Cyber Bullying Vs Traditional Bullying Essay
Cyberbullying Is More Prevalent Today Then Traditional Bullying
Shirley Elliott
Sociology 1015
Professor Carol Kauppi, Ph.D.
Increasing public awareness of the frequency and damaging effects caused from cyberbullying behavior have set off alarms in people. Extreme examples of cyberbullying have been featured extensively in the news and have motivated parents, school systems, and politicians to help eliminate acts of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying inflicts aggressive behavior (i.e. threatening of peers, spreading of rumors) by cyber technologies such as computer, cell phone, and personal digital assistant. Cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying is more prevalent in today’s society primarily due to technological availability, anonymity, and correlation to traditional aggressors. …show more content…
According to (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p.
297), “...cyber technology provides new tools for youth who already engage in aggressive behaviors in the physical world to victimize peers in cyberspace”. Cyberbullying is a subgroup of cyber aggression that involves the intention to repeatedly harm and create an imbalance of power. This is similar to the definition of physical (traditional) bullying (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011). This type of aggressive behavior may be particularly damaging to a child’s mental development and social adaptation. For example, bullying can now extend beyond school grounds and into the home, which was a safe haven from attacks (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011). With the various technological means and the fact that most adolescents have access to at least one cyber technology, the attacks can take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This magnifies the emotional distress of the attacks on the adolescents. In research reported by Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) and Beran and Li (2005), it is clear that cyberbullying is a relatively widespread occurrence in the lives of children and adolescents (Schoffstall & Cohen,
2011).
“Harm may be inflicted through various methods such as flaming (a brief, heated exchange), harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, trickery, exclusion/ostracism, stalking, and happy slapping (violence photographed via a camera phone)” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 588). This type of harm can be transmitted through various technological channels such as email, chat rooms, social networking sites, instant messaging, blogs, Web sites, text messaging, and provocative pictures (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011).
Much of the attention on cyberbullying has focused on adolescents because of their prevalent use of the Internet and cell phones. This age group is also more susceptible to peer victimization (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011). “In general, people’s inhibitions are lower in cyberspace, and they tend to self-disclose more frequently than they do in the physical world” (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 297). As noted by (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 298), “... young adolescents (13 to 15 year olds) may be most prone to victimizing others with cyber technology, as cyber aggression rates tend to decline in late adolescence”.
“Whether bullying in schools is increasing, as is widely believed, was investigated drawing upon empirical studies undertaken in a wide range of countries in which findings had been published describing its prevalence at different points in time between 1990 and 2009” (Rigby & Smith, 2011, p. 441). Results do not support that traditional bullying has increased, however there are indications that cyberbullying has (Rigby & Smith, 2011). “There can be no doubt that cyber bullying has increased as relevant technology has become more and more accessible. However, as the proportion of students in most communities having access to mobile phones and the internet approaches saturation, it is unclear whether cyber bullying is continuing to rise” (Rigby & Smith, 2011, p. 449).
There are two features of cyberspace which are important for understanding cyberbullying. First, this realm can provide a new online identity that conceals the true identity of a bully from their victims. This provides the traditional bully the opportunity to extend their aggressive behaviour to several different avenues. Students who are victims of traditional bullying in the real world may choose aggression through anonymity or fake identities as retaliation or simply as a way to regain power. The anonymity of hiding behind fake names makes the cyber environment more appealing for bullies and a safer atmosphere for victims of traditional bullying to get back at their aggressors (Erdur-Baker, 2010). Since the harm is not conducted face-to-face, the aggressors may feel an emotional distance from the impact of their actions (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011). This anonymity and distance begets lack of fear of being caught and therefore adolescents post hurtful things online as entertainment: just to have fun, or because they are bored.
Second, there is greater control of when and how communications occur online. Cyberbullies can choose when they want to harass a peer, by what method they will send their message, and whether the harassment is private or public. These mediums provide the opportunity for adolescents to harass peers at virtually any time (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011).
As noted by (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590), “although anonymity appears to be a huge factor for cyber aggression, it also seems that many cyber aggression incidents are related to face-to-face exchanges with school peers”. A study by Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown (2009) found that cyberbullying often happens as a reaction to an altercation or argument that occurred on school grounds and then extends to online communication or harassment. Studies report that there is a correlation between traditional aggression and cyberbullying. “For example, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) found that an adolescent’s role (13–18 years old) in traditional aggression significantly and positively predicted the same role in cyber aggression” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590). It was concluded in their study that there is a correlation between traditional aggression and cyber aggression.
