cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization

Textbook Chapter 9: Cyberbullying, Online Harassment and Cyber Stalking.

1. To what area(s) of which chapter does the work most closely relate?

2. What does(do) the author(s) set forth as their thesis in the piece?

3. What subjects does the work regard: people, entities, industries, political bodies, demographic groups, etc.?

4. What journal was it published in, and when?

5. **Key** How can you apply their work to your academic and professional understanding of DF?

6. What did the author(s) get right? Wrong? How could they have expanded/focused their scope?

· No Plagiarism 

· Should be 400 words without References.

cyberbullying: an exploratory
analysis of factors related to
offending and victimization

Sameer Hinduja
Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter,
Florida, USA

Justin W. Patchin
University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire,
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA

Victimization on the Internet through what has
been termed cyberbullying has attracted increased
attention from scholars and practitioners. Defined
as ‘‘willful and repeated harm inflicted through the
medium of electronic text’’ (Patchin and Hinduja
2006:152), this negative experience not only
undermines a youth’s freedom to use and explore
valuable on-line resources, but also can result in
severe functional and physical ramifications.
Research involving the specific phenomenon—as
well as Internet harassment in general—is still in its
infancy, and the current work seeks to serve as a
foundational piece in understanding its substance
and salience. On-line survey data from 1,378
adolescent Internet-users are analyzed for the

Received 3 August 2006; accepted 16 April 2007.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2005 meetings of the Academy of

Criminal Justice Sciences in Chicago, IL. This study was supported by funding from the
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Faculty=Student Research Collaboration Differential
Tuition Grants Program and a Florida Atlantic University Division of Research and Graduate
Studies summer research stipend. The authors thank the Editor and anonymous reviewers
for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Address correspondence to Sameer Hinduja, Assistant Professor, Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter,
FL 33458-2906, USA. E-mail: hinduja@fau.edu

Deviant Behavior, 29:

129

!156, 2008
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print/1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/0163962070

145

781

6

129

purposes of identifying characteristics of typical
cyberbullying victims and offenders. Although
gender and race did not significantly differentiate
respondent victimization or offending, computer
proficiency and time spent on-line were positively
related to both cyberbullying victimization and
offending. Additionally, cyberbullying experiences
were also linked to respondents who reported
school problems (including traditional bullying),
assaultive behavior, and substance use.
Implications for addressing this novel form of
youthful deviance are discussed.

I was talking to 2 girls who used to be my friends. Then (they

)

went on a chat I was also talking on and started saying
horrible things about me. They used my screen name and
everything. They even told one of my guy friends that I liked
him since the day we met and he stopped talking to me. I was
both depressed and angry. I wanted to die. I wanted to
leave everything behind. I blocked them and signed off the
Internet.1

—13-year-old girl from West Virginia

INTRODUCTION

Adolescents at the turn of the twenty-first century are being
raised in an Internet-enabled world where blogs, social net-
working, and instant messaging are competing with face-to-
face and telephone communication as the dominant means
and methods through which personal interaction takes place.
Apart from the obvious benefits of information at one’s fin-
gertips, entertainment value, and speed of correspondence,
participation on-line has valuable utility in teaching youth
various social and emotional skills that are essential to suc-
cessfully navigating life. For example, cyberspace provides
a venue to learn and refine the ability to exercise self-control,
to relate with tolerance and respect to others’ viewpoints,
to express sentiments in a healthy and normative manner,
and to engage in critical thinking and decision making
(Berson 2000). These skills, however, cannot be effectively

1Some of the quotes used in the article have been edited for spelling and distracting
grammatical errors. The substance of the quotes, however, has not changed.

130 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

internalized if the learning environment is unwelcoming or
inhospitable to those who venture on-line. Indeed, if adoles-
cents are uncomfortable or unwilling to explore the Internet
and take advantage of all of its positive attributes, they will
be sorely lacking in certain developmental qualities that
others who do embrace cyberspace will naturally obtain.
Although the vast majority of youth have quickly acquired
a proclivity for computers and the Internet (NTIA, 2002), a
small but growing proportion of kids are being exposed
to interpersonal violence, aggression, mistreatment, and har-
assment—not indirectly by way of news reports or informa-
tional articles, but directly through what has been termed
cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying has been succinctly defined as ‘‘willful and
repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic
text’’ (Patchin and Hinduja 2006:152). The primary means
through which it can occur include the Internet-enabled per-
sonal computer and cellular phone. Via both, an offender
can send hurtful and denigrating messages and content to a
victim, to third parties, or to a public forum or environment
that many other on-line users visit. It has been observed
that ‘‘(s)ocial change always provides opportunities for the
predatory behavior that is characteristic of a small number
of people. With the new technologies which support the
Internet, those who cannot adjust rapidly, and that is all of
us, are at risk from those who can and will deploy tech-
nology as a criminal weapon’’ (Butterfield and Broad
2002:1). Cyberbullying is the unfortunate by-product of the
union of adolescent aggression and electronic communi-
cation, and its growth is giving cause for concern.

The goal of the current research is to provide a founda-
tional piece for the knowledge base associated with
aggression and violence on the Internet by analyzing on-line
survey data from approximately 1,400 adolescents in order
to identify factors associated with cyberbullying victimiza-
tion and offending. These preliminary portraits will inform
both children and adults in supervisory roles of the demo-
graphic, situational, and behavioral variables that increase
one’s risk of belonging to either group. Accordingly, atten-
tion can be directed to these areas, and strategies can be
devised to reduce the contributive impact of those elements
amenable to isolation and response. Future research can

Cyberbullying 131

then build on the groundwork laid in this study; specific
directions to pursue will be discussed in detail.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although computer-mediated communication has been stud-
ied extensively in a variety of fields, victimization through
threats of violence on-line is a relatively new area of research
that is only recently becoming further explored (Berson, Berson,
and Ferron, 2002; Finn and Banach 2000; Finn 2004;
Kennedy 2000; Lamberg 2002; Patchin and Hinduja 2006;
Spitzberg 2002; Ybarra and Mitchell 2004). The specific
impact of bullying2 on young people has been studied at
great length in a variety of academic disciplines (see, e.g.,
Borg 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantenen, and Rimpela
2000; Nishina, Juvonen, and Witkow 2005; Oliver, Hoover,
and Hazler 1994; Olweus 1978, 1991; Patchin 2002; Tattum
and Lane 1989) but bullying that takes place via electronic
means has been largely neglected3—perhaps because of
the unique environment in which it occurs, or the
specific nonphysical manner in which it is typically perpetrated.

There is no shortage of potential offenders or victims of
cyberbullying because of the widespread availability of com-
puters and the Internet in the developed world. Nonetheless,
it has been difficult to observe and study the phenomenon
due to its intangible, non-corporeal nature—much like many
other forms of cyberdeviance. According to a 2005 survey by
the National Children’s Home charity and Tesco Mobile of
770 youth between the ages of 11 and 19, 20% of respon-
dents revealed that they had been bullied via electronic
means. Almost three-fourths (73%) stated that they knew
the bully, whereas 26% stated that the offender was a stran-
ger. Another interesting finding was that 10% indicated that
another person had taken a picture of them via a cellular
phone camera, consequently making them feel uncomfort-
able, embarrassed, or threatened. Many youth are not

2Nansel et al. (2001) define bullying as aggressive behavior or intentional ‘‘harm doing’’
by one person or a group, generally carried out repeatedly and over time, and that involves
a power differential.

3Exceptions include Berson, Berson, and Ferron (2002), Hinduja and Patchin (2007);
Li (2006), Patchin and Hinduja (2006), and Ybarra and Mitchell (2004).

