cyberbullying research paper pdf

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• World Psychiatry
• v.22(1); 2023 Feb

Cyberbullying: next‐generation research

Elias aboujaoude.

1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA, USA

Matthew W. Savage

2 School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego CA, USA

Cyberbullying, or the repetitive aggression carried out over elec­tronic platforms with an intent to harm, is probably as old as the Internet itself. Research interest in this behavior, variably named, is also relatively old, with the first publication on “cyberstalking” ap­pearing in the PubMed database in 1999.

Over two decades later, the broad contours of the problem are generally well understood, including its phenomenology, epidemiology, mental health dimensions, link to suicidality, and disproportionate effects on minorities and individuals with developmental disorders 1 . Much remains understudied, however. Here we call for a “next generation” of research addressing some important knowledge gaps, including those concerning self‐­cyberbullying, the bully‐victim phenomenon, the bystander role, the closing age‐based digital divide, cyberbullying subtypes and how they evolve with technology, the cultural specificities of cyberbullying, and especially the management of this behavior.

Defined as the anonymous online posting, sending or otherwise sharing of hurtful content about oneself, “self‐cyberbullying” or “digital self‐harm” has emerged as a new and troubling manifestation of cyberbullying. Rather than a fringe phenomenon, self‐cyberbullying is thought to affect up to 6% of middle‐ and high‐school students 2 . Is this a cry for help by someone who might attempt “real” self‐harm or even suicide if not urgently treated? Is it “attention‐seeking” in nature, meant to drive Internet traffic in a very congested social media landscape where it can be hard to get noticed and where “likes” are the currency of self‐worth? Research is needed to better characterize self‐cyberbullying, including how it relates to depression and offline self‐harm and suicide.

The bully‐victim phenomenon refers to the permeable boundaries between roles that can make it relatively easy for a cyberbullying victim to become a cyberbully and vice versa. Unlike traditional bullying, visible markers of strength are not a requirement in cyberbullying. Assuming the identity of the cyberbully is known, all that the victims need to attack back and become cyberbullies themselves is a digital platform and basic digital know‐how. Do cyberbullying victims feel in any way “empowered” by this permeability, as some do express in clinical settings? And does knowledge that perpetrators can be attacked back have any deterrent effect on them, or is the bi‐directional violence that can ensue an unmitigated race to the bottom that further impairs well‐being?

What of the bystander role? Depending on the platform, the audience witnessing a cyberbullying attack can potentially be limitless – attacks that go viral are an extreme example of this. While this can magnify the humiliation inflicted on the victim, it also introduces the possibility of enlisting bystanders to protect victims and push back against perpetrators. Research examining how to leverage bystanders as part of anti‐cyberbullying interventions would have significant management and public health utility.

Recent scholarship has brought attention to cyberbullying beyond the young age group. What had been called the “digital divide”, which in this context refers to the notion that children and adolescents are more active online and therefore at higher risk, has narrowed to the point where a significant risk of cyberbully­ing now appears to exist among college students and perhaps adults overall. Cyberbullying is no longer a middle‐ and high‐school problem, as suggested by a 30‐country United Nations‐sponsored survey that recruited nearly 170,000 youth up to 24 years of age and found that 33% of them had been victims of that behavior 3 . To better protect against cyberbullying and implement age‐appropriate interventions, new research should better delineate the upper limits of the high‐risk cyberbullying age bracket, if they exist.

There is also insufficient research into the culturally‐specific dimensions of cyberbullying. Co‐authoring analyses reveal that the most influential cyberbullying scholarship comes from the US, and that the top 5 universities in publication productivity are in the European Union 4 . Given the different relationship to violence across cultures and the diverging definitions of, and reactions to, trauma worldwide, a broader culturally‐centered research perspective is essential for a more thorough understanding of cyberbullying's global impact.

As we “zoom out” and investigate across cultures, we should also “zoom in” on the specific cyberbullying behavior. Are all cy­berbullying attacks similar in terms of prevalence, perpetrator and victim profiles, short‐ and long‐term consequences, and manage­­ment strategies? Several forms of cyberbullying have been iden­tified 5 , but their similarities and differences require elucidation, es­­­pecially as technology continues to change and new forms emerge. Therefore, future research should compare diverse behaviors, such as cyberstalking, “excluding” (deliberately leaving someone out), “doxing” (revealing sensitive information about the victim), “fraping” (using the victim's social media account to post inappropriate content under the victim's name), “masquerading” (creating a fake identity with which to attack the victim), “flaming” (posting insults against the victim), and sex‐based cyberbullying through the non‐consensual sending of sexual text messages or imagery. To better understand and address cyberbullying, we must explore its existing subtypes – some of which have only been described in blogs – and, as technology evolves, its emerging forms.

Most urgently, the lack of agreement upon “best practices” for the management of cyberbullying must be remedied. Expanding access to psychiatric and psychological care – given the mental health dimension of cyberbullying – is imperative, as is a better understanding of school‐based interventions, which remain the most popular management approach.

Data from school‐based studies suggest that programs which adopt a broad, ecological approach to the school‐wide climate and which include specific actions at the student, teacher and family levels are more effective than those delivered solely through classroom curricula or social skills trainings 6 . However, the best meta‐analytic evidence for school‐based programs demonstrates mostly short‐term effects 7 , while long‐term data suggest small benefits 8 . Further, success appears more likely when programs target cyberbullying specifically as opposed to general violence prevention 7 , and when they are delivered by technology‐savvy content experts as opposed to teachers 8 . Evidence also suggests that programs are most successful when they provide informational support through interactive modalities (e.g., peer tutoring, role playing, group discussion), and when they nurture stakeholder agency (e.g., offer quality teacher training programs, engage parents in program implementation) 9 .

Future research into cyberbullying management should expand on these findings and examine how management interfa­ces with the legislative process and with law enforcement when it comes to illegal behavior, including privacy breeches and serious threats.

Much has been learned about cyberbullying, but much remains to be explored. The knowledge gaps are all the more challenging given that Internet‐related technologies evolve at a breakneck pace and in a way that reveals new exploitable vulnerabilities. A­long with the previously cited statistic that no less than 33% of young people worldwide have been victimized 3 , this should give the field added urgency to “keep up” and investigate some under‐studied areas that are critical to a more nuanced understanding of cyberbullying and its effective management.