In the study conducted by Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch (2011), the goal was to “clarify the nature of cyber aggression as it relates to traditional forms of peer aggression (e.g., overt, relational)” (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 298). The results indicated that cyberbullying is a separate form of aggression from traditional bullying and those students who participate in cyberbullying are not a different group of students than those using traditional aggression (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011).
Further, in a study by Erdur-Baker (2010), results showed that “...being a bully in cyber and physical environments was correlated, but being a victim in cyber and traditional environments were not” (Erdur-Baker, 2010, p. 121). Research indicates that traditional bullies usually have negative attitudes toward others, feel negatively about themselves, and come from a family environment characterized by poor parenting. These characteristics extend to online aggressive behavior and it has also been suggested that the lack of face-to-face interaction in cyberbullying reduces empathy in bullies. According to previous studies by Greene (2006), Ybarra et al. (2007b), and Kowalski et al. (2008), “...anonymity, impersonation, decreased fear of being caught and being more aggressive than they are offline are the most essential factors that distinguish cyberbullies from traditional bullies” (Erdur-Baker, 2010, p. 121).
There has been a monumental social change in today’s society which deals with the significant impact of electronic communications surrounding the development of children (Englander, 2010). “Although children are by no means the only ones affected by this shift, they are doubtless the most significantly affected. While most of their communications remain-childishly-banal, their capacity for careless and intentional cruelty has been exponentially increased” (Englander, 2010, p. 508). The accessibility of online technology, anonymity of identification, and direct correlation to traditional bullying has increased the prevalence of cyberbullying in today’s society. As the results indicated in the study by (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011), “...if an adolescent was a traditional aggressor, the adolescent was also likely a cyber aggressor” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590).
Works Cited
Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Dempsey, J., & Storch, E. A. (2011). Has Cyber Technology Produced a New Group of Peer Aggressors? CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14 (5), 297-302.
Englander, E. K. (2010). Editorial for the Special Issue on Cyberbullying. Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (4): 508-509.
Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12 (1), 109-125.
Rigby, K., & Smith, P. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of Education, 14 (4), 441-455.
Schoffstall, C. L., & Cohen, R. (2011). Cyber Aggression: The Relation between Online Offenders and Offline Social Competence. Social Development, 20 (3), 587-604.
Shirley Elliott
Sociology 1015
Professor Carol Kauppi, Ph.D.
Increasing public awareness of the frequency and damaging effects caused from cyberbullying behavior have set off alarms in people. Extreme examples of cyberbullying have been featured extensively in the news and have motivated parents, school systems, and politicians to help eliminate acts of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying inflicts aggressive behavior (i.e. threatening of peers, spreading of rumors) by cyber technologies such as computer, cell phone, and personal digital assistant. Cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying is more prevalent in today’s society primarily due to technological availability, anonymity, and correlation to traditional aggressors. …show more content…
According to (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p.
297), “...cyber technology provides new tools for youth who already engage in aggressive behaviors in the physical world to victimize peers in cyberspace”. Cyberbullying is a subgroup of cyber aggression that involves the intention to repeatedly harm and create an imbalance of power. This is similar to the definition of physical (traditional) bullying (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011). This type of aggressive behavior may be particularly damaging to a child’s mental development and social adaptation. For example, bullying can now extend beyond school grounds and into the home, which was a safe haven from attacks (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011). With the various technological means and the fact that most adolescents have access to at least one cyber technology, the attacks can take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This magnifies the emotional distress of the attacks on the adolescents. In research reported by Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) and Beran and Li (2005), it is clear that cyberbullying is a relatively widespread occurrence in the lives of children and adolescents (Schoffstall & Cohen,
2011).
“Harm may be inflicted through various methods such as flaming (a brief, heated exchange), harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, trickery, exclusion/ostracism, stalking, and happy slapping (violence photographed via a camera phone)” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 588). This type of harm can be transmitted through various technological channels such as email, chat rooms, social networking sites, instant messaging, blogs, Web sites, text messaging, and provocative pictures (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011).
Much of the attention on cyberbullying has focused on adolescents because of their prevalent use of the Internet and cell phones. This age group is also more susceptible to peer victimization (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011). “In general, people’s inhibitions are lower in cyberspace, and they tend to self-disclose more frequently than they do in the physical world” (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 297). As noted by (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 298), “... young adolescents (13 to 15 year olds) may be most prone to victimizing others with cyber technology, as cyber aggression rates tend to decline in late adolescence”.