132 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

comfortable telling an authority figure about their cyber-
bullying victimization; whereas 24% and 14% told a parent
or teacher, respectively, 28% did not tell anyone whereas
41% told a friend (National Children’s Home 2005). Of those
respondents who kept the incident to themselves, the reasons
given were because: it was not a problem (31%); there was
no one they wanted to tell (12%); they did not think it would
stop the bullying (11%); or they did not know where to
go for help (10%).4 Interestingly, many in this same popu-
lation indicated that speaking to a bullying expert (23%) or
a school staff member (15%) would have made a difference,
whereas 13% thought they would be helped by knowing of a
website that gave advice on dealing with bullies (National
Children’s Home 2005).

Another study of on-line aggression and victimization
conducted between Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 analyzed
data from telephone surveys of 1,498 regular Internet users
between the ages of 10 and 17, along with their parents
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2004). Offending was operationalized
as ‘‘making rude or nasty comments to someone on the Inter-
net’’ and ‘‘using the Internet to harass or embarrass someone
with whom the youth was mad’’ (Ybarra and Mitchell
2004:1310). Victimization was operationalized as ‘‘whether
anyone had used the Internet in the previous year to threaten
or embarrass the respondent by posting or sending messages
about him or her for other people to see’’ and ‘‘whether the
respondent ever felt worried or threatened because someone
was bothering or harassing him or her while online’’ (Ybarra
and Mitchell 2004:1310). Both of these variables were
dichotomized.

Researchers found that 19% of youth respondents were
either on the giving or receiving end of on-line aggression
in the previous year. The vast majority of offenders
(84%) knew their victim in person, whereas only 31% of
victims knew their harasser in person. This fact is noteworthy;
it appears that power and dominance are exerted on-line
through the ability to keep the offender’s identity unknown
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2004). When comparing those who were
only aggressors to those who had no involvement in on-line

4To note, the reasons for nonreporting mirror those found among populations of child
abuse victims (Berlinger and Barbieri 1984; Swanson and Biaggio 1985).

Cyberbullying 133

harassment, the former were significantly more likely to be the
target of off-line bullying,5 to display problematic behavior,6

to have low school commitment, and to engage in alcohol
and cigarette use. When comparing those who had experience
being both an offender and a victim with those who had no
involvement in on-line harassment, the significant differences
were the same as already mentioned—with the exception of
low school involvement. It is interesting to note that real-world
variables that play a contributive role in traditional forms of
delinquency and crime—such as general deviance, low
commitment to prosocial institutions such as school, and sub-
stance abuse—also are significantly related to bullying on the
Internet.

ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CYBERVIOLENCE

The nuances of electronic communication are important to
discuss in order to demonstrate why the phenomenon of
cyberbullying deserves attention. To begin, the elements
of perceived anonymity on-line, and the safety and security
of being behind a computer screen, aid in freeing individuals
from traditionally constraining pressures of society, con-
science, morality, and ethics to behave in a normative
manner. The use of pseudonyms or pseudonymous e-mail
or user accounts also makes it difficult for victims to easily
determine the identity of offenders, and also presumably
contributes to the freedom an offender has on the Internet.
Moreover, it is generally not illegal to use textual communi-
cation to mistreat, harass, or tease others because of First
Amendment protections (except for cases that can be specifi-
cally defined as ‘‘cyberstalking’’7). At some point the beha-
vior may cross the legal line into ‘‘harassment,’’ although
it is often difficult for law enforcement to get involved in

5This was defined as ‘‘being hit or picked on by another child during the previous year’’
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2004:1310).

6These included purposefully damaging property, police contact, physically assaulting a
non-family member, and taking something that did not belong to the respondent within the
previous year (Ybarra and Mitchell 2004:1310).

7According to the U.S. Department of Justice, cyberstalking can be defined as ‘‘the use
of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person’’
(Reno 1999). Generally speaking, most stalking laws involve direct or indirect threats
against the victim or his or her immediate family.

134 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

cyberbullying cases unless there is a serious and substantial
threat to one’s personal safety.

Adolescents, it seems, are equating legal behavior with
ethical behavior on-line, and consequently feel unrestrained
within a ‘‘culture of deception’’ to engage in on-line harass-
ment (Berson et al. 2002:66). In addition, malicious words
and statements that an individual might be ashamed or
embarrassed to use in a face-to-face setting are no longer
off-limits or even tempered when that person is positioned
behind a keyboard in a physically distant location from the
victim. Anecdotal accounts from victims studied in comple-
menting research by the current authors point to extreme
viciousness and unconscionable textual violence expressed
by cyberbullies who try to be anonymous. For example, a
17-year-old girl from Washington reported: ‘‘The last time I
was bullied online was when I got an email from some
anonymous person who said they went to my school, telling
me that I was going to go to hell for dating girls. I have no
idea who the messager [sic] was.’’ A 15-year-old girl from
New Jersey admitted to engaging in cyberbullying: ‘‘I didn’t
like this girl, so I said something to her and left nasty mes-
sages in her online journal signed ‘anonymous’ saying
‘you’re such a little slut’ and things like that.’’ A 14-year-
old girl from an undisclosed location in the United States
acknowledged the anonymous, yet harmful nature of these
on-line interactions: ‘‘Just because you say it doesn’t hurt
you because they are online, it does. They call you names
because everyone online is anonymous. So they think they
can do whatever they want to you. But honestly it annoys
me that everyone thinks they can do whatever they want
because you don’t know who they are.’’

Notwithstanding the aforementioned attributes of elec-
tronic communication, regulatory bodies that meticulously
monitor and supervise communication between individuals
on-line are lacking. Although a few chat rooms associated
with certain Internet Service Providers have hosts in public
settings employed for those purposes, no supervision occurs
when dialogue is initiated privately, or one-on-one between
participants. Regardless, through either private exchanges
(such as instant messages or personal e-mails), or public
exchanges (in chat rooms, on Web-based message boards
or newsgroups, or through the creation of malicious websites)

Cyberbullying 135

youth are being bullied in ways that could be negatively
affecting their physical, social, emotional, and cognitive
functioning, development, and well-being.

In addition, it is known that youth who are harassed,
mistreated, and intimidated by others in traditional settings
such as the school lunchroom, the playground, the hallway,
at the bus stop, or on the bus are generally able to escape
continued victimization once their school day is over.
Retreat into personal and protected environments such as
the confines of one’s home provides a respite for targets of
bullying, and perhaps allows those victims to be recharged
and encouraged by loved ones before venturing out again
into a potentially hostile world. Aggressors who are stymied
from carrying out their maliciousness by temporal, physical,
and geographic restrictions may become frustrated, and may
decrease the intensity and frequency of their actions in time.
However, technological advances now provide bullies with
the ability to marshal the power of on-line applications to
infiltrate the home of victims by contacting them through
electronic means. Cyberbullying, then, greatly expands the
reach and augments the intensity of interpersonal harm that
occurs among this population.

