary, although the
impact is inconsistent across studies. While females tend to participate in greater
numbers in surveys and interviews (see Chapters 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 15), and report
more serious impacts compared to males (Chapter 8), different patterns emerge. In
some studies, females are targeted more often, particularly by friends, while males
are targeted more by strangers and in online communities. In Blaya’s study (Chap-
ter 1), male students declared greater involvement as perpetrators and as victim/
authors, but in the study discussed by Faucher, Cassidy, and Jackson (Chapter 5),
female and male students were perpetrators in relatively equal numbers.
As noted by Jackson, Faucher, and Cassidy (Chapter 16), gender must also be a
factor considered in creating policy at the post-secondary level to address cyber-
bullying. Policy is needed which is equality-based, in terms of considering power
imbalances, in order to develop equitable solutions for both male and female
university members.

Impacts and redress

The studies discussed in this volume point to a range of impacts on victims,
author/victims, and the wider university culture, discrediting the perception that
cyberbullying is a childish phenomenon that does not affect adults (discussed in
Chapters 5 and 7). Commonly reported impacts on university students include:
mental and physical health effects, declining achievement, disrupted relationships,
deteriorating social life, withdrawal behaviour, reduction in self-esteem, as well as
a broad range of emotional reactions from anger, hurt, humiliation, shame, and
frustration, to shaking and crying, sometimes lasting for months. Suicide ideation
is also reported among a minority of respondents across jurisdictions. Perpetrators
may also experience victimization, as noted in Blaya (Chapter 1), since authors
may become victims, and victims authors.
Faculty report experiencing very similar impacts, after being targeted by stu-
dents and/or colleagues. Blizard’s quotations (Chapter 9) from interviews with
faculty members highlight the depth of the impacts on their work and personal
lives, particularly because very little was done at the administrative level to address
 Reflections and conclusions 221

the identified situations. Cassidy, Faucher, and Jackson (Chapter 8) contribute

additional open-ended and interview examples to the discussion of impacts. Fac-
ulty members in this chapter reported being more upset long-term with being
targeted by colleagues than by students, because students generally were gone
after a semester, whereas they had to interact with their colleagues on a regular
basis.
Kanetsuna, Aoyama, and Toda (Chapter 2) discuss the impact on the university
culture as a whole, where collective norms of good behaviour are weakened, and
where supportive networks are fractured. A negative tone may pervade the uni-
versity, compounded by frustration when known problems are not addressed in
meaningful ways by those in authority. Larrañaga, Yubero, Navarro, and Ovejero
(Chapter 7) discuss the important role that social support systems play in prevent-
ing cyberbullying as well as providing a buffer to the consequences.
Students and faculty across the studies reported here consistently mention
challenges with reporting mechanisms and the inadequacy of solutions. Those
on the receiving end of cyberbullying either ignore the problem, try to solve it
themselves, or talk with friends, which usually does not resolve the situation. Uni-
versity policies and procedures generally are either not established, not known, or
not acted upon, thus further preventing an effective resolution.

Solutions
Many of the authors of the chapters in this volume stress the importance of
education and dialogue across university stakeholder groups, de-naturalizing
the acceptance of aggressive actions among students, developing clearly stated
and communicated policies, establishing better reporting options – including
anonymous reporting, providing greater support for victims, and focusing on
relationship-building, as pathways towards solutions.
The section of the book titled “Solutions” brings together chapters specifically
geared to solutions that are being tried in institutions. Keashly (Chapter 10) dis-
cusses the importance of developing constructive cyber-bystander action since it
is often bystanders who, if empowered, can intervene to prevent negative actions,
to provide needed support to victims, and/or to change the culture of an insti-
tution. Farley and Coyne (Chapter 14) consider the value of evidence-based
practices, which might include training staff in such programs as CREW (civil-
ity, respect, and engagement at work), and conflict de-escalation. Kanayama and
Kurihara (Chapter 13) discuss specific ways that universities in Japan are address-
ing cyberbullying, by empowering peers to teach each other, requiring students
to enrol in seminars on internet morality and criminal behaviour, screening all
incoming first-year undergraduates for mental health issues, and providing access
to counsellors and health practitioners once a problem is identified.
The two remaining chapters in this section are written by practitioners, each
with a wealth of experience fostering more positive campus cultures. Sharpe,
222 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

