مزاحمت سایبری: استخراج آسیب بدون نتیجه

Students (N = 260; M age = 12.88 years) reported their involvement in cyberbullying as well as their perceptions of the likelihood of cyberbully behavior eliciting harm, being reported, and the initiator receiving consequences. Also, students’ scores on the Basic Empathy Scale were examined. The majority (67%) of students reported participation in cyberbullying and girls were more likely than boys to self-report cybervictimization and cyberbully-victimization. Students rated the likelihood of cybervictims being hurt significantly higher than the likelihood of cyberbullies receiving consequences. Furthermore, self-reported cybervictims and cyberbully-victims scored higher than students not involved in cyberbullying on the cognitive empathy scale and cyberbully-victims scored higher than cyberbullies and not-involved students on the affective empathy scale. These results suggest that youth are knowingly engaging in harmful behavior on the internet that they believe is unlikely to receive consequences.

The primary purpose of the present study was to examine youth’s perceptions of the impact and risks associated with cyberbullying. Youth reported on the likelihood that cyberbully behaviors would elicit harm for the victim as well as the likelihood that the cyberbully would be reported and receive negative consequences. The influence of empathy on cyberbully participation and perceptions was also assessed. Bullying, and more recently cyberbullying, is associated with many maladaptive outcomes, particularly for those who are victimized (e.g., Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Researchers have focused their attention on the consequences experienced by victims of bullying, although very little is known about the consequences experienced by bullies. Insight into the consequences experienced, or perceived to be experienced, by youth who initiate bullying behaviors can contribute to our understanding of the motives and outcomes of bullies. The present study is one of the first assessments of youth’s perspectives on the negative consequences cyberbullies face following their behavior. The results provide novel and important insight into youth’s thoughts and experiences and have the potential to inform prevention and intervention strategies in combatting the occurrence of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is commonly defined as intentional and harmful behavior inflicted through technological mediums such as cell phones or the internet (e.g., Hinduja and Patchin, 2008 and Patchin and Hinduja, 2006). Factors such as repetition and power imbalance, which are commonly regarded as criteria in the identification of offline bullying, are debated in cyberbully research as their application is more obscure in an online context (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009). For example, posting an embarrassing photo on an internet site may be defined as a single act of aggression; on the other hand, this photo may be seen by many people over many days, consequently repeatedly inflicting harm on the victim (David-Ferdon and Hertz, 2007 and Vandebosch and VanCleemput, 2008). In regards to power imbalance, bullying researchers have traditionally referred to advantages that bullies may have over victims that may make victims feel powerless, such as the bully’s physical stature or social status. In cyberspace these power differences are far less salient; although, very different advantages such as technological skill or anonymity may make a cyberbully seem more powerful (David-Ferdon and Hertz, 2007 and Vandebosch and VanCleemput, 2008). Regardless of the way it is operationally defined, researchers are in agreement that cyberbullying is a prevalent and concerning issue. In line with previous researchers (e.g., Kowalski & Limber, 2007), the present study uses the term cyberbully to represent individuals who have bullied via electronic media on at least one occasion. Likewise cybervictims are individuals who have been the recipient of cyberbullying on at least one occasion. Cyberbully-victims are those who have initiated cyberbullying and have also been the victim of cyberbullying, and not-involved are those who do not report initiation or victimization of cyberbullying. Recent studies estimate that 4.5–35% of adolescents are victimized by cyberbullies (Campbell et al., 2012, Dehue et al., 2008, Gradinger et al., 2009, Hinduja and Patchin, 2008, Huang and Chou, 2010, Kowalski and Limber, 2007, Li, 2007, Ortega et al., 2009, Vandebosch and VanCleemput, 2009, Wachs, 2012 and Ybarra et al., 2007) and 4.1–44.1% of youth perpetrate cyberbullying (Calvete et al., 2010, Dehue et al., 2008, Gradinger et al., 2009, Hinduja