“Whether bullying in schools is increasing, as is widely believed, was investigated drawing upon empirical studies undertaken in a wide range of countries in which findings had been published describing its prevalence at different points in time between 1990 and 2009” (Rigby & Smith, 2011, p. 441). Results do not support that traditional bullying has increased, however there are indications that cyberbullying has (Rigby & Smith, 2011). “There can be no doubt that cyber bullying has increased as relevant technology has become more and more accessible. However, as the proportion of students in most communities having access to mobile phones and the internet approaches saturation, it is unclear whether cyber bullying is continuing to rise” (Rigby & Smith, 2011, p. 449).
There are two features of cyberspace which are important for understanding cyberbullying. First, this realm can provide a new online identity that conceals the true identity of a bully from their victims. This provides the traditional bully the opportunity to extend their aggressive behaviour to several different avenues. Students who are victims of traditional bullying in the real world may choose aggression through anonymity or fake identities as retaliation or simply as a way to regain power. The anonymity of hiding behind fake names makes the cyber environment more appealing for bullies and a safer atmosphere for victims of traditional bullying to get back at their aggressors (Erdur-Baker, 2010). Since the harm is not conducted face-to-face, the aggressors may feel an emotional distance from the impact of their actions (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011). This anonymity and distance begets lack of fear of being caught and therefore adolescents post hurtful things online as entertainment: just to have fun, or because they are bored.
Second, there is greater control of when and how communications occur online. Cyberbullies can choose when they want to harass a peer, by what method they will send their message, and whether the harassment is private or public. These mediums provide the opportunity for adolescents to harass peers at virtually any time (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011).
As noted by (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590), “although anonymity appears to be a huge factor for cyber aggression, it also seems that many cyber aggression incidents are related to face-to-face exchanges with school peers”. A study by Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown (2009) found that cyberbullying often happens as a reaction to an altercation or argument that occurred on school grounds and then extends to online communication or harassment. Studies report that there is a correlation between traditional aggression and cyberbullying. “For example, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) found that an adolescent’s role (13–18 years old) in traditional aggression significantly and positively predicted the same role in cyber aggression” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590). It was concluded in their study that there is a correlation between traditional aggression and cyber aggression.
In the study conducted by Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch (2011), the goal was to “clarify the nature of cyber aggression as it relates to traditional forms of peer aggression (e.g., overt, relational)” (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011, p. 298). The results indicated that cyberbullying is a separate form of aggression from traditional bullying and those students who participate in cyberbullying are not a different group of students than those using traditional aggression (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011).
Further, in a study by Erdur-Baker (2010), results showed that “...being a bully in cyber and physical environments was correlated, but being a victim in cyber and traditional environments were not” (Erdur-Baker, 2010, p. 121). Research indicates that traditional bullies usually have negative attitudes toward others, feel negatively about themselves, and come from a family environment characterized by poor parenting. These characteristics extend to online aggressive behavior and it has also been suggested that the lack of face-to-face interaction in cyberbullying reduces empathy in bullies. According to previous studies by Greene (2006), Ybarra et al. (2007b), and Kowalski et al. (2008), “...anonymity, impersonation, decreased fear of being caught and being more aggressive than they are offline are the most essential factors that distinguish cyberbullies from traditional bullies” (Erdur-Baker, 2010, p. 121).
There has been a monumental social change in today’s society which deals with the significant impact of electronic communications surrounding the development of children (Englander, 2010). “Although children are by no means the only ones affected by this shift, they are doubtless the most significantly affected. While most of their communications remain-childishly-banal, their capacity for careless and intentional cruelty has been exponentially increased” (Englander, 2010, p. 508). The accessibility of online technology, anonymity of identification, and direct correlation to traditional bullying has increased the prevalence of cyberbullying in today’s society. As the results indicated in the study by (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011), “...if an adolescent was a traditional aggressor, the adolescent was also likely a cyber aggressor” (Schoffstall & Cohen, 2011, p. 590).
Works Cited
Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Dempsey, J., & Storch, E. A. (2011). Has Cyber Technology Produced a New Group of Peer Aggressors? CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14 (5), 297-302.
Englander, E. K. (2010). Editorial for the Special Issue on Cyberbullying. Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (4): 508-509.
Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12 (1), 109-125.
Rigby, K., & Smith, P. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of Education, 14 (4), 441-455.
Schoffstall, C. L., & Cohen, R. (2011). Cyber Aggression: The Relation between Online Offenders and Offline Social Competence. Social Development, 20 (3), 587-604.