a university ombudsperson, discusses the importance of using a fairness lens to

address relational conflicts and to prod administrators to act when required. Since
the appointment of an ombudsperson is becoming more common at universi-
ties globally, those in this position have an opportunity to influence practice and
policy. Black’s chapter raises the importance of universities prioritizing the health
and wellness of their students, staff, and faculty, and taking concrete steps to imple-
ment a design that is collaborative and has stakeholder support.
While no one approach represents a panacea, many different approaches,
geared to the needs of a particular university and designed to work in sync with
each other, represent a step forward. Special considerations in program planning
and implementation should also be given to populations with an increased risk
of being cyberbullied, such as the LGBTQ students discussed by Pescitelli, and to
culturally appropriate practices. For example, some of the interventions used in
Japanese universities may not be directly transferable (without modification) to
other contexts. Furthermore, since gender surfaces as a factor across many studies,
attention should be given to tailoring initiatives to meet identified gender issues,
rather than relying on one-size-fits-all initiatives.
What is clear from the discussions in this volume is that universities have a
responsibility and an obligation to address the health and well-being of their com-
munities, and not to do so places students, faculty, and staff at risk.

Policy issues
Adherence to equality-based policy principles should assist in meeting that
requirement. Those foundational principles can guide the development and
implementation of appropriate solutions to cyberbullying problems seen on cam-
puses cross-jurisdictionally.Without the policy component, the policy intents and
their associated values, such as civility and wellness, are not clarified for the insti-
tutional members. It was argued in Jackson, Faucher, and Cassidy (Chapter 16)
that in instances of cyberbullying, the balance between conflicting values, such as
freedom of expression and safety of person, is set by policy. In the absence of those
values and that balance, prevention and intervention programs may flounder and
be directionless because they were not initially grounded in the policy balance
and intent. Again, this is true cross-jurisdictionally.
Both chapters by Jackson, Faucher, and Cassidy (Chapter 16) and Langos
and Giancaspro (Chapter 15) also identify the importance of higher-level docu-
ments such as, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
other overarching legislation that articulates the rights and values of a society, and
which institutional policies should reflect and reinforce. Rights such as freedom
of expression and security of person need to be considered and balanced at the
institutional level as well as in the society at large. Langos and Giancaspro’s study
demonstrates students’ lack of knowledge about online behaviour that is consid-
ered criminal, as well as ignorance of university policies related to cyberbullying,
 Reflections and conclusions 223

if they do exist. Both chapters stress the importance not only of clearly communi-
cated policy that is understood but also policy that is supported by other services,
such as counselling and safety measures, to ensure that the well-being and security
of the university is encouraged and sustained.
Finally, Driver, University Provost at the time of writing (Chapter 17), notes
that policy without action is insufficient; that administrators must take effective
and decisive action when they learn that faculty members are being cyberbullied.
Graduate student Schafer zeroes in on cyberbullies who hide behind the wall
of anonymity, while noting new technological advances that soon may be used
to identify all internet users by their unique digital fingerprint, thus exposing
anonymous cyberbullies and reducing their negative behaviour. Different kinds of
policies and procedures may well be needed to address the latter advances.

Areas for future research

The authors of the chapters in this book are rooted in many different discipli-
nary perspectives: education, criminology, psychology, law, health sciences, com-
munications, sociology, business, labour studies, humanities, and social work, yet
each contribute significantly to our understanding of the problems of cyberbul-
lying at the university level. We suggest that the field would benefit from more
cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research within jurisdictions and across
jurisdictions. Collaborative international efforts can reap a broader understanding.
We also note the benefits of participatory action research that involves the vari-
ous stakeholders in the university context, in particular, with populations that have
not yet been studied – for example, staff. While research at the university level to
date primarily has focused on student-to-student cyberbullying and (to some extent)
student-to-faculty cyberbullying, more studies should examine faculty-to-student
exchanges, as well as workplace cyberbullying among faculty and staff.
Studies at the university level have tended to employ surveys, whereas other
methods, particularly qualitative approaches such as case studies, narrative inquiry,
and phenomenological studies, would add a richness to the literature, as would
studies that offer a more critical research lens investigating university populations
who are marginalized and the intersectionality of their marginalization. As noted
in Chapter 16, further studies are needed to examine the factors influencing pol-
icy development and implementation, and to evaluate programs and approaches
that have proven useful.
Momentum is also needed to move research into practice – to provide oppor-
tunities for universities at several different levels to experiment with prevention
and intervention measures and to evaluate their effectiveness. Although universi-
ties deal with a different age group and have a different mandate than primary and
secondary schools, programs that have been shown to be effective in those con-
texts may have some applicability at the post-secondary level, particularly when it
comes to educating and empowering bystanders to take action. These efforts may
224 Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, and Margaret Jackson