NECESSITY FOR FORMAL INQUIRY

Why does cyberbullying warrant attention and inquiry
by researchers? A vast number of negative ramifications
have been linked to traditional bullying victimization. For
example, school problems such as tardiness and truancy
(BBCNews 2001; Ericson 2001; Forero, McLellan, Rissel,
and Bauman 1999; Richardson 2003; Rigby and Slee
1999), suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and chronic illness
(Borg 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen, Rimpelä,
and Rantanen 1999; Rigby 2003; Roland 2002; Striegel-Moore,
Dohm, Pike, Wilfley, and Fairburn 2002), and depression
(Hawker and Boulton 2000; Magnusson, Statten, and Duner
1983; Olweus 1994; Roland 2002; Seale, Polakowski, and
Schneider 1998) all underscore the nontrivial impact that
the phenomenon can have on one’s developmental
trajectory, as well as one’s psychosocial well-being. In
extreme cases, victims of bullying have engaged in
extreme violence toward themselves or other individuals

136 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

(Patchin 2002; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, and
Modzeleski 2002), which speaks to a serious threat to one’s
physical well-being. Bullies do not escape the negative con-
sequences of their own behavior; long-term outcomes for the
offending population have included participation in more
serious delinquency and substance abuse (Ericson 2001;
Loeber and Disheon 1984; Magnusson et al. 1983; Olweus,
Limber, and Mihalic 1999; Rigby 2003; Tattum 1989). Many
of these predictors—school problems, interpersonal violence,
and substance use—are assessed in the current work so that
a more relevant sketch of typical cyberbullying offenders and
victims can be created. We turn now to a discussion of the
methods employed in the data collection phase and the
statistical analyses that followed.

METHOD

In this exploratory study, an on-line survey methodology was
utilized to collect data from over 6,800 respondents during
December 22, 2004 and January 22, 2005 about their
experiences with electronic bullying (as a victim, offender,
and witness).8 The primary benefit in utilizing such a format
concerns the ability to reach a wide number of participants
at an economical cost. The subject matter itself was appro-
priate for this methodology, as it concerns a global phenom-
enon that occurs exclusively on-line. Because there does not
exist a sampling frame with contact information of possible
cyberbullying offenders and victims, the best way to
seemingly reach such a population was to select a number
of Internet sites whose visitors possessed demographic
characteristics similar to the study’s target population. As
such, the survey instrument was linked to several websites
that targeted adolescents.9 Despite this strategy, approxi-
mately 43% (n ” 2,978) of the total number of respondents
were older than 17 years of age and therefore excluded from
the current analysis. In addition, efforts were made to target

8For brevity, much of the specific details of the on-line methodology employed have
been removed. For more information about how the data were collected, please contact
the first author.

9Seven websites agreed to link to our survey, and included three on-line gaming sites,
three musical artist homepages, and a Harry Potter site.

Cyberbullying 137

both adolescent boys and girls, yet the vast majority of
respondents (82%) were female.10 The differential response
among gender may reflect a response bias, may characterize
the distribution of cyberbullying across youth, or may reflect
the greater impact that cyberbullying has on young women
and their corresponding concern with the behavior. Future
research is necessary to determine the extent to which this
bias is substantively meaningful. To limit any partialities that
may arise from the disproportionate number of female
respondents, a random number of girls was drawn from
the sample that was approximately equal to the number
of male respondents under the age of 18 (male ” 680,
female ” 698).11 This approach, although not ideal, resulted
in a final sample of 1,378 youth respondents that were
relatively equal in terms of gender.

MEASURES

Dependent Variables

Four cyberbullying measures were employed as dependent
variables in the current work. First, two general cyberbully-
ing measures (one for victimization and one for offending)
were used, and encompass all forms of cyberbullying.
Specifically, youth were asked ‘‘Have you ever been bullied
online?’’ (general cyberbullying victimization) and ‘‘Have
you ever bullied others while online?’’ (general cyberbullying
offending). Immediately before these questions, respondents
were informed that: ‘‘Online bullying can include: bothering
someone online, teasing in a mean way, calling someone
hurtful names, intentionally leaving persons out of things,
threatening someone, and saying unwanted sexually-related
things to someone.’’ In addition, two serious cyberbul-
lying measures were used in an effort to understand the
factors related to the most debasing forms of cyberviolence.

10Although there is no consistent finding in the literature base, some research involving
self-reported delinquent behavior has indicated that girls are more likely to respond to Web
surveys than boys (McCabe, Boyd, Couper, Crawford, and D’Arcy 2002). To be sure, more
inquiry is necessary regarding gender differences in response rates for Web-based surveys of
deviance.

11As expected, there were no statistically significant differences between those female
youth who were included and those who were excluded from analysis.

138 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

Respondents were asked if they ever: ‘‘were threatened’’ or
‘‘scared for their safety because of something someone said
to them’’ (serious cyberbullying victimization) and if they ever
‘‘threatened someone with physical harm’’ or ‘‘made other
kids scared of them’’ on-line (serious cyberbullying offend-
ing).12 All dependent measures were binary coded where 1
equaled experience with the behavior and 0 equaled no
experience with the behavior.

Independent Variables

Consistent with previous youth violence research, a number
of individual-level variables were included in the models
both to assess the relationship between demographic charac-
teristics and cyberbullying and to include as controls in mul-
tivariate models. Studies of traditional bullying have found
that boys are more commonly involved in physical bullying
while girls are involved in relational or covert forms of
bullying (Olweus et al. 1991; Seals and Young 2003). Tradi-
tional bullying research, though, has found mixed results
regarding the impact of race and ethnicity (Devoe et al.
2002; Seals and Young 2003). Two dichotomous variables
were included in the models as measures of gender and race.
Gender was dichotomized into male respondents and female
respondents (1 ” male; 0 ” female); race was dichotomized
into white and non-white (1 ” white; 0 ” multiracial and
all other races).

Previous research has noted that on-line bullies tend to be
in high school rather than in middle school (Ybarra and
Mitchell 2004), a finding contrary to the age of youth
commonly involved in traditional bullying (Nansel et al.
2001).13 As such, age was included in the models and
represented the youth’s age in years. Two additional variables
were included to represent the respondent’s level of computer
proficiency. Previous research has found that offenders (both

12It is possible that the other acts of relational aggression may be very detrimental,
especially if they occur with frequency. For the purposes of this analyses, though, we have
chosen to label as ‘‘serious’’ those acts that appear to evoke a greater level of personal fear
among respondents—threatening physical harm and making others scared for their safety.

13An exception to this is found in Rigby (2003) and the phenomenon of ‘‘relational
bullying,’’ which is more common among older students than younger and involves damage
done to the victim’s relationship with peers.

Cyberbullying 139

those who have only offended, as well as those who have been
an offender and a victim) tend to use the Internet significantly
more frequently and with more proficiency than individuals
who only have been victimized (Berson et al. 2002; Ybarra
and Mitchell 2004). Youth were asked how many hours per
week they are actively on-line and in how many of 13 different
on-line activities14 they participate.

Furthermore, youth were asked about several offline
behavioral problems that have been associated with tra-
ditional bullying but may or may not be linked to on-line
bullying. First, respondents were asked if they had skipped
school, cheated on an exam, or been sent home from school
for bad behavior in the previous six months (school pro-
blems) (Ericson 2001; Rigby and Slee 1999). Second,
respondents were asked if they got into a fight with other
kids (assault peer) (Vossekuil et al. 2002) or consumed
liquor or smoked marijuana (substance use) (Olweus 1999;
Rigby 2003) in the previous six months. Finally, respondents
were asked about their experiences with traditional bullying;
specifically, if they had been a victim of bullying in real
life (off-line victim) or bullied others in real life (off-line
offender) in the previous six months. All of the off-line
behavior variables were binary coded where 1 equaled
experience with the behavior and 0 equaled no experience
with the behavior.

ANALYSIS

The goal of the research is to determine which factors are
related to involvement in, or experience with, cyberbullying.
First, descriptive statistics will be presented to better under-
stand the nature of the sample under consideration. Second,
the location of cyberbullying experiences will be explored in
order to determine what on-line environment is most con-
ducive to bullying. Third, a series of bivariate logistic
regression models will be computed to individually assess

14On-line activities included: e-mail or chat=IRC; research for school work; file transfer;
using the newsgroups; product and travel information; on-line shopping; on-line auctions;
on-line games; on-line stock trading; on-line banking; to collect information related to
news, sports, or the weather; to collect information related to personal interests and
hobbies; and Web design.