and Patchin, 2008, Huang and Chou, 2010, Kowalski and Limber, 2007, Li, 2007, Vandebosch and VanCleemput, 2009, Wachs, 2012 and Williams and Guerra, 2007). These rates include several large scale surveys conducted in the United States (Kowalski and Limber, 2007 and Williams and Guerra, 2007), Spain (Calvete et al., 2010 and Ortega et al., 2009), the Netherlands (Dehue et al., 2008) and Australia (Campbell et al., 2012). To date, the results of sex effects on cyberbullying have been mixed. Some researchers report that boys are more likely to be cyberbullies (Erdur-Baker, 2010, Huang and Chou, 2010 and Wachs, 2012) and cybervictims (Huang and Chou, 2010 and Erdur-Baker, 2010), while others found that girls are more likely to be cyberbullies (Smith et al., 2008) or cybervictims (Ackers, 2012, Brighi et al., 2012, Campbell et al., 2012, Kowalski and Limber, 2007, Navarro and Jasinski, 2012, Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2012, Ortega et al., 2009 and Smith et al., 2008). Also, some studies indicate that there are no significant sex differences in the perpetration (Ackers, 2012 and Hinduja and Patchin, 2008) or victimization (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008) of cyberbullying. Prevalence rates and sex effects were measured in the present study. 1.1. Consequences received by cyberbullies A fundamental principal of many treatment approaches is the identification of target behaviors that warrant modification or termination. In the case of cyberbullying, cyberbullying behaviors such as sending mean messages would characterize such behavior. In order to successfully change this behavior, though, it is important to understand what is driving the behavior (i.e., the rewarding outcomes of participating in the behavior) as well as what types of things would eliminate participation in the behavior (e.g., threat of punishment). Few studies to date have thoroughly examined the motives or rewards of cyberbullying (i.e., the positive consequences of cyberbullying) and no known studies have measured the negative consequences experienced by cyberbullies. The negative consequences experienced by cyberbullies are the primary focus of the present study. In particular, youth were asked to rate the likelihood that cyberbullies would receive negative consequences for their behavior. Assessing the degree to which cyberbully participants and bystanders believe that cyberbullies will receive negative consequences for their behavior provides fundamental information on the appeal of cyberbullying. For example, should youth believe that cyberbullies will not receive negative consequences for their hurtful behavior, a motivation (e.g., cyberbullying is a way to hurt someone without experiencing consequences) and an avenue of prevention (e.g., implementation of consequences) may be identified. 1.2. Identifying and reporting cyberbullying Before cyberbullying can be addressed, it must be identified; however, since many cyber activities are unsupervised by adults (King, Walpole, & Lamon, 2007), adults often rely on children to report it. Previous research suggests that cyberbullying incidents are underreported (e.g., Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007). Most youth report that when they do seek help for cyberbullying they turn to their friends more frequently than parents, guardians, or other adult figures (Patchin and Hinduja, 2006 and Slonje and Smith, 2008). Dehue, Bolman, and Vollink (2008) surveyed 1211 students (M age = 12.7 years) and 831 parents regarding their participation in (students) and awareness of (parents) cyberbullying. The researchers reported that 80% of parents indicated that they had implemented rules for their children regarding conduct on the internet; however, over 85% of the students indicated that they cyberbullied from their home. What’s more, 4.8% of parents knew that their child had engaged in cyberbullying while 17.3% of students admitted to cyberbullying others. These results suggest that youth are often unsupervised on the internet and that they are not reporting cyberbullying to their parents. Slonje and Smith (2008) reported similar findings. These researchers surveyed 360 Swedish students (M age = 15.3 years) about their experiences with, and reactions to, cyberbullying. Of the students who reported cybervictimization, 50% stated that they did not tell anyone about it whereas 35.7% told a friend, 8.9% told a guardian, 5.4% told someone else, and no one reported telling a teacher. Additionally, students believed that cyberbullying conducted via text message, email, or phone call would be much less likely to be noticed by parents than cyberbullying conducted with the use of pictures or video clips. In Canada, Li (2007) reported slightly higher rates of reporting to adults in that 34% of victims told adults about cyberbullying and 35% of bystanders reported it to adults. It is not clear why participants in Li’s (2007) study were more likely to report cyberbullying to adults, but it is noteworthy that 67% of the students in this study also believed that adults tried to stop the cyberbullying when they were informed. A more recent study by Dooley, Gradinger, Strohmeier, Cross, and Spiel (2010) provides some insight into sex differences in reporting as well as the relationship between reporting cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying. The researchers analyzed data collected from the Child Health Promotion Research Centre in Australia and the national intervention evaluation study in Austria. Their total sample size was 7489 students in grades five through nine. The majority (85.1%) of Australian students reported that they had asked for help in bullying situations; although, a significant sex difference for help seeking was reported in both the Australian and Austrian sample: Girls were more likely than boys to seek help. Students who were cybervictimized in Australia reported seeking help from friends most often followed by guardians, teachers, and other family members; whereas, cybervictims from Austria most commonly reported seeking help from guardians followed by friends, teachers, and other family members. The authors reported a significant relationship between help-seeking and traditional victimization, but not cybervictimization. Thus far, researchers agree that cyberbullying is underreported, but it is unclear as to whether youth are aware of this. Underreporting indicates that many cyberbullying behaviors may go unidentified by adults; thus, making it unlikely that cyberbullies would be held accountable. In the present study youth were asked whether they believed that incidents of cyberbullying would be reported and, if so, to whom. It was hypothesized that if youth do not believe that cyberbullying is likely to be reported to adults, then they may also be under the impression that cyberbullies are unlikely to receive consequences. 1.3. Harm experienced by cybervictims One reason cyberbullying may not be reported to adults is because it is not taken as seriously as other forms of harassment or abuse; perhaps youth believe it is relatively harmless. Previous research clearly lends support to the notion that victims of cyberbullying have the potential to suffer serious maladaptive outcomes; however, whether or not youth are aware of this is debated. For example, Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, and Kift (2012) surveyed 3112 students (M age = 13.96 years) from Australia. Approximately 59% of self-reported cybervictims and 50% of cyberbully-victims perceived cyberbullying to be harsh or very harsh. Furthermore, female cybervictims rated the harshness of cyberbullying greater than male cybervictims. Similarly, approximately 30% of cybervictims believed that cyberbullying greatly impacted their lives and girls rated the impact greater than boys. Of the participants who reported victimization of traditional bullying and cyberbullying, 47.7% felt that traditional bullying was worse, 16.7% thought that cyberbullying was worse, and 35.5% reported that they were about the same; however, cybervictims were significantly more likely than traditional victims to report social difficulties, anxiety, and depression. These results indicate that cyberbullying is associated with maladaptive outcomes, yet when asked, many youth perceive it to be relatively harmless. Researchers have identified various maladaptive outcomes for cybervictims such as problems in school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008) and with peers (Sourander et al., 2010), substance abuse (Hinduja and Patchin, 2008, Mitchell et al., 2007 and Sourander et al., 2010), anxiety or stress (Ortega et al., 2009), loneliness and depression (Erdur-Baker, 2010, Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2012, Ortega et al., 2009, Perren et al., 2010, Raskauskas and Stoltz, 2007 and Wachs, 2012), as well as attempted suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Despite these potentially harmful outcomes, children continue to harass their peers via the internet. It is unclear whether youth are unaware of the impact their actions have on others or whether they are knowingly conducting such behavior. Given the lack of visibility and, similarly, nonverbal cues associated with internet communication it is comprehensible that children are oblivious to the impact their online conduct has on others. On the other hand, these aspects of the internet may also permit a guilty perpetrator to falsely claim their behavior was unintentional. By asking youth whether they believe that cyberbully behaviors are likely to cause the recipient harm, this study provided insight into whether youth are knowingly harming their peers via the internet. 