complement the recommendations made by Keashly in Chapter 10. Universities

also can benefit from the expanding research on cyberbullying in the workplace
and in other environments, as many of the principles of power and control, rela-
tional aggression, and social dominance theory (see Chapter 5) are at work in
these settings.
We also acknowledge that cyberbullying is a moral problem, one that is
endemic in the wider society: practised in homes, schools, and communities;
represented in popular culture; and sometimes applauded. As such, there is no
easy fix, although that does not mean that tackling the problem of cyberbullying
should not receive our full attention. In our own work, we draw on the ethic of
care theoretical framework posed by Noddings (1992, 2002) in considering ways
to improve behaviour, foster positive relationships, and build a more respectful and
kinder culture. Noddings advocates the importance of modelling, dialogue, prac-
tice, and confirmation as ethical teachers. We suggest that more research needs to
be done (perhaps as case studies) on applying an ethic of care theoretical approach
to improving relationships among university students, staff, and faculty.

Concluding comments
We undertook this book as a way to bring together cyberbullying scholars and
practitioners from various geographic locations – North and South America,
Europe, the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia – to share what each has learned
from their respective research and practice about the problem of cyberbullying on
university campuses and to recommend ways to take action. It is our hope that
this book will encourage research-based, creative approaches to the prevention
and intervention of cyberbullying at the post-secondary level, locally and globally.

References
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., Brown, K. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how
can pixels hurt me? Students experiences with cyber-bullying. School Psychology Inter-
national, 30(4), 383–402.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
INDEX

accessibility 57, 102, 117, 130, 143, 146, Austria, cyberbullying at secondary schools
192 – 193, 200, 206, 208 174 – 175
acute social withdrawal 31 – 32
aggression: common forms of 12; Bulletin Board System (BBS) 26
consequences of 19; in dating bullying: interventions for 18; relationships
relationships 102 – 105; definition of between cyberbullying and 28 – 30,
11; by faculty 142; gender differences 32 – 33, 86 – 87, 99 – 100
69, 121, 219; interventions for bystanders: assessment of situation/
45 – 46; LGBT students 53; online behaviour 145 – 147; awareness of
victimization and 29, 33, 36, 116; situation/behaviour 144 – 145; decision
in-person altercations 130; workplace for action 149 – 152; definition of 143;
cyberbullying 82, 84, 87 intervention model 143 – 144, 153 – 154;
anonymity: cyberbullying in the responsibility for action 147 – 148; taking
sheltering darkness of 215 – 217; action 152 – 153
deviant online behaviour and 27 – 28;
moral disengagement and 28, 59 – 60; Canada, gendered nature of cyberbullying
perceived online 26 – 27; workplace among students/faculty at universities:
cyberbullying 87 background 66 – 69; current study
anxiety 30 – 31 72 – 77; intervention 76 – 77; prevention
Australia, cyberbullying at universities: 76 – 77
background 181; community education Canada, impacts of cyberbullying at
190; consequences of 184; criminal laws universities: ability to do work 117 – 118;
184, 189 – 190; current study 182 – 189; background 112 – 113; designing healthy
cyberbullying as a single offence and supportive campus communities
190; frequency of victimization 187; 162 – 165; dichotomous survey responses
harm experienced vs. perceived harm 115 – 116; extent 114 – 115; feeling
187 – 188; limitation of study 194 – 195; unsafe emotionally and physically
measures of study 183; method of study 120; intervention 121 – 122; mental
182 – 183; recommendations 194; results and physical health 119; open-ended
of study 183 – 189; shades of harm and interview responses 116 – 120;
associated with 187, 190 – 191; university overarching finding of negative affect
policy 184 – 186, 191 – 193 116 – 117; prevention 121 – 122; rationale
226 Index