140 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

the impact of the predictor variables on all forms of cyber-
bullying. Finally, several multiple logistic regression models
will be computed for the purposes of examining the net
effect of the adolescent problem behaviors (controlling for
gender, race, and age) on serious cyberbullying. Logistic
regression is the ideal technique for attempting to identify
a profile of cyberbullying because it estimates the odds
of being a victim or offender based on the independent
variables being considered.

FINDINGS

Descriptive Statistics

Our sample consisted of 1,378 respondents under the age
of 18 distributed approximately evenly across gender. The
vast majority were Caucasian or white (80%) and from the
United States (74.6%), and the average age of respondents
was 14.8. It is also clear from this study that youth are
computer literate, spending an average of 18 hours per week
on-line and engaging in over five different on-line activities.
Table 1 presents data regarding the respondent’s experiences
with cyberbullying victimization and offending. For
example, over 32% of boys and over 36% of girls have been
victims of cyberbullying, whereas about 18% of boys and
16% of girls reported harassing others while on-line. This
was illustrated in some of the open-ended feedback we

TABLE 1 General Cyberbullying Victimization and Offending
by Location (%)

Victimization Offending

Male
n ” 680

Female
n ” 698

Male
n ” 680
Female
n ” 698

Any location 32.7 36.4 18.0 15.6
In a chat room 23.8 24.2 9.6 7.3
By computer text message 17.9 19.8 7.5 7.3
By e-mail 9.7 13.0 2.9 3.4
On a bulletin board 8.7 6.6 3.4 2.4
By cell phone text message 4.0 4.7 1.8 1.6
In a newsgroup 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.1

Cyberbullying 141

received; a 14-year-old boy from Canada declared: ‘‘Some-
one sent me numerous emails with like two words in the
email like ‘you’re gay’ ‘you’re dumb’ and that kind of stuff.
When I am bullied (which is infrequently) I am called homo-
sexual or gay so I’m used to it but it still hurts.’’ Similarly, an
11-year-old girl from California stated ‘‘Kristina, a friend
from school, said in an e-mail ‘tomorrow—watch your
back—we are coming for you.’ It made me feel so bad
I started to cry. Nobody likes me.’’ These responses underscore
the hurtful nature of cyberbullying victimization.

Interestingly, there was no statistically significant differ-
ence between boys and girls in terms of their experiences
with cyberbullying either as an offender or victim. This is
contrary to traditional schoolyard bullying (especially physi-
cal bullying), which has largely been a male-dominated
affair. The Internet may be the ideal environment in which
the more covert forms of bullying commonly employed by
girls are effectuated. Youth were most commonly victimized
in a chat room or via computer text message, while girls
were more likely than boys to report being victimized via
e-mail (13% and 9.7%, respectively). Not surprisingly, the
patterns in locations of offending are very similar to victimi-
zation, with the two most common environments being chat
rooms and computer text messages. By way of example, a
13-year-old girl from an unknown location expressed: ‘‘It
happened on MSN Messenger about a year ago. . . . A girl
threatened to kill me. . . . She said she knew my family and
where I lived. . . . She’d come at 1 o’clock to kill me. . . . Then
logged off . . . I called my mum and told her. She said I should
try to find out who if was, and if it continued we’d call the
police. I sent an email to the girl, telling her I’d call the
police. She replied and said she was sorry and she was only
kidding. In front of her email address, there was her name!
It was a girl in my class.’’ Similarly, a 17-year-old boy from
California reported the following:

I was talking to someone in a chatroom and they started
telling me things. Like was I really that stupid and making
fun of me. I told them privately to please stop and they
wouldn’t. They then told me they were going to harm me
and I was scared because I don’t know how but they knew
where I lived. I am scared sometimes. One time someone

142 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

made me feel so bad that I wanted to kill myself because I
believe those things that they said. My friends calmed me
down and told me not to do anything dumb. I dislike it when
people spread rumors online about you and it has happened
to mostly everyone who chats.

Logistic Regression Analysis

The next stage of analysis sought to identify variables that are
linked (at the bivariate level) to an increased risk of experi-
encing all forms of cyberbullying (Table 2). Notably, there
were no statistically significant differences in offending or
victimization by gender or race. That is, boys and girls and
whites and nonwhites were equally as likely to experience
cyberbullying as an offender or victim. In accordance with
intuition, older youth were more likely to report victimi-
zation (p < .05) and offending (although the increase in offending was not statistically significant). The more time respondents spent on the Internet, and the more computer proficient they were, the more likely they experienced cyber- bullying. Finally, a number of off-line maladaptive behaviors appear to be related to cyberbullying. Respondents who reported recent school problems, assaultive behaviors, or

TABLE 2 Bivariate Logistic Regression: Predictors of General
Cyberbullying

Victimization Offending

Coefficient Exp(B) Coefficient Exp(B)

Male !.162 (.114) 0.851 .170 (.147) 1.185
Age .064# (.035) 1.066 .020 (.044) 1.021
White !.026 (.142) 0.975 !.199 (.178) 0.819
Hours per week on-line .014### (.003) 1.015 .011## (.004) 1.011
Variety of on-line activities .086### (.025) 1.090 .134### (.032) 1.143
School problems .302## (.115) 1.352 .390## (.148) 1.476
Assault peer .490### (.142) 1.632 .347# (.176) 1.414
Substance use .279# (.127) 1.322 .469## (.156) 1.599
Off-line bully offender .763### (.136) 2.145 .954### (.161) 2.595
Off-line bully victim .984### (.121) 2.676 .394## (.151) 1.483

S.E. in parentheses; #p < .05; ##p < .01; ###p < .001.

Cyberbullying 143

substance use were more likely than their counterparts
to experience cyberbullying, both as an offender and victim.
All of these relationships were statistically significant
(p < .05). Additionally, experience with traditional school- yard bullying was related to an increased risk of experiencing cyberbullying. For example, youth who reported bullying others in real life in the previous six months were more than 2.5 times as likely to report bullying others on-line. Similarly, youth who were victims of traditional bullying in the previous 6 months were more than 2.5 times as likely to be victims of cyberbullying. These findings suggest that there are characteristics unique to some individuals that place them at an elevated risk to be victims or offenders in multiple contexts.

Next, several of the off-line problem behaviors were
included in a multivariate model to explain serious cyberbul-
lying victimization (Table 3) and offending (Table 4) while
controlling for the demographic characteristics. While the
initial bivariate results indicated no statistically significant
differences between gender and race on all forms of cyber-
bullying, this stage of the analysis will determine if the rela-
tionships between the off-line problem behaviors and serious
on-line bullying remain while holding them constant. As
expected, almost all of the off-line behavioral problems were
related to a statistically significant increase in the risk of
serious cyberbullying victimization and offending. These
variables, however, did not explain very much of the vari-
ation in cyberbullying. Many of the models explained only
1 or 2% of the variation; the most robust predictors were
experience with off-line bullying as an offender or victim.
For example, off-line bullies are more than five times as likely
to bully on-line as those who do not bully off-line (Model 11).
According to the Nagelkerke R2L, the demographic
controls and experience with off-line bullying explained
about 10% of the variation in cyberbullying offending. In
short, the variables considered in the current study are
relevant correlates of cyberbullying; however, additional
salient variables still exist and need to be explored. Some of
the constructs we hope to explore in future research include
self-esteem and self-efficacy because of their link to psycho-
logical and emotional ill effects among adolescents (Leary
and Downs 1995; Leary, Haupt, Strausser, and Chokel 1998;

144 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

T
A

B
L
E

3
P
re

d
ic

to
rs

o
f

S
e
ri

o
u
s

C
y
b
e
rb

u
ll
y
in

g
V

ic

ti
m

iz
a
ti
o
n

(M

u
lt
iv

a
ri

a
te

L
o
g
is

ti
c

R
e
g
re

ss
io

n
)

M

o
d
e
l

1
M

o
d
e
l

2
M

o
d
e
l

3
M

o
d
e
l

4
M

o
d
e
l

5
M

o
d
e
l
6

C

o
e
ff

.
E
x
p
(B

)
C

o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)

C
o
n
st

a
n
t

!
2
.8

5
1

#

(.
7

1
2

)

0
.0

5
8
!