1.4. Empathy Empathy generally is defined as the ability to share another person’s emotional state, and, more specifically, the ability to take another’s perspective (cognitive) and experience sympathy for them (affective) (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2007). Empathy can reduce aggressive behavior in two ways: through an objective analysis of the other person’s motivations and through an affective summation of how one’s own actions will impact the other person (Gini et al., 2007). It is believed that empathy is a function that is only possible with adequate cognitive development (Belsey, 2009). Even for those who have the cognitive capacity, it may be more likely that only youth who receive tangible feedback that their actions have caused harm to another individual will experience empathy (Willard, 2007). Cues that a behavior or action is inappropriate or harmful are generally given through social disapproval and negative consequences (Willard, 2007). Unfortunately, given the isolated nature of cyberbullying, social disapproval may not be salient and research has yet to be conducted to assess the likelihood of consequences. What’s more, cyberbullies who do recognize the negative impact of their actions may be able to avoid empathic responses by rationalizing their behavior with thoughts such as: I won’t get caught, it didn’t really hurt, look at what I got in return, it is not a real person, everyone does it, and they deserve it (Willard, 2007). For example, in Pornari and Wood (2010) moral disengagement was positively associated with cyber-aggression, although less so than traditional aggression. The authors attribute this finding to the possibility that factors associated with cyber-aggression such as anonymity and lack of visibility and consequences may inhibit the ability to empathize with victims; therefore youth perceive it as less serious. They suggest that cyber-aggressors may not be constrained by standards of morality or empathy because their values and emotions are not challenged in an environment in which they cannot fully see the impact of their actions. Ang and Goh (2010) conducted one of the first studies to examine cyberbullying and empathy. Overall, girls had higher mean scores for cognitive and affective empathy than boys. They found that girls and boys who were low in both affective and cognitive empathy reported more cyberbullying behaviors than those who were low in affective but high in cognitive empathy. Similarly, boys who were high in affective empathy but low in cognitive empathy reported more cyberbullying behaviors. These findings suggest that cognitive empathy may be associated with a decreased likelihood of participating in cyberbully behaviors, particularly for boys. On the other hand, Almeida, Correia, Marinho, and Garcia (2012) did not report sex differences when they examined participation in cyberbullying and empathy in 1751 youth (M age = 15.15 years) from Portugal. However, they did find that cybervictims (through the use of mobile phones) scored significantly higher than cyberbully-victims and not-involved students on cognitive empathy. Similarly, cybervictims scored significantly higher than cyberbullies on affective empathy. The present study will add to the currently sparse literature on cyberbullying and empathy by examining youth’s cognitive and affective empathy and cyberbully participation. 1.5. Present study Several characteristics of cyberbullying make this phenomenon particularly dangerous and necessitate its prevention (Agatston et al., 2007, Kowalski and Limber, 2007 and Patchin and Hinduja, 2006). The present study provides insight to prevention and intervention strategies in novel and fundamental ways. Youths’ perceptions of the likelihood of cyberbullies being reported and receiving consequences for their actions was examined. In addition youth were asked to rate their perceptions of the harmfulness of cyberbullying behavior and to complete an empathy scale. It was hypothesized that: (1) cyberbullies, cyberbully-victims, and cybervictims would be more likely to perceive cyberbullies as unlikely to be reported and unlikely to receive consequences for their actions than those not involved; (2) cybervictims and cyberbully-victims would be more likely to perceive cyberbullying behavior to be hurtful than cyberbullies and not-involved; and (3) cyberbullies would score lower on empathy scales than cyberbully-victims, cybervictims, and not-involved.