114 – 115; on relationships inside and 157 – 161; perpetrators of 83; prevalence
outside the university 119; reporting of 100 – 101, 141 – 143; prevention
120; study and method 113 – 114; 105 – 107; psychological theories of
theoretical frameworks 120 – 121; on 90 – 91; redress 220 – 221; relationships
university culture as a whole 121; venues between bullying and 28 – 30, 32 – 33,
114 – 115; wanting to quit 118 – 119 39, 86 – 87, 99 – 100; risk perception
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 30 – 31; in sheltering darkness of
199 anonymity 215 – 217; solutions 221 – 222;
Chile, cyberbullying among university student-to-faculty 219 – 220; student-to-
students: background 36 – 47; current faculty targeted 115 – 118, 126 – 136, 142;
study 40 – 48; experiences as witness types of victimization in post-secondary
43 – 44; experiences of victims education 9, 38 – 39; of women and girls
41 – 43; general conceptions about 45; 70; workplace 71 – 72, 80 – 92
inequality and transformations in higher cyberbullying policy: anonymous online
education 37 – 38; intervention 46 – 48; reporting system 192 – 193; Australian
from perspective of offenders 44 – 45; university policy 191 – 193; awareness
prevention 46 – 48 of 192; educating students and staff
civility, respect, and engagement at work 192 – 193; foundations 198 – 204; issues
(CREW) 174 222 – 223; versus law 201; perceived
codes of conduct 153, 159, 161, 184, efficacy of 192; recommendations
191 – 192, 202 – 203 205 – 208; rights and intersecting
computer-mediated communication factors in 199 – 200; types of 202 – 204;
(CMC) 27, 89 – 90, 175 university counselling services 193
contrapower harassment 70 – 71, 219 cyberviolence 10
coping potential 30 – 31
coping strategies 16 – 17, 105 dating relationships 102 – 104
counselling services 169 – 170, 175, 193 deindividuation effect 89 – 90
criminal laws 184, 189 – 190 deviant online behaviour 27 – 28
cyberbullying: among students/faculty Duluth model 70
in Canada 66 – 77; among students/ dysempowerment theory 90
faculty in Japan 23 – 33, 218; among
university students in France 9 – 20; emotion reaction model 90 – 91
anxiety concerning 30 – 31; areas for evaluations 25, 27, 71, 121, 129 – 130, 151,
future research 223 – 224; at Australian 173 – 175, 207, 219
universities 181 – 195; in Austrian evidence-based practice (EBP) approach
secondary schools 174 – 175; behaviours 173
in higher education students from
teacher education programs 104 – 105; Facebook 15, 38, 41 – 43, 55, 56, 57, 101,
bystanders 143 – 154; consequences 116, 120, 126, 142, 147, 159 – 160, 198,
of 14 – 16, 39, 88, 101 – 102, 112 – 120; 215, 217, 218
coping potential concerning 30 – 31; faculty bullies 212 – 214
coping strategies 16 – 17, 105; correlates fairness 158 – 159
in college students 101 – 102; within Finland, interventions against workplace
dating relationships 102 – 104; definition cyberbullying 175
of 38 – 39; experiences at a Chilean France, cyberbullying among university
University 36 – 48, 218; gender students: consequences 14 – 16;
differences 12, 19, 39, 67 – 77, 115, 220; consequences and coping strategies
impacts 220 – 221; impacts at Canadian 16; coping strategies 16 – 17; impact on
universities 112 – 122; intervention academic achievement 15 – 16; impact
105 – 107; of LGBTQ students 52 – 63, on socio-emotional well-being and on
219; nature of 141 – 143; need for thick social relationships 14 – 15; intervention
skin 122; ombudsperson’s perspective 17 – 19; prevalence 12; reasons explaining
on building a kinder online culture victimization and perpetration
 Index 227