2
.7

0
3
#

(.

7
2

0
)

0
.0

6
7
!

2
.5

5
2
#

(.
7
2
1
)

0
.0

7
8
!

2
.9

5
2
#

(.
7
1
6
)

0
.0

5
2
!

3
.1

6
1
#

(.
7
5
5
)

0
.0

4
2
!

3
.9

4
0
#

(.

7
7

1
)

0
.0

1
9

M
a
le

.1
2
6

(.
1
5
4
)

1
.1

3
4

.1
2
1

(.
1
5
5
)

1
.1

2
9

.1
2
9

(.
1
5
5
)
1
.1

2
3
8

.

1
0

3

(.
1
5
5
)
1
.1

0
9

.0

4
8

(.
1
6
1
)

1
.0

5
0

.0
9
0

(.
1
6
1
)
1
.0

9
4

A
g
e

.0

5
9

(.
0

4
7

)

1
.0

6
0

.0

3
9

(.
0
4
8
)

1
.0
3
9

.0
2
9

(.
0
4
8
)
1
.0
2
9

.

0
6

2

(.
0
4
7
)
1
.0

7
4

.

0
7

2

(.
0
4
9
)

1
.0
7
4

.1

0
8

#

(.
0
5
0
)

1
.1

1
4

W
h
it

e
.1

5
9

(.
2

0
0
)

1
.1

7
3

.1

6
3

(.
2

0
1

)

1
.1
7
7

.1

5
7

(.
2
0
1
)
1
.1

7
0

.1
5
1

(.
2
0
1
)
1
.1
6
3

.1
4
6

(.
2
0
6
)

1
.1
5
7

.1
0
2

(.
2
0
7
)

1
.1
0
7

S
c
h
o
o
l

p
ro

b
le

m
s

.3
1
2
#

(.
1
5
8
)

1
.3

6
6

S
u
b
st

a
n
c
e

u
se

.4

6
8

#

(.
1
6
8
)

1
.5

9
7

A
ss

a
u
lt

p
e
e
r

.

3
0

5

(.

1
8

7
)

1
.3
5
7

O
ff

-l
in

e
b
u
ll

y
.6

9
8
#

(.
1
7
3
)

2
.0

1
0
O
ff
-l
in

e
v
ic

ti
m

.9
7
4
#

(.
1
6
3
)

2
.6

4
8

C
o
x

a
n
d

S
n
e
ll

R

2
L

.0
0
2

.0
0
5

.0
0
8

.0
0
4

.0
1
5

.0
3
1

N
a
g
e
lk

e
rk

e
R

2
L
.0
0
4

.0
0
9

.0
1
4

.0
0
7

.0
2
6

.0
5
4

S
.E

.
in

p
a
re

n
th

e
se

s;
# p
<

.0
5
.

145

T
A
B
L
E

4
P
re

d
ic
to
rs
o
f
S
e
ri
o
u
s
C
y
b
e
rb
u
ll
y
in

g
O

ff
e
n
d
in

g
(M

u
lt
iv
a
ri
a
te
L
o
g
is
ti
c
R
e
g
re
ss
io
n
)

M
o
d
e
l

7
M

o
d
e
l

8
M

o
d
e
l

9
M

o
d
e
l
1
0
M
o
d
e
l

1
1

M
o
d
e
l
1
2

C
o
e
ff

.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
e
ff
.
E
x
p
(B
)
C
o
n
st
a
n
t

!
4
.2

8
3
#

(1
.0

8
4
)

0
.0

1
4
!

3
.9

4
5
#

(1
.1

1
1
)

0
.0

1
9
!

3
.7

6
5
#

(1
.1
0
0
)
0
.0

2
3
!

4
.9

0
3
#
(1
.1

1
5
)

0
.0

0
7
!

4
.9

7
0
#

(1
.1

7
0
)

0
.0

0
8
!

4
.7

2
4
#

(1
.1

3
2

)

0
.0
0
9
M
a
le

.1
9
8

(.
2
3
1
)

1
.2

1
8

.1
9
0

(.
2
3
2
)

1
.2
1
0

.2
0
5

(.
2
3
2
)
1
.2

2
7

.0
8
2

(.
2
3
5
)

1
.0

8
6

!
.0

0
8

(.
2
4
3
)

0
.9

9
2

.1
9
1

(.
2
3
5
)
1
.2
1
0
A
g
e

.1
1
8

(.
0
7
1
)

1
.1

2
5

.0
6
7

(.
0
7
5
)

1
.0

6
9

.0
6
6

(.
0
7
4
)

1
.0
6
8

.1
4
0

(.
0
7
3
)

1
.1
5
1

.1
2
2

(.
0
7
6
)

1
.1
3
0

.1

3
7

#

(.
0
7
3
)
1
.1
4
7
W
h
it

e
!

.4
5
6

(.
2
6
0
)

0
.6

3
4

!
.4

5
1

(.
2
6
2
)

0
.6
3
7
!
.4

6
4

(.
2
6
2
)
0
.6
2
9

!
.5

1
2

(.
2
6
5
)

0
.5

9
9

!
.4
5
1

(.
2
6
9
)

0
.6
3
7
!
.5
0
1

(.
2
6
3
)

0
.6
0
6
S
c
h
o
o
l
p
ro
b
le
m
s

.7
9
5
#

(.
2
4
3
)

2
.2

1
4
S
u
b
st
a
n
c
e
u
se

.7
4
9
#

(.
2
4
1
)

2
.1

1
4
A
ss
a
u
lt
p
e
e
r
1
.3

4
8
#

(.
2
3
9
)

3
.8

5
1
O
ff
-l
in
e
b
u
ll

y
1
.6

1
6
#

(.
2
4
1
)

5
.0

3
2
O
ff
-l
in
e
v
ic
ti
m

.5
7
2
#

(.
2
3
5
)

1
.7

7
2
C
o
x
a
n
d
S
n
e
ll

R
2
L

.0
0
4

.0
1
3

.0
1
1

.0
2
5

.0
3
9

.0
1
0

N
a
g
e
lk
e
rk
e
R
2
L

.0
1
2

.0
3
5

.0
3
1

.0
7
0

.1
0
4

.0
2
6
S
.E
.
in
p
a
re
n
th
e
se
s;
# p
< .0 5 .

146

Leary, Schreindorfer, and Haupt 1995; Leary, Tambor, Terdal,
and Downs 1995).

