Cyberbullying Amongst University Students: an Emergent Cause for Concern?

1

Chapter 9

Cyberbullying amongst university students: an emergent cause for concern?

Helen Cowie, Sheri Bauman, Iain Coyne, Carrie Myers, MailiPörhölä, Ana Almeida

Introduction

To date, research into bullying in educational settings has mainly focused on nursery, primary and secondary school levels, with only a very small number of studies addressing aspects of bullying in higher education colleges and universities. However, Forums, such as ‘The Student Room’ ( highlight the growing problem of bullying amongst university students with disturbing accounts of the long-term damage to self-esteem, academic achievement and emotional wellbeing experienced by some students. We begin by reviewing research into traditional bullying amongst university students as well as current studies of cyberbullying in higher education. We then consider the possibility of continuities between bullying at school and at university as well as the social contexts which either promote or discouragecyberbullying. Finally, we discuss the implications for policies, training and awareness-raising and conclude with some suggestions for future research.

Rates of bullying amongst university students

The National Union of Students (NUS; 2008) Student Experience Report provides an overview of students’ experiences of university across the United Kingdom, looking at different aspects of their lives. Through an online questionnaire, data were collected from 3,135 students from 146 higher education institutions. Seven per cent of the students had experienced bullying during their time at university, of whom 79 per cent indicated that the bullying was carried out by another student, and 21 per cent identified a member of staff as their bully.

Similarly, the Student Health Survey (PörhöläKunttu, in submission) is a national survey which investigates Finnish university students’ physical, mental and social health as well as their health-related behavior. In the 2008 survey, the representative random sample consisted of 4,969 undergraduate students from all Science and Arts universities as well as universities of Applied Sciences in Finland. During their higher education,5.6 per cent stated that they had been bullied “relatively much” or “very much” by their fellow students Another survey (Lavikainen, 2010) of 5,698 students from Finnish universities of Applied Sciences revealed that the most typical form of bullying was being excluded from student groups. International students reported the highest levels of victimization.

Nursing and medical students seem to be particularly at risk of experiencing bullying during their education (e.g. Ahmer et al., 2008; British Medical Association [BMA], 2006; Curtis, Bowen, & Reid, 2007). In the BMA (2006) students’ welfare report, 17 per cent of UK medical students reported that they had been a victim of bullying or harassment during their stay at medical school. In a survey of final year medical students in six medical colleges in Pakistan, 52 per cent of the respondents reported that they had faced bullying or harassment during their medical education, with 25 per cent of them reporting being bullied less than once a month, 15.9 per centonce a month, eleven per cent once a week, and six per cent daily. The forms of bullying varied from verbal abuse, being deliberately ignored or excluded, to physical abuse. Of the respondents who had been bullied, 18 per cent had faced this behavior from nurses and peers (Ahmer et al., 2008).

Continuities between bullying at school and at university

There is growing evidence to support the idea that there may be some continuity between bullying at school and bullying at university. Studies among children (e.g. Salmivalli et al., 1998) and adolescents (e.g. Kumpulainen et al., 1999; Sourander et al., 2000) indicate moderate to strong relationships between being nominated by peers as a bully or a victim at different time points, suggesting stability of roles (Isaacs et al., 2008).

For example, the 2008Finnish Student Health Survey (Pörhölä, 2011) revealed that 51 per cent of those individuals who had bullied their fellow students during their higher education studies had also bullied their schoolmates at school, while 47 per cent of those who had been victimized during their higher education had previously been subjected to school bullying. Similar findings were later reported by Lappalainenet al. (2011) based on their study among 2,805 students in one Finnish university. This continuum from school to university was especially prevalent among men in the study.

Bauman and Newman (in press) found similar patterns in a sample of 709 university students (25 per cent male) in the US, 3.7 per centof whom indicated that they had been bullied at the university at least occasionally. Of those who were victimized at university, 84.6 per cent indicated that had been bullied in junior high school, and 80.8 per cent had been victims in high school; 73 per cent of university victims were bullied in both junior and high school. Examining those patterns by gender, 64.7 per cent of females victimized at university were victimized in both junior and senior high; 100 per cent of males victimized at university reported being bullied at both previous school levels.

Similarly, in a retrospective study in the US, Chapell et al. (2006) found a positive relationship between being a child and adult bully and between being an adolescent and adult bully. In this study, it was found that 54 per cent of the adult bully participants had also bullied during childhood and adolescence. In Canada, Curwen et al. (2011) surveyed 159 female and 37 male undergraduates who admitted to having bullied a fellow student at least once since coming to university. The survey revealed that most of those who were bullies at university had a history of bullying at school. The bullies tended to target victims who were passive and less likely to retaliate. As the researchers speculate, the fact that many of these young adults had stable bullying characteristics suggests that there are strong benefits to them arising from this kind of behaviour. Furthermore, victims may remain silent through embarrassment and bystanders may reinforce the aggressive behaviour by remaining detached from the target, just as they did at school.