13 – 14; research on 10 – 11; types of Japan, preventive measures against

victimization 9 cyberbullying in universities:
comprehensive student support
gender differences 12, 19, 39, 67 – 77, 115, system 168 – 169; counselling services
220 169 – 170; “Cyber Police” class 170 – 171;
educational programs 170 – 171; “Mobile
harassment: anonymity and 26; contra- Phones and the Law” class 170; peer
power 219; dating relationships 104; support 169, 171; relationship with
email as primary medium of 142; faculty medical institutions 169; sense of
members 115, 120; gender differences belonging and preventive measures
39, 69 – 71, 75 – 76; interventions 174; 168 – 169; team-based support 169
LGBT students 53 – 54, 58, 61, 63,
69, 200; online victimization and 9; KiVa program 174 – 175
policies 161, 202 – 203, 205 – 206; right
to freedom from 199; sexual 48, 54, 149, LGBTQ students, cyberbullying of
202 – 203; workplace 88, 90 post-secondary: anonymity and moral
homophobia 52 – 53 disengagement 59 – 60; consequences
human resources professionals (HRPs) 173 of 53 – 54, 200; current study 54 – 63;
homophobia and transphobia 52 – 53;
Instagram 218 intervention 62 – 63; within and outside
intervention: approaches to tackling of community 58 – 59; perceived reasons
cyberbullying against LGBTQ for online homophobia and transphobia
students 62 – 63; approaches to tackling 59; prevention 62 – 63; rates of 53 – 54;
cyberbullying in Canadian universities risk of victimization 25, 39; venues in
76 – 77, 121 – 122; approaches to tackling which most often occurs 56 – 57
cyberbullying in Chilean universities
46 – 48; approaches to tackling mediation 175
cyberbullying in Japanese universities mental health: counselling service 169,
32; approaches to tackling cyberbullying 171; impact of cyberbullying on 43,
in universities 105 – 107; approaches to 100 – 101, 112, 114 – 115; mobile devices
tackling cyberbullying in workplace use and 24; personalized support plan
91 – 92, 173 – 176; bystander intervention 170; screening 168, 169 – 170, 221
model 143 – 144, 153 – 154; challenges medical institutions 169
at university level in France 17 – 19; moral disengagement 28, 59 – 60
ombudsperson’s perspective on building MySpace 56
a kinder online culture 157 – 161
Okanagan Charter 162 – 165
Japan, cyberbullying among university ombudspersons 157 – 161
students/faculty: anonymity and issues
related to cyberbullying and other peer support 169, 171
online problems 26 – 28; anonymity and Power and Control model 70, 76
moral disengagement 28; brief history of power imbalance 66, 72, 82, 84, 86, 200,
research on bullying and cyberbullying, 215 – 216, 219, 220
23; current situation among school prevalence 100 – 101, 141 – 143
children 23; effects of belief of prevention: approaches to tackling
anonymity on deviant online behaviour cyberbullying against LGBTQ
27 – 28; internet-related problems among students 62 – 63; approaches to tackling
university students 23 – 26; intervention cyberbullying in Canadian universities
32; perceived online anonymity 26 – 27; 76 – 77, 121 – 122; approaches to tackling
prevention 32; problematic internet cyberbullying in Chilean universities
use and 31; propensity for acute social 46 – 48; approaches to tackling
withdrawal and 31 – 32; relationships cyberbullying in Japanese universities
between bullying and 28 – 30, 32 – 33 32, 168 – 171; approaches to tackling
228 Index

cyberbullying in universities 105 – 107; physical and emotional impact 129 – 132;
approaches to tackling cyberbullying purpose of study 127; relational and
in workplace 91 – 92; challenges at occupational effects 132 – 133; results
university level in France 17 – 19; of study 128 – 134; significance of study
ombudsperson’s perspective on building 136; study participants 128 – 129
a kinder online culture 157 – 161 substantive fairness 158

reduced social cues hypothesis 89 team-based support 169

relational fairness 158 transphobia 52 – 53
rights-based 199 – 208 Twitter 25, 38, 56, 142, 147
risk perception 30 – 31
university culture 24 – 27, 113 – 122, 153,
sanctions 17, 25, 45, 135, 159 – 161, 220 – 221
204 – 206
security 75, 114, 198, 199, 206, 208, victimization 9, 13 – 14
222 – 223 ViSC program 174
sexual harassment 48, 54, 149, 202 – 203
Simon Fraser University 162 – 165 well-being 38
Skype 218 WhatsApp 218
Snapchat 218 workplace cyberbullying: antecedents
Social Networking Service (SNS) 25, 26 of 83, 88 – 91; conceptualizing 84 – 87,
social relationships 38 174; definitions 84 – 85; faculty-to-
Spain, cyberbullying among university faculty targeted cyberbullying 115 – 117;
students 100 – 101, 103, 106 – 107 impact of 87 – 88; individuals at risk
student-to-faculty targeted cyberbullying: of victimization 71 – 72; intervention
in Canadian universities 115, 120; 91 – 92, 173 – 176; prevention 91 – 92;
consequences of 135; impacts rates of 87 – 88; student-to-faculty
129 – 134, 219 – 220; implications and targeted cyberbullying 115 – 118, 120,
recommendations of study 134 – 136; 126 – 136; theoretical approaches to
implications of reporting cyberbullying 88 – 91; types of 87 – 88, 114 – 115
incidents 133 – 134; limitation of study
134; literature 127; method of study 128; YouTube 38, 142, 218