An Analysis of Students' Perspectives on Cyberbullying Interventions

Background and Purpose: Rapidly evolving technology is creating amazing opportunities for young people to learn, create, and communicate; with it comes challenges. The proliferation of smart technology intensifies the need for effective interventions to address cyberbullying. There is a lack of research on the salient features and efficacy of interventions. The common strategy of adapting existing bullying interventions is not typically effective for cyberbullying, despite indications that bullying and cyberbullying may be intertwined. Further, few discussions of interventions incorporate the perspectives of young people. This paper discusses a mixed methods study of students’ experiences and conceptions of interventions addressing bullying and/or cyberbullying.

Methods: This analysis considers data from a three year, mixed methods study on cyberbullying. Participants in grades 4, 7, and 10 (n=423) were selected via stratified random sampling of 19 schools in one of the largest school districts in North America. Schools were stratified into three categories of external challenges to student achievement.

Quantitative: A multiple logistic regression analysis examined the probability of experiencing cyberbullying using the predictive variables: number of hours a day online, do parents limit online time, how long can you be online, victim of traditional bullying, age and gender. 

Qualitative: A sub-set of participants were interviewed in years one (n=60) and three (n=31). Qualitative content analysis (QCA) was used to focus on students’ experiences of existing intervention programs. Materials were analyzed using QCA principles.

Results: Quantitative: Multivariate analysis of quantitative data indicated that ongoing monitoring by parents of student online use is a significant predictor of experiencing cyberbullying. The amount of time students believe that parents allow them to be online ( Wald=5.854, p=0.016, CI = 95%, 1.045–1.522) was predictive while the actual time spent online was not. 

Qualitative: Interventions typically comprised assemblies and/or professional presenters (police, social workers), as school-wide events or classroom-based discussions. Generally, students did not consider school-based interventions and specific activities (listening to presentations, watching videos, making posters) helpful. Students found presentations/activities “uninteresting,” “unengaging,” and “repetitive”.  For many students the most detailed and helpful information they received was from the study’s quantitative data collection visits. Several mentioned that scare tactics were not useful, nor were recommendations such as telling an adult or ignoring bullying/cyberbullying, which students are unlikely to implement. Most programs merged bullying and cyberbullying either formally and/or informally. While many students could see how such interventions might be helpful (particularly for victims), most did not find interventions beneficial for themselves or peers.  Participants made numerous suggestions for future interventions. 

Conclusions and Implications: Ongoing, engaging and contextually relevant interventions for the contemporary ICT context must be developed and rigorously evaluated. Students identified that interventions should not be single events. Additionally the helpfulness of the information provided by research assistants indicates how social work research may itself function as an effective intervention strategy. Student perception of parental monitoring as predictive of being cyberbullied, underscores the importance of maintaining such strategies in the face of overwhelming advancements in communication. Suggestions for future cyberbullying interventions and research initiatives will be discussed.