DISCUSSION

Cyberbullying as a growing phenomenon is receiving much
attention by the popular media, and various news outlets are
publishing reports, case studies, and stories on the subject
matter. Some data on cyberbullying have been collected
by information technology research firms and social service
agencies, but they have provided us with an underdeveloped
picture of the prevalence of this particular form of deviance.
Results from the current study revealed a number of impor-
tant issues that warrant discussion. First, findings indicate
that cyberbullying does not discriminate based on gender
or race.15 The gender finding is surprising as it contradicts
a significant body of traditional bullying research that indi-
cates boys are involved in bullying more often than girls
(Borg 1999; Boulton and Underwood 1992; Charach, Pepler,
and Ziegler 1995; Espelage, Bosworth, and Simon 2000;
Kaltiala-Heino et al. 1999; Kumpalainen, Rasanen, and
Henttonen 1999; Kumpulainen, Rasanen, and Puura 2001;
Seals and Young 2003). However, research has consistently
noted that adolescent girls tend to participate in more
indirect forms of bullying, including psychological and
emotional harassment (e.g., rumor spreading) (Baldry
1998; Crick 1996; Crick, Casas, and Mosher 1997; Crick
and Grotpeter 1995). Given the fact that the vast majority
of cyberbullying behaviors involve these indirect forms of
harassment, it makes sense that girls appear equally as likely
to be participants. The race finding is not altogether unex-
pected as studies examining its distribution across traditional
bullying offending and victimization are largely inconclusive

15Overall, research on gender and racial differences among traditional crimes is
arguably inconclusive. Racial disparity can be explained away with differential arrest rates
(Huizinga and Elliott 1987; Sealock and Simpson 1998; Tracy 1987) and socioeconomic
factors, and gender disparity may be an artifact of hesitance on the part of criminal justice
authorities to take action against women (Decker, Wright, Redfern, and Smith 1993; Pollack
1950; Steffensmeier 1980). Although future research is clearly required on crimes in both
real space and cyberspace, the findings from the current study suggest that some forms of
deviance do not neatly fall along certain demographic lines.

Cyberbullying 147

(Graham and Juvonen 2002; Nansel et al. 2001; Seals and
Young 2003; Siann, Callahan, Glissov, Lockhart, and Rawson
1994; Sweeting and West 2001). That said, it may simply be
that certain demographic characteristics such as race and
gender are rendered less relevant in an environment where
interpersonal communication occurs predominantly through
electronic text.

An alternative explanation is that historically less powerful
groups may be more powerful (or at least not disadvantaged)
when on-line. Minority groups (irrespective of race or
ethnicity), although potentially unpopular on the schoolyard,
may not be exposed as marginal on the Internet. Moreover,
youth who may not stand up for themselves on the
playground may be more likely to do so via computer
communications if the perceived likelihood of retaliation is
minimized. Targets may be ‘‘turning the table’’ on bullies
because of the equalizing characteristics of the Internet
and its ability to preempt the relevance of physical
intimidation. That is, victims of traditional bullying may seek
retribution through technological means (e-mail, instant
message, or cellular phone text message) by contacting those
aggressors who have harassed them. Some might contend
that bullying in the traditional sense requires certain personal
or physical traits and qualities that an individual either has
or does not have (such as physical prowess or social com-
petence); cyberbullying requires no such personal traits
and can be manifested simply through the outward
expression of hate. This fact means that at the very beginning,
a wide net of potential participants in the phenomenon is
cast, which as a consequence can exponentially increase
the number of offenders and victims—and the negative
outcomes that often follow.

Second, the current work exposed a link between cyber-
bullying and traditional schoolyard bullying. Youth who
are bullied at or near school are significantly more likely to
be a victim of cyberbullying; those who bully off-line also
appear to bully on-line. A 13-year-old girl from Canada
related the following experience:

The last time I was bullied online, I was on MSN (instant mes-
saging) talking to some people from school. Someone from
my class who doesn’t like me started talking shit about me

148 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

to everyone else. And a bunch of people that she had been
talking to came and started harassing me. They were talking
about how I had bad grades in math and how I bite my finger-
nails and other stupid stuff like that. They still say stuff about
me at school and make things up about me and tell everyone.

These findings indicate that the factors associated with
traditional bullying behaviors might also be associated
with cyberbullying. It may simply suggest that computers
and the Internet are new tools which can be employed to
augment traditional behaviors and activities (Tarde [1890]
1903). Indeed, bullies may just be adapting to technological
change and employing a different medium to harass and
mistreat. Those predisposed to harass and mistreat their
peers perhaps choose to do so regardless of context—in real
space or in cyberspace.

Along these lines, traditional criminological theory may
help to inform the connection between off-line and on-line
bullying. For example, all forms of bullying may be learned
behavior (Akers 1985), a manifestation of some latent trait
such as low self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990), a
response to strain (Agnew 1992; Hinduja and Patchin
2007), or an attempt at regaining a balance of control in a
person’s life (Tittle 1995). Concerning victims, the character-
istics that render certain adolescents vulnerable to bullying
in school may also be relevant on the Internet. Our results
identified a subgroup of youth who experience bullying
while at school during the day and while in front of their
home computer at night. Research should seek to determine
what makes these youth attractive targets in multiple environ-
ments; victimology theories may illuminate contributive
factors (Von Hentig 1948). Overall, each of these specula-
tions is important to assess and requires additional scholarly
inquiry.

Finally, the qualitative details provided by victims also
attest to the virulent nature of cyberbullying. Many youth
reported being physically threatened (‘‘I was in a chat room
and someone threatened to beat me up because we liked the
same girl.’’ ‘‘I was sent death threats via email from some-
body I knew from school’’). A 14-year-old girl from Texas
stated: ‘‘I think it’s just as bad as bullying in person, only
harder to be detected. They don’t know who it is that is

Cyberbullying 149

bullying them so they have to continue to endure it. I think
it’s horrible and people should stop bullying.’’ A 17-year-old
girl reiterates this point:

Bullying online is terrible because it affects the mind more
than the body. It makes me feel so annoyed that people
can harm others over a computer. People can say things
online to make people more scared than if they were being
physically threatened. People feel more vulnerable online
than they would elsewhere. Bullying online is really bad
because it is mental bullying which is sometimes worse then
physical bullying, and can cause people to do stupid things.
It makes me angry.

Despite the important contributions of the present study, it
is not without limitations. The most notable of these has to
do with its methodology, as the data collection took place
entirely through a Web-based format. Research has identi-
fied that concerns related to the generalizability of data
collected via the Internet assume that a random sample is
sought (Walther 2002:209). The current work employed a con-
venience sample, where individuals were chosen for study
because they are available (or, in this case, because they vis-
ited a particular website and saw a solicitation to participate
in our research). It is not possible to generalize the findings
from this study to a larger population of youth or even only
youth on-line (Couper 2000) because of the nature of the
methodology. Nonetheless, this procedure has value in explor-
ing a novel phenomenon such as cyberbullying. Also deserv-
ing comment is the fact that it is not possible to fully know
that each respondent to an on-line survey was completely
accurate in their representation of who they are, and what
experiences with cyberbullying they have had. It is unreason-
able to believe, though, that just because a questionnaire is
presented to a respondent in electronic rather than a paper-
based format, that the respondent will be less likely to be truth-
ful (Walther 2002). Given these potential limitations, however,
future research ought to replicate this study using a more
methodologically-controlled sample.

Two final methodological points warrant mention. First,
precautions were taken to construct a proportional sample,
but the final sample demographics were markedly skewed
in terms of the gender and race distribution. As such,

150 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

application of the findings to other populations must be exer-
cised with care. Second, the study employed a cross-sec-
tional design that only gathered data on individuals at one
time point in their development. It is therefore impossible
to determine if school problems predict cyberbullying victi-
mization or if victims of cyberbullying subsequently get into
trouble at school. Although it is useful to know that the beha-
viors are linked, future studies must seek to identify the tem-
poral ordering of these life events to better understand how
they can be ameliorated.