3. Results 3.1. Cyberbullying Participants were categorized as cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbully-victims, and not-involved based on their responses to the frequency with which they perpetrated or received cyberbullying behaviors. Thirteen participants (5%) reported that they perpetrated cyberbullying at least once and were therefore categorized as cyberbullies and 45 (17.3%) participants reported being the recipient of cyberbully behavior at least once and were categorized as cybervictims. Participants who reported at least one incident of perpetrating cyberbully behavior and at least one incident of receiving cyberbully behavior were categorized as cyberbully-victims (N = 116, 44.6%). The remaining participants did not report any participation in cyberbully behaviors and were categorized as not-involved (N = 86, 33.1%). The use of one or more incidents of cyberbullying as a criterion for categorization is consistent with previous cyberbully studies (e.g., Brighi et al., 2012, Kowalski and Limber, 2007, Mitchell et al., 2007, Navarro and Jasinski, 2012 and Raskauskas and Stoltz, 2007). A chi-square test was used to assess differences in sex and cyberbully participation. As seen in Table 1, girls were more likely to report cybervictimization (61%) as well as cyberbully-victimization (69%), χ2(3) = 10.80, p = .01, Φ = .21. Table 1. Number (proportion) of girls and boys who self-reported experiences with cyberbullying. Victim Bully Bully-victim Not involved Total Boy 17 (.39) 6 (.46) 35 (.31) 46 (.53) 104 (.40) Girl 27 (.61) 7 (.54) 79 (.69) 40 (.47) 153 (.60) Total 44 (.17) 13 (.05) 114 (.44) 86 (.33) Table options 3.2. Consequences Participants rated the likelihood that cyberbullies would receive consequences for their bullying behavior in six cyberbully scenarios. Responses were averaged to compute the “consequences” variable. Seventy-five percent of participants at least somewhat agreed that cyberbullies would receive consequences for their behaviors, and girls and boys did not significantly differ in their perceptions, t(229) = 1.88, p = .06. Self-reported cyberbullies (M = 4.67, SD = 1.13) and cyberbully-victims (M = 4.74, SD = .86) produced lower ratings of the likelihood of cyberbullies receiving consequences than victims (M = 4.90, SD = .84) and those not involved (M = 4.99, SD = .88); however, these differences were not statistically significant, F(3, 229) = 1.36, p = .26. 3.3. Supervision and reporting Participants reported their perceptions of the frequency with which they were supervised by adults while on the internet using a checklist. Thirty-eight (14.6%) students responded that they did not know how often they were supervised, 18.9% responded that they were never or not frequently supervised (i.e., 16 never; 20 mostly never; 13 not a lot), and 66.5% responded that they were frequently supervised (i.e., 30 a lot of times; 87 most of the time; 56 all of the time). Perceptions of supervision was dichotomized (i.e., frequently supervised vs. infrequently supervised) and examined across sex and cyberbully participation in separate chi-square analyses. Girls (84%) were more likely than boys (69%) to report being frequently supervised by adults while on the internet, χ2(1) = 6.32, p = .01, Φ = .17. Approximately 88% of those not involved, 74% of victims, 74% of bully-victims, and 62% of bullies reported being frequently supervised on the internet; however, differences between these groups were not significant, χ2(3) = 7.43, p = .06. Participants were asked whether they believed cyberbully behaviors would be reported to friends, parents/guardians, teachers/principal, or police. Overall, 86% of participants at least somewhat agreed that cyberbullying would be reported to friends and 79% at least somewhat agreed that cyberbullying would be reported to parents/guardians; whereas, approximately 30% at least somewhat agreed that it would be reported to teachers/principals and 19% at least somewhat agreed that it would be reported to police. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine the influence of cyberbully participation, participant sex, and internet supervision on perceptions of reporting. The 3-way and 2-way interactions were not significant; however, there was a significant main effect of sex (Pillai’s Trace = .06; F(4,187) = 2.96, p = .02, partial η2 = .06) and a significant main effect of cyberbully participation (Pillai’s Trace = .13, F(12, 567) = 2.09, p = .02, partial η2 = .04). There was no main effect of internet supervision, Pillai’s Trace = .02, F(4, 187) = .98, p = .42. Follow-up univariate tests indicated that girls were more likely than boys to report bullying to friends, F(1, 190) = 8.62, p = .004, partial η2 = .04 and parents, F(1, 190) = 6.91, p = .009, partial η2 = .04. Also, perceptions of the likelihood of reporting to the police differed by cyberbully participation, F(3, 190) = 2.95, p = .03, partial η2 = .05. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics. Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) ratings of likelihood of reporting cyberbullying by sex and cyberbully role. Bully Victim Bully-victim Not involved Girls Report to friends 5.10 (.44) 5.10 (.48) 5.00 (.39) 5.04 (.55) Report to parents/guardians 5.40 (.89) 5.11 (.98) 4.94 (.76) 5.42 (.91) Report to teachers/principal 3.67 (.81) 3.81 (1.12) 3.74 (1.18) 3.96 (1.35) Report to police 3.00 (.71) 2.89 (1.33) 3.21 (1.25) 3.65 (1.54) Boys Report to friends 4.42 (.59) 4.94 (.48) 5.13 (.47) 4.79 (.63) Report to parents/guardians 3.58 (1.59) 4.92 (1.29) 5.15 (.85) 5.18 (.87) Report to teachers/principal 2.53 (1.75) 3.81 (1.65) 3.63 (1.31) 3.55 (1.30) Report to police 2.33 (1.53) 3.25 (1.45) 3.00 (1.39) 3.49 (1.36) Table options 3.4. Harm Participants’ perceptions of the likelihood of the victim being hurt by the cyberbully behaviors were averaged across the six scenarios to compute a composite “harm” variable. Approximately 94% of participants at least somewhat agreed that the behaviors depicted in the cyberbully scenarios would hurt the victim. Victims (M = 5.86, SD = .78) rated the likelihood of the cybervictim being hurt highest, followed by those not involved (M = 5.82, SD = .71), cyberbullies (M = 5.77, SD = 1.09), and cyberbully-victims (M = 5.74, SD = .82), respectively. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in perceptions of harm by participant sex and cyberbully participation. There was no interaction, F(3, 236) = 1.61, p = .19 or main effect of cyberbully participation, F(3, 236) = 2.27, p = .08; however, there was a main effect of sex, F(1, 236) = 25.50, p < .001, partial η2 = .10. Girls (M = 5.82, SD = .67) rated the likelihood of cybervictims being hurt significantly higher than boys (M = 5.40, SD = .75). A paired samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference between participants’ ratings of the likelihood cybervictims would be hurt compared to the likelihood that cyberbullies would face consequences. Overall, participants rated the likelihood of cybervictims being hurt by the cyberbully behavior significantly higher (M = 5.67, SD = .72) than the likelihood that the cyberbully would receive consequences (M = 4.83, SD = .89), t(225) = 15.57, p < .001. 3.5. Empathy The Basic Empathy Scale (BES) was used to assess cognitive and affective empathy in participants. The overall mean empathy score was 73.20 (SD = 10.11, α = .85). The BES is made up of 20 items, 11 of which comprise the affective subscale (M = 37.91, SD = 7.49, α = .84) and nine comprise the cognitive subscale (M = 35.34, SD = 4.25, α = .70). A MANOVA was used to examine differences in cognitive and affective empathy across sex and cyberbully participation. The omnibus F test indicated a main effect of sex (Pillai’s Trace = .08, F(2, 230) = 10.36, p < .001, partial η2 = .08) and a main effect of cyberbully participation (Pillai’s Trace = .08, F(6, 462) = 3.16, p = .005, partial η2 = .04). There was no interaction, Pillai’s Trace = .03, F(6, 462) = 1.28, p = .27. Girls (M = 40.81, SD = 5.99) scored significantly higher than boys (M = 33.60, SD = 7.36) on the affective empathy scale, F(1, 231) = 20.36, p < .001 partial η2 = .08, yet there were no significant sex differences on the cognitive empathy scale, F(1, 231) = 1.55, p = .21. Furthermore, follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that there were significant differences in cognitive empathy scores (F(3, 231) = 4.64, p = .004, partial η2 = .06) and affective empathy scores (F(3, 231) = 2.97, p = .03, partial η2 = .04) as per cyberbully participation. Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons indicated that cybervictims (p = .006) and cyberbully-victims (p = .002) had higher cognitive empathy scores than youth not involved in cyberbullying. Also, cyberbully-victims had higher affective empathy scores than cyberbullies (p = .008) and youth not involved (p < .001). See Table 3 for descriptive statistics. Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) scores on the Basic Empathy Scales by sex and cyberbully role. Bully Victim Bully-victim Not involved Girls Cognitive empathy 35.50 (3.83) 36.64 (3.66) 36.35 (3.70) 34.87 (3.90) Affective empathy 35.00 (3.52) 39.20 (6.95) 42.39 (5.83) 39.68 (4.91) Boys Cognitive empathy 34.67 (4.27) 36.31 (3.44) 35.58 (4.59) 33.07 (4.98) Affective empathy 32.33 (5.68) 36.38 (5.73) 34.10 (7.60) 32.36 (7.81)