Cyberbullying amongst university students

The preliminary findings of the 2012 national Student Health Survey in Finland (involving around 4,000 students in Higher Education) suggest that approximately one per cent of university students are cyberbullied at least occasionally (Pörhölä, 2012).In Portugal, Almeida et al. (2012) surveyed 311 university students (32.1 per cent male; mean age 23.3 years). With regard to cyberbullying by mobile phone, 89.6 per cent reported that it never happened, 7,5 per cent reported as victims, two per cent as perpetrators and one per cent as bully-victims. Similarly, in the context of cyberbullying on the internet, 91.1 per centhad no episodes to report, 4.6 per cent were victims, 2.3 per cent were bullies and two per cent were bully-victims.

There is also a growing body of evidence to indicate a substantial overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Cyberbulliesoften target peers who are already being bullied in traditional, face-to-face ways (Dooley et al., 2009; Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009; Perren et al., 2010; Riebel et al., 2009; Sourander et al., 2010).As is the case with traditional bullying, according to Willard (2006), the reported reasons for attacking a person online involve the bullies’ need for power and dominance within a group, the perceived vulnerability of the target, perceived provocativeness on the part of the target (usually as a justification for the aggression on the part of the bully) and interpersonal animosities.

High status/high profile university students in the US (e.g., athletes, student government officers) are often targeted by cyberbullies (Baldasare et al., 2012). In addition, students who are involved in sororities and fraternities (known as “Greek life” in the US) are disproportionately represented among cyberbullies and victims (Bauman et al., under review). Those who belonged to “Greek life” organizations were more frequent victims of humiliation and malice than non-members, and perpetrated acts of public humiliation more often as well. They reported significantly more distress from cyberbullying experiences and also indicated that more of the experiences occurred via Facebook than other groups.

Sexual orientation is also a factorthat increases risk for vicitimization. In Australia, Wensley and Campbell (2012) examined heterosexual and nonheterosexual university students' involvement in both traditional and cyber forms of bullying, as either bullies or victims. 528 first-year university students (M=19.52 years old) were surveyed about their sexual orientation and their bullying experiences over the previous 12 months. The results showed that nonheterosexual young people reported higher levels of involvement in traditional bullying, both as victims and perpetrators, in comparison to heterosexual students. In contrast, cyberbullying trends were generally found to be similar for heterosexual and nonheterosexual young people. Bauman et al. (under review) surveyed 1,114 students (47 per cent male, 52 per cent White) at a large university in the southwestern US. Almost eight per cent of participants self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). The LGBT students were victimized by unwanted online contact more often than their straight peers, but there was no difference between the two groups on the degree of distress experienced from this type of victimization. The LGBT students also used deception online more frequently than their heterosexual peers, and received more anonymous cyberbullying than heterosexual students.

Hoff and Mitchell (2008) invited undergraduates to reflect retrospectively on the causes of cyberbullying in their experience while at school. The main reasons reported were relationship difficulties, such as the break-up of a friendship or romance, envy of a peer’s success, intolerance of certain groups on the grounds of ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or disability, and ganging up on one individual. This is confirmed at university level in a study by Bennett et al. (2011) who found evidence of hostility, humiliation, exclusion and intrusiveness by means of electronic victimization in friendship and dating relationships.

Being a victim of cyberbullying emerges as an additional risk factor for the development of depressive symptoms in adolescents (Perren et al, 2010; Sourander et al. 2010), and this is confirmed in studies at university level. For example, Schenk and Fremouw (2012) found that college student victims of cyberbullying scored higher than matched controls on measures of depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety and paranoia. Similarly, in a sample of Portuguese undergraduates, Texeira et al. (2010) investigated the relationships amongst depression and anxiety and four dimensions of aggressiveness – physical aggression, verbal aggression, rage and hostility – in the context of cyberbullying through mobile phones and the internet. For cyberbullying by mobile phone, there were positive correlations between the depression and anxiety measures and all four dimensions of aggressiveness. For cyberbullying by internet, there were positive correlations with physical and verbal aggression and hostility.

The social context of bullying and cyberbullying

Much research focuses on the individual aspects of bullying by exploring the characteristics of perpetrators and targets, so overlooking the powerful influence of its social context, such as membership in a university sorority or fraternity. While an understanding of the personal aspects of the bully-victim relationship is important, it only addresses part of the issue. Bullying involves more than the individuals directly involved since it is experienced within a group of peers who adopt a range of participant roles, whether as active agents, targets, bystanders or defenders, and who experience a range of emotions. Salmivalli et al. (1996) proposed a participant role approach to the study of traditional bullying(see also Salmivalli, 2010 for a recent review of the participant role approach). They argued that perpetrators seldom act alone but are usually supported by their immediate group of assistants and reinforcers. The bullying escalates further as a result of the responses of the bystanders as outsiders, whether they react with indifference to the plight of the victim or implicitly condone what is happening. Only a small proportion of bystanders will act in the role of defenders who offer emotional support or protection to the victims.

The social context of the institution is also important in influencing the expression of empathy for the victims. Myers and Cowie (in submission) carried out a qualitative role-play study of cyberbullying amongst Master’s students (N=60) in which they found that bystanders tended to blame the victim and were reluctant to intervene, cybervictims felt let down and marginalized by their peers’ indifference and hostility, while cyberbullies failed to acknowledge or understand the consequences of their actions.

Research with school-age students may offer insights into the relationship difficulties that bullying exacerbates. For example, Pörhölä (2008) found that in a sample of 872 7th and 8th graders the experiences of bullying others and being victimized by school peers were both related to peer integration problems. Victimized students reported the most peer relationship problems such as having fewer or no close friends, feeling not valued and being actively disliked by peers, having only few contacts with classmates, being unsuccessful in the establishment of peer relationships, and being afraid of peers. Victims were followed by bully-victims, and finally by those who bullied, with each group reporting a decreased association with negative outcomes. Adolescents not involved in bullying – the bystanders - reported the highest quality in their peer relationships and level of peer community integration. Bystanders have the potential to play a key role in intervening to prevent bullying behaviour but there are often powerful social forces that counteract altruism.

Salmivalli (2010, p. 117) proposed that bystanders are ‘trapped in a social dilemma’. Although they understand that bullying is wrong and may even wish that they could do something to stop it, they are acutely aware of their own needs for security and safety within the peer group. Unfortunately, through their inaction, bystanders not only reinforce the bullying behaviour but also threaten the victim’s need to belong in the peer group. Many victims lack the social skills to protect themselves. Their feelings of low self-esteem and shame signal to others that they are worthless individuals who somehow deserve the treatment that they receive (Escobar et al., 2011).

The principles of the participant role approach apply equally to the study of cyberbullying. For example, Myers and Cowie (in submission) found that university student bystanders reported shame at their inaction. Their reluctance to intervene may be due to their understanding of the risks that may ensue if they offer protection to victims and the pressure that they are under to conform to group norms. Just as at school, altruistic university students who spontaneously act in defence of cybervictims remain a minority and are easily overruled by the majority.

Implications for institutions

Policies

In most universities, specific policies on cyberbullying are often lacking. For example, from a legal perspective in the UK, legislation applies to stalking, defamation and harassment but, to date,cyberbullying per se is not recognized as a crime. This makes it difficult for students to know the university’s position. Despite the university’s ‘duty of care’, 70 per cent of students in the NUS survey (2008) did not report cyberbullying to anyone; many did not know of any person whom they could inform. 62 per cent reported that the university provided inadequate or no support when they did inform someone. This suggests that staff need training on the dynamics of this problem and potential strategies for managing incidents.There are important implications for university policies on student well-being. Punitive methods tend on the whole not to be effective in reducing cyberbullying. In fact, as Shariff and Strong-Wilson (2005) found, zero-tolerance approaches are more likely to criminalize young people and add a burden to the criminal justice system. Restorative approaches such as mediation, conciliation and awareness-raising have great potential for reducing the incidence of cyberbullying.

The university counselling service has a crucial role to play here. It is imperative that personnel at university counselling centres be aware of the seriousness of cyberbullying, and that they take care not to trivialize the concerns of victims. Screening for symptoms of depression and anxiety should be routinely undertaken in these cases, and in very severe situations, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should not be ruled out. Counsellors should be familiar enough with technology to be able to recommend technological strategies (e.g., blocking, reporting) that could be helpful to clients. They also need to be familiar with the law, and know when to inform victims about legal options.Finally, they need to be well-versed in university policies and serve as advocates for effective and accessible mechanisms by which those victimized by cyberbullying can make reports.

Training

For those universities that have student halls of residence, those responsible for handling student issues should be given training on how to intervene when incidents come to their attention, as complaints are more often directed to them than university disciplinary authorities. The counselling services could take on the task of providing education and awareness-raising so that staff know how to respond when they work with students on this issue. Counsellors could also use their therapeutic skills to facilitate change within particular groups of students and so have an impact on bystander apathy. University officials should consider alternatives to punishment, including counselling for all involved parties. Pörhöläand Kunttu (in submission) suggest that, in order to prevent bullying problems and to improve students’ integration into their studying communities, higher education institutes should offer sufficient opportunities for guided training of communication skills. The focus of the communication courses should be shifted to relationship skills, group communication skills and the ethics of communication. We could argue that these skills are needed also in technologically-mediated communication contexts.