The current work identified certain factors that make some
individuals more likely than others to be involved in cyberbul-
lying offending or victimization. What seems to most logically
follow in terms of policy solutions is to ensure that those
involved in traditional bullying are aware of their susceptibility
to the on-line variety, and to present them with a systematic
plan of action to preclude such an outcome. The Internet is
replete with safety tips, and various top-ten precautionary lists
to instruct adults that have children who are frequently on-line.
In addition, software is available for adults to install on home
computers to filter certain content from the eyes of innocent
youth. Neither of these measures, however, are exhaustive or
inerrant in their goal to prevent victimization. Research by
Berson and colleagues (2002), for example, identified the utility
of ongoing discussions by parents, caregivers, or teachers
with children about the latter’s interactions through the
computer. In that study, direct supervision or periodic
monitoring of adolescents’ on-line activities also proved
advantageous in reducing the likelihood of unhealthy social
choices on the Internet. Other research has supported such
a strategy, and has stressed the importance of positive
caregiver!child relationships—which have been shown to
decrease the likelihood of on-line offending (Ybarra and
Mitchell 2004). The onus of responsibility, though, is not
solely placed on the shoulders of parents and guardians.
Attenuating the problem of cyberbullying will necessarily
involve contributions from multiple stakeholders, including
counselors, school teachers and administrators, and law
enforcement. Moreover, researchers should continue to
pursue this line of inquiry to further inform our understand-
ing of the causes and consequences of violence perpetrated
via the Internet.

Cyberbullying 151

REFERENCES

Agnew, Robert. 1992. ‘‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime
and Delinquency.’’ Criminology 30(1):47!87.

Akers, R. L. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baldry, A. C. 1998. ‘‘Bullying among Italian Middle School Students.’’
School Psychology International 19:361!374.

BBC News. 2001. Girl Tormented by Phone Bullies. Accessed January 16,
2001. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1120597.stm

Berlinger, L. and M. K. Barbieri. 1984. ‘‘The Testimony of the Child
Victim of Sexual Assault.’’ Journal of Social Issues 40(2):125!137.

Berson, I. R., M. J. Berson, and J. M. Ferron. 2002. ‘‘Emerging Risks of
Violence in the Digital Age: Lessons for Educators from an Online
Study of Adolescent Girls in the United States.’’ Journal of School
Violence 1(2):51!71.

Berson, M. J. 2000. ‘‘The Computer Can’t See You Blush.’’ Kappa Delta
Pi Record 36(4):158!162.

Borg, M. G. 1998. ‘‘The Emotional Reaction of School Bullies and Their
Victims.’’ Educational Psychology 18(4):433!444.

Borg, M. G. 1999. ‘‘The Extent and Nature of Bullying among
Primary and Secondary Schoolchildren.’’ Educational Research
41:137!153.

Boulton, M. J. and K. Underwood. 1992. ‘‘Bully Victim Problems among
Middle School Children.’’ British Journal of Educational Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors 62:73!87.

Butterfield, L. and H. Broad. 2002. Children, Young People and the Inter-
net. Accessed June 30, 2005. Available at http://www.netsafe.org.nz/
articles/articleschildren.aspx

Charach, A., D. Pepler, and S. Ziegler. 1995. ‘‘Bullying at School: A
Canadian Perspective.’’ Education Canada 35:12!18.

Couper, M. P. 2000. ‘‘Web-Based Surveys: A Review of Issues and
Approaches.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 64:464!494.

Crick, N. R. 1996. ‘‘The Role of Relational Aggression, Overt Aggression,
and Prosocial Behavior in the Prediction of Children’s Future Social
Adjustment.’’ Child Development 67:2317!2327.

Crick, N. R., J. F. Casas, and M. Mosher. 1997. ‘‘Relational and Overt
Aggression in Preschool.’’ Developmental Psychology 33:579!588.

Crick, N. R. and J. K. Grotpeter. 1995. ‘‘Relational Aggression, Gender,
and Social-Psychological Adjustment.’’ Child Development
66:610!722.

Decker, S., R. Wright, A. Redfern, and D. Smith. 1993. ‘‘A Woman’s
Place is in the Home: Females and Residential Burglary.’’ Justice
Quarterly 10:143!162.

Devoe, J. F., S. A. Ruddy, A. K. Miller, M. Planty, K. Peter, P. Kaufman,
T. D. Snyder, D. T. Duhart, and M. R. Rand. 2002. Indicators of
School Crime and Safety. U.S. Department of Education, National

152 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics.

Ericson, N. 2001. Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying. Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department
of Justice.

Espelage, D. L., K. Bosworth, and T. R. Simon. 2000. ‘‘Examining the
Social Context of Bullying Behaviors in Early Adolescence.’’ Journal
of Counseling and Development 78:326!333.

Finn, J. 2004. ‘‘A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus.’’
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19(4):468!483.

Finn, J. and M. Banach. 2000. ‘‘Victimization Online: The Downside
of Seeking Human Services for Women on the Internet.’’ Cyber-
psychology & Behavior 3(5):785!797.

Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., and Bauman, A. 1999. ‘‘Bullying
Behavior and Psychosocial Health among School Students in
New South Wales, Australia: Cross Sectional Survey.’’ British Medical
Journal 319:344!348.

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Graham, S. and J. Juvonen. 2002. ‘‘Ethnicity, Peer Harassment, and
Adjustment in Middle School: An Exploratory Study.’’ Journal of Early
Adolescence 22:173!199.

Hawker, D. S. J. and M. J. Boulton. 2000. ‘‘Twenty Years’ Research on
Peer Victimization and Psychological Maladjustment: A Meta-Analysis
Review of Cross-Sectional Studies.’’ Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 41(4):441!445.

Hinduja, S. and J. W. Patchin. 2007. ‘‘Offline Consequences of Online
Victimization: School Violence and Delinquency.’’ Journal of School
Violence, 6(3):89!112.

Huizinga, D. and D. S. Elliott. 1987. ‘‘Juvenile Offenders: Prevalence,
Offender Incidence, and Arrest Rates by Race. Crime & Delinquency
3(2):206!223.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., M. Rimpelä, M. Marttunen, A. Rimpelä, and
P. Rantanen. 1999. ‘‘Bullying, Depression, and Suicidal Ideation in
Finnish Adolescents: School Survey.’’ British Medical Journal
319(7206):348!351.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., M. Rimpela, P. Rantenen, and A. Rimpela. 2000.
‘‘Aggression at School—an Indicator of Adolescents at Risk for Mental
Disorders.’’ Journal of Adolescence 23:661!674.

Kennedy, T. 2000. ‘‘An Exploratory Study of Feminist Experiences in
Cyberspace.’’ Cyberpsychology & Behavior 3(5):707!719.

Kumpalainen, K., E. Rasanen, and I. Henttonen. 1999. ‘‘Children
Involved in Bullying: Psychological Disturbance and the Persistence
of the Involvement.’’ Child Abuse and Neglect 23:1253!1262.

Kumpulainen, K., E. Rasanen, and K. Puura. 2001. ‘‘Psychiatric Disorders
and the Use of Mental Health Services among Children Involved in
Bullying.’’ Aggressive Behavior 27:102!110.

Cyberbullying 153

Lamberg, L. 2002. ‘‘Stalking Disrupts Lives, Leaves Emotional Scars.’’
Journal of the American Medical Association 286(5):519!522.

Leary, M. R. and D. L. Downs. 1995. ‘‘Interpersonal Functions of the
Self-Esteem Motive: The Self-Esteem System as a Sociometer.’’
Pp. 123!144. In Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem, edited by
M. H. Kernis. New York: Plenum.

Leary, M. R., A. L. Haupt, K. S. Strausser, and J. T. Chokel. 1998. ‘‘Cali-
brating the Sociometer: The Relationship between Interpersonal
Appraisals and State Self-Esteem.’’ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74:1290!1299.

