As debate continues over the definition of cyberbullying, an important endeavor is identifying aggression–prevention efforts likely to impact reasons for cyberbullying and the broader phenomenon of cyber aggression. No empirical research has examined whether there are useful prevention-related distinctions between perpetrators of cyberbullying vs. perpetrators of brief cyber aggression. Using an online survey, this study explored perpetrators’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviors related to 72 brief vs. 128 extended episodes of cyber aggression. The most pronounced difference was that more extended-episode perpetrators reported having been hurt by something that happened in cyberspace. One pronounced similarity was that if there had been a news story about the perpetrator doing it, 79% or more of both groups said they would not have felt proud; whereas 63% or more said they would have felt ashamed. Among both groups, 76% or more did not agree with the assertion that there should be no offline consequence for online behavior. The findings support prevention efforts intended to do the following: encourage respect and empathy, facilitate adaptive communication and decision-making skills, promote socially appropriate ways of coping with anger and conflict, and increase knowledge and application of relevant rules and laws.
Cyber aggression exists when a sender initiates cyber communication or cyber action intended to harm a target. Cyberbullying is a type of cyber aggression, although there is currently no commonly accepted definition of cyberbullying (Kiriakidis and Kavoura, 2010, Langos, 2012, Law et al., 2012b and Turner et al., 2011). One well-reasoned cyberbullying definition includes requirements that it occurs over a longer period of time than 1 day, is repeated, and comes from a sender who is more powerful than the target (Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). There is no consensus, though, regarding the second and third criteria. Those features can be seen as inherent in cyberspace because, once posted, aggressive material may be repeatedly viewed or communicated (Law et al., 2012b and Slonje et al., 2013) and because anyone in cyberspace has the power to inflict significant harm (Law et al., 2012a and Schenk and Fremouw, 2012).
Duration of the sending activity is the only definitional feature that cannot be seen as inherent in cyberspace. Extended cyber aggression lasting more than 1 day typically includes every instance of what studies recognize as cyberbullying, and brief cyber aggression on just 1 day typically is not considered to be cyberbullying (e.g., Kiriakidis and Kavoura, 2010, Langos, 2012 and Ybarra et al., 2012).
Whether there are useful distinctions between cyberbullying and other forms of cyber aggression is currently being debated (Slonje et al., 2013). Findings that could inform the debate include comparisons between perpetrators of brief vs. extended cyber aggression, since most definitions of cyberbullying view it as being different from brief cyber aggression. No empirical research has examined whether perpetrators of extended cyber aggression have beliefs, emotions, and behaviors that differ from those of brief cyber aggression perpetrators. The initial purpose of this study was to identify differences and similarities between perpetrators of brief vs. extended cyber aggression with regard to their beliefs, emotions, and behaviors. The ultimate purpose was to relate the findings to aggression–prevention efforts.
1.1. Effects of cyber aggression
Increasing what is known about brief and extended cyber aggression is important because such knowledge can be used to reinforce or improve efforts intended to prevent what has become a frequently encountered source of hurt and pain. Targets of cyber aggression have experienced anxiety, depression, sadness, frustration, anger, embarrassment, fear, discouragement, feelings of isolation, and suicidal thoughts (Hinduja and Patchin, 2010, Kiriakidis and Kavoura, 2010, Mishna et al., 2010, Schenk and Fremouw, 2012 and Tokunaga, 2010), and some have killed themselves (Hinduja and Patchin, 2010, Murray et al., 2012 and Schenk and Fremouw, 2012).
The study’s data on beliefs and emotions indicated more similarities than differences between perpetrators of brief vs. extended cyber aggression. Consequently, prevention programs that concentrate only on cyberbullying will miss easily available opportunities for addressing additional sources of aggression. This observation is consistent with recent calls for attention on peer aggression and victimization to focus on more than bullying (Finkelhor et al., 2012 and Turner et al., 2011). Because the current study identified more similarities than differences between perpetrators of brief vs. extended cyber aggression and because concentrating solely on cyberbullying will ignore a significant portion of the cyber aggression currently taking place, the findings support prevention programs that focus on broad topics such as cyber aggression or aggression, rather than on the diversely defined and more limited phenomenon of cyberbullying.