Leary, M. R., L. S. Schreindorfer, and A. L. Haupt. 1995. ‘‘The Role of
Self-Esteem in Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Why is Low
Self-Esteem Dysfunctional?’’ Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
14:297!314.

Leary, M. R., E. S. Tambor, S. J. Terdal, and D. L. Downs. 1995. ‘‘Self-
Esteem as an Interpersonal Monitor. The Sociometer Hypothesis.’’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:518!530.

Li, Q. 2006. ‘‘Cyberbullying in Schools: A Research of Gender
Differences.’’ School Psychology International 27:157!170.

Loeber, R. and T. J. Disheon. 1984. ‘‘Early Predictors of Male
Delinquency: A Review.’’ Psychological Bulletin 94:68!99.

Magnusson, D., H. Statten, and A. Duner. 1983. ‘‘Aggression and Crimi-
nality in a Longitudinal Perspective.’’ Pp. 277!301. In Prospective
Studies of Crime and Delinquency, edited by K. T. V. Dusen and
S. A. Mednick. Netherlands: Kluwer Nijoff.

McCabe, S. E., C. J. Boyd, M. P. Couper, S. Crawford, and H. D’Arcy. 2002.
‘‘Mode Effects for Collecting Alcohol and Other Drug Use Data: Web
and U.S. Mail.’’ Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(6):755!761.

Nansel, T. R., M. Overpeck, R. S. Pilla, W. J. Ruan, B. Simons-Morton,
and P. Scheidt. 2001. ‘‘Bullying Behaviors among US Youth: Preva-
lence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment.’’ Journal of the
American Medical Association 285(16):2094!2100.

National Children’s Home. 2005. Putting U in the Picture: Mobile Bully-
ing Survey. Assessed September 4, 2005. Available at http://
www.nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/Mobile bullying %20report

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., and M. R. Witkow. 2005. ‘‘Sticks and Stones
May Break My Bones, but Names Will Make Me Feel Sick: The
Psychosocial, Somatic, and Scholastic Consequences of Peer Harass-
ment.’’ Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 34(1):
37!48.

NTIA. 2002. A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their
Use of the Internet. Accessed February, 7, 2004. Available at http://
www.ntia .gov/ntiahome/dn/anationonline2

Oliver, R., J. H. Hoover, and R. Hazler. 1994. ‘‘The Perceived Roles of
Bullying in Small-Town Midwestern Schools.’’ Journal of Counseling
and Development 72(4):416!420.

154 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin

Olweus, D. 1978. Aggression in the Schools. Bullies and Whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley).

Olweus, D. 1991. ‘‘Bully=Victim Problems among School Children:
Basic Effects of a School Based Intervention Program.’’ Pp. 411!448.
In The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, edited
by D. Pepler and K. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (editor). 1994. Bullying at School: Long-Term Outcomes
for Victims and an Effective School-Based Intervention Program.
New York: Plenum Press.

Olweus, D., S. Limber, and S. Mihalic. 1999. Bullying Prevention
Program. Boulder: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Patchin, J. W. 2002. ‘‘Bullied Youths Lash Out: Strain as an Explanation
of Extreme School Violence.’’ Caribbean Journal of Criminology and
Social Psychology 7(1!2):22!43.

Patchin, J. W. and S. Hinduja. 2006. ‘‘Bullies Move Beyond the
Schoolyard: A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying.’’ Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice 4(2):148!169.

Pollack, O. 1950. The Criminality of Women. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.

Reno, J. 1999. Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and
Industry. A Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President.
Accessed October 17, 2006. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/
criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm

Richardson, T. 2003. Bullying by Text Message. Accessed February 20,
2003. Available at http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/
story page/0,5936,6012025%5E2682,00.html

Rigby, K. 2003. ‘‘Consequences of Bullying in Schools.’’ Canadian Jour-
nal of Psychiatry 48:583!590.

Rigby, K. and P. Slee. 1999. ‘‘Australia.’’ Pp. 22!43. In The Nature of
School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, edited by P. Smith,
Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee. London
and New York: Routledge.

Roland, E. 2002. ‘‘Bullying, Depressive Symptoms and Suicidal
Thoughts.’’ Educational Research 44:55!67.

Seale, D. A., M. Polakowski, and S. Schneider. 1998. ‘‘It’s Not Really
Theft! Personal and Workplace Ethics that Enable Software Piracy.’’
Behaviour and Information Technology, 17(1):27!40.

Sealock, M. D. and S. S. Simpson. 1998. ‘‘Unraveling Bias in Arrest
Decisions: The Role of Juvenile Offender Type-Scripts.’’ Justice
Quarterly 15(3):427!457.

Seals, D. and J. Young. 2003. ‘‘Bullying and Victimization: Prevalence
and Relationship to Gender, Grade Level, Ethnicity, Self-Esteem and
Depression.’’ Adolescence 38:735!747.

Siann, G., M. Callahan, P. Glissov, R. Lockhart, and L. Rawson. 1994.
‘‘Who Gets Bullied? The Effect of School, Gender and Ethnic Group.’’
Educational Research 36:123!134.

Cyberbullying 155

Spitzberg, B. H. 2002. ‘‘Cyberstalking and the Technologies of Inter-
personal Terrorism.’’ New Media & Society 4:71!92.

Steffensmeier, D. 1980. ‘‘Assessing the Impact of the Women’s Move-
ment on Sex-Based Differences in the Handling of Adult Criminal
Defendants.’’ Crime & Delinquency 26:344!357.

Striegel-Moore, R. H., F.-A. Dohm, K. M. Pike, D. E. Wilfley, and C. G.
Fairburn. 2002. ‘‘Abuse, Bullying, and Discrimination as Risk Factors
for Binge Eating Disorder.’’ The American Journal of Psychiatry
159(11):1902!1907.

Swanson, L. and M. K. Biaggio. 1985. ‘‘Therapeutic Perspectives on
Father-Daughter Incest.’’ American Journal of Psychiatry 142(6):
667!674.

Sweeting, H. and P. West. 2001. ‘‘Being Different: Correlates of the
Experience of Teasing and Bullying at Age 11.’’ Research Papers in
Education 16:222!246.

Tarde, G. (editor). [1890] 1903. Gabriel Tarde’s Laws of Imitation.
New York: Henry Holt.

Tattum, D. P. 1989. Violence and Aggression in Schools. Pp. 7!19. In
Bullying in Schools, edited by D. P. Tattum and D. A. Lane. Stroke-
on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham.

Tattum, D. P. and D. A. Lane. 1989. Bullying in Schools. Stroke-on-Trent,
Great Britain: Trentham.

Tittle, C. R. 1995. Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of
Deviance. Boulder: Westview.

Tracy, P. E. 1987. ‘‘Race and Class Differences in Official and Self-
Reported Delinquency.’’ Pp. 87!121. In From Boy to Man, From
Delinquency to Crime, edited by M. E. Wolfgang, T. P. Thornberry,
and R. M. Figlio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Von Hentig, H. 1948. The Criminal and His Victim: Studies in the
Sociobiology of Crime. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Vossekuil, B., R. A. Fein, M. Reddy, R. Borum, and W. Modzeleski. 2002.
The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implica-
tions for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States.
Accessed August 29, 2003. Available at http://www.secretservice.
gov/ntac/ssi final report

Walther, J. B. 2002. ‘‘Research Ethics in Internet Enabled Research:
Human Subjects Issues and Methodological Myopia.’’ Ethics and
Information Technology 4(3):205!216.

Ybarra, M. L. and J. K. Mitchell. 2004. ‘‘Online Aggressor=Targets,
Aggressors and Targets: A Comparison of Associated Youth Charac-
teristics.’’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:1308!1316.

156 S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin