American Journal of Orthopsychiatry  2010 American Orthopsychiatric Association

2010, Vol. 80, No. 3, 362–374 DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x

Cyber Bullying Behaviors Among Middle and High

School Students
Faye Mishna, Charlene Cook, Tahany Gadalla, Joanne Daciuk,
and Steven Solomon
University of Toronto

Little research has been conducted that comprehensively examines cyber bullying with a
large and diverse sample. The present study examines the prevalence, impact, and differ-
ential experience of cyber bullying among a large and diverse sample of middle and high
school students (N = 2,186) from a large urban center. The survey examined technology
use, cyber bullying behaviors, and the psychosocial impact of bullying and being bullied.
About half (49.5%) of students indicated they had been bullied online and 33.7% indi-
cated they had bullied others online. Most bullying was perpetrated by and to friends and
participants generally did not tell anyone about the bullying. Participants reported feeling
angry, sad, and depressed after being bullied online. Participants bullied others online
because it made them feel as though they were funny, popular, and powerful, although
many indicated feeling guilty afterward. Greater attention is required to understand and
reduce cyber bullying within children’s social worlds and with the support of educators
and parents.

T
he exponential growth of electronic and computer-based
communication and information sharing during the last
decade has radically changed individuals’ social interac-
tions, learning strategies, and choice of entertainment. Most
notably, technology has created new communication tools. The
tools are particularly influential among young people, who
extensively utilize websites, instant messaging, web cams,
e-mails, chat rooms, social networking sites, and text messaging
(Boyd, 2008; Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood, 2006; Pal-
frey & Gasser, 2008). Youth spend an average of 2–4 hr online
each day (Media Awareness Network, 2005), and it has been
suggested that the majority of youth view electronic communi-
cation tools as essential for their social interactions (Kowalski,
Limber, & Agatston, 2008).
The Internet provides innumerable possibilities for growth
among children and youth, including benefits such as social sup-
port, identity exploration, and development of interpersonal
and critical thinking skills, as well as educational benefits gener-
ated from expansive access to knowledge, academic support,
This study was funded by Bell Canada. The authors acknowledge the
support of the teachers and administrators at the Toronto District
School Board and the Centre for Enhancement of Jewish Education
(Mercaz Toronto). The authors would also like to thank the students
and their parents for participating.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Faye
Mishna, Factor-Intwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1V4, Canada. Electronic mail may be sent
to f.mishna@utoronto.ca.
and worldwide cross-cultural interactions (Blais, Craig, Pepler,
& Connolly, 2008; Jackson et al., 2006; Tynes, 2007; Valken-
burg & Peter, 2007). The Internet is, however, concurrently a
potential site for abuse and victimization (Mitchell, Finkelhor,
& Wolak, 2003a, 2003b).
The Internet and other forms of communication technology
place children and youth at risk of being bullied online. Cyber
bullying comprises ‘‘willful and repeated harm’’ (Hinduja & Pat-
chin, 2009, p. 5) inflicted toward another and includes the use of
e-mail, cell phones, text messages, and Internet sites to threaten,
harass embarrass, or socially exclude (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009;
Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Williams & Guerra, 2007). Cyber bul-
lying further encompasses the use of electronic media to sexually
harass (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Shariff & Johnny, 2007),
including distributing unsolicited text or photos of a sexual nat-
ure or requesting sexual acts either online or offline (Schrock &
Boyd, 2008). The nature of what constitutes repetition with
respect to cyber bullying is complex. Occurring in the public
domain (W. Craig, personal communication, February 25,
2009), cyber bullying by its very nature involves repetition,
because material such as e-mail, text, or pictures can be viewed
far and wide, and can be distributed not only by the perpetrator
but also by anyone with access (Campbell, 2005; Slonje &
Smith, 2008), and can be difficult or impossible for the victim-
ized child or youth to eliminate (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor,
2007).
Recent large scale cross-sectional studies demonstrate that
cyber bullying is a significant problem (Berson, Berson, &
Ferron, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2003a; Ybarra & Mitchell,

362
 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS
2004a, 2004b). Current evidence indicates that the prevalence
of cyber bullying ranges from 9% to 25% (Kowalski & Lim-
ber, 2007; Li, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007). Given such
vast potential exposure to cyber bullying, research in this field
is imperative to understand and reduce the risks associated
with the online world. Reducing online risks for children and
youth is especially vital to support the positive elements asso-
ciated with online activity, particularly the accessibility of
information and social support.
The pervasiveness of bullying among children and adoles-
cents is well documented. The effects may be far-reaching for
children who bully and for those who are victimized, both of
whom are at risk of emotional, social, and psychiatric
problems that may persist into adulthood (Nansel, Overpeck,
Haynie, et al., 2003; O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). Recog-
nition of the seriousness of bullying has led to the accumula-
tion of a large body of research and numerous school-wide
interventions throughout the world (Olweus, 1994; Roland,
2000).
Although the research on cyber bullying is sparse, largely
because of the relative newness of the phenomenon, efforts to
document the impact of cyber bullying provide a picture of the
significant psychosocial and academic repercussions of cyber
bullying as well as the vulnerability of targeted children and
youth. Students who were cyber bullied reported feelings of
sadness, anxiety, and fear, and an inability to concentrate
which affected their grades (Beran & Li, 2005). Youth who
were bullied online were more likely to have skipped school, to
have had detentions or suspensions, or to have carried a
weapon to school (Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007).
Research has also shown that depression, substance use, and
delinquency are significantly higher among youth who report
experiencing cyber bullying or online sexual solicitation (Mitch-
ell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007).
Youth who cyber bully others online are also at high risk.
Research suggests that children and youth who were both vic-
timized online and perpetrators of online sexual solicitation and
harassment were far more likely to experience high substance
use, offline victimization, delinquency, and aggression (Ybarra,
Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007). Additional evidence reveals that
youth who perpetrate cyber bullying are more likely to concur-
rently engage in rule breaking and to have problems with
aggression (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007).
Much of the current literature on cyber bullying has been
conducted with small samples (Li, 2007; Raskauskas & Stotlz,
2007) or samples that were quite homogenous regarding partici-
pant ethnicity (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski & Limber,
2007). It is vital that this phenomenon be thoroughly explored
with a diverse sample, to gain a greater understanding of the
prevalence and impact of cyber bullying. To date, the few larger
studies have not focused on cyber bullying exclusively and there-
fore have not examined this phenomenon in depth (Finkelhor,
Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000; Williams & Guerra, 2007). In this arti-
cle, we report on a survey on cyber bullying with a large and
diverse sample of students in Grades 6, 7, 10, and 11, in a large
urban setting. The study reported in this article addresses the
gap in the literature and is among the first to examine cyber bul-
lying with a large and diverse sample of middle and high school
students.
363
Method
This study employed an exploratory, cross-sectional survey
design to examine cyber bullying as experienced by students in
Grades 6, 7, 10 and 11, attending schools in a large Canadian
city. These grades were chosen to reflect middle or junior and
high school students, respectively, as the school boards felt sam-
pling from Grades 5 to 12 would prove too unwieldy and
involve too many disruptions for participating schools. The
study received approval from the University of Toronto
Research Ethics Board and the External Research Review Com-
mittee of Board 1. Board 2 did not require further ethics
approval.
Sample
To ensure an inclusive representation of this student popula-
tion, the survey used a stratified, clustered random sampling
design in which the school was the sampling unit. The sample
was stratified by geographical region and Board of Education.
The study included two Boards of Education—Board 1 and
Board 2. Ten middle or junior high schools and 18 high schools
were sampled in Board 1, and 3 middle or junior high schools
and 2 high schools were sampled in Board 2. Therefore, 28
schools were sampled in Board 1, of a possible 273, and 5
schools were sampled in Board 2, of a possible 28. Because of
its far greater size, the sample drawn from Board 2 was further
stratified by geographical region: northeast, northwest, south-
east, and southwest.
Schools were selected at random from the list of schools in
each region. Some of the selected schools declined to participate.
For each school that declined to participate, a replacement
school was randomly selected from a list of other schools with
similar student enrolment in the same region.
Thirty-three schools (20 secondary and 13 elementary ⁄ middle)
participated. All students in the targeted grades of the selected
schools were invited to participate but only those who received
parental consent participated. Response rate was 35% in Grades
6 and 7 and 17% in Grades 10 and 11. No data were collected
from nonparticipating students. It is difficult to conclude if dif-
ferences exist between students who participated and those who
did not. However, the demographic distribution in the final
sample resembles that in the population, both in terms of gender
distribution (54.7% girls in the sample vs. 47.3% girls in the
population) and the distribution of those whose primary lan-
guage was not English (44.5% in the sample vs. 52.1% in the
population). The number of students who completed the survey
was 2,186, out of a population of 24,896.
Procedure
The questions in the survey were informed by various sources
including information gathered in focus groups that had been
conducted by the research team with students in the targeted
grades. An extensive literature review, a critical review of previ-
ous surveys obtained from researchers, and expert consultation
with practitioners, academics, and school administrators also
informed questionnaire development. An identical questionnaire
was administered to all students, with the exception of the word-
364 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON
ing and terminology of two questions related to online sexual
content and online contact of a sexual nature. The wording for
Grades 6 and 7 slightly differed from the wording for Grades 10
and 11 to ensure age-appropriate language.
The questionnaire was pilot tested for clarity, format, and
length with 25 Grade 6 and 7 students and 35 Grade 10 and 11
students. The pencil and paper questionnaire was administered
to students by research assistants during class hours. The ques-
tionnaire took approximately 30 min to complete. Students who
participated were provided with a pen from the sponsoring uni-
versity as a gift of appreciation.
Frequency distributions and cross-tabulations of all variables
were used to describe students’ experiences with technology use,
involvement in cyber bullying and ways in which these experi-
ences impacted their lives. Chi-square tests (N = 2,186) were
used to test bivariate associations between students’ demo-
graphic characteristics and variables measuring their cyber bul-
lying experiences.
The relationships between age, gender, language spoken at
home, and Internet behavior were explored. Further, given that
research on traditional bullying indicates that bullying behavior
is influenced by gender (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005; Prinstein,
Boergers, & Vernberg, 2001) and ethnicity (Eslea & Mukhtar,
2000; Peskin, Tortolero, & Markham, 2006), it was important
to explore the relationship between gender, language spoken at
home, and types of cyber bullying. Examining these relation-
ships is vital to the investigation of differential risk between
groups and to inform the development of Internet risk reduction
interventions.
Measures
The questionnaires included general questions about the soci-
odemographic characteristics of students and their families,
technology use, and experience of cyber bullying.
Socio-demographic characteristics. Questions related
to individual and family characteristics included grade, gender,
age, ownership, or rental status of the family residence, typical
academic achievement in school, and years at current school.
Questions related to possible racial and ⁄ or cultural marginaliza-
tion included language spoken at home, country of birth or
years in Canada, and parents’ country of birth.
Technology use. Technology use was measured using
items including: how many hours spent on a computer daily; the
frequency with which computers were used for activities such as
homework, communicating with friends, playing games, and
sending pictures; which websites were visited most frequently; if
passwords were shared among friends; and how often cell
phones were used to talk to friends, text message, and send pho-
tographs.
Experience of cyber bullying. To gain a more compre-
hensive understanding of online behavior, the questionnaire
involved a series of questions about perpetrating or being the
victim of various online behaviors, without explicitly defining
the behaviors as bullying. Participants were asked to indicate if
they had experienced or perpetuated any of the following in the
3 months prior to the administration of the survey: calling
someone names, threatening, spreading rumors, sending a pri-
vate picture without consent, pretending to be someone else,
receiving or sending unwanted sexual text or photos, or being
asked to do something sexual. Following these sections, a gen-
eral question was asked to see if respondents felt that online
they bullied or were bullied, with the following definition of
cyber bullying: Cyber bullying includes the use of e-mail, cell
phones, text messages, and Internet sites to be mean to, make
fun of, or scare people.
Participants were asked who they bullied or were bullied by,
how their experience as a perpetrator and ⁄ or victim made them
feel, if they had ever witnessed cyber bullying, and, for those
who had been victimized, if they told someone about the bully-
ing or confronted the perpetrator. The questionnaire also
included questions asking participants to identify the character-
istics (such as sexuality, race, appearance, family, etc.) that they
believed resulted in their bullying or that were the reason
they bullied others. Additionally, participants were asked if they
experienced traditional bullying as a perpetrator and ⁄ or victim.
Results
Demographics
Slightly more than half the sample (55%) were female. More
than three fourth of participants (76.4%) lived with both biolog-
ical parents, followed by a single parent (16.8%), a biological
and stepparent (3.6%), and other (3.4%). Participants were
drawn from a diverse range of ethnic and cultural groups, as
only two thirds of the sample (66%) had been born in Canada
and almost half of the sample (44%) spoke a language other
than English at home, most notably languages from China or
South East Asia (20%), the Middle East or India (8%), Eastern
Europe (5%), and Western Europe (2%). Further, 66% of par-
ticipants indicated that their mother was born in a country
other than Canada, and 69% reported that their father was
born in a country other than Canada.
Technology Use and Internet Safety Knowledge
Almost all participants (99%) had a computer in their home,
and 98% of all participants used the computer for at least 1 hr
daily. Approximately two thirds of participants (65%) indicated
they communicated with friends online every day, and over half
(55%) of participants revealed that they used their cell phones
daily to speak to friends. One third of participants (32%) have
given their online passwords to friends, and only one fourth
(25%) of participants were aware that content uploaded online
cannot be completely deleted. Additionally, over half of partici-
pants (53%) had cell phones. Of those participants with cell
phones, two fifths (38.5%) reported using their phone daily to
send text messages.
Experience of Being Cyber Bullied
Across bullying behaviors, half of the students (49.5%) indi-
cated that they had been bullied online in the previous
3 months. Being called names was the most common form,
 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS 365

accounting for over one fourth (27%) of cyber bullying inci- Relationship Between Gender, Grade,
dents. This was followed by having rumors spread about the Language Spoken at Home, and Internet
participant (22%), having someone pretend to be the participant Behavior
(18%), being threatened (11%), receiving unwelcome sexual
At both grade groups, boys and girls did not report signi-
photos or text (10%), being asked to do something sexual (9%),
ficantly different numbers of computers in their home, or differ-
and having had private pictures of themselves distributed with-
ent locations of those computers. Although there was no
out their consent (7%). Two fifths of bullying took place
difference in the number of hours spent on the computer per
through instant messages, one fourth occurred by e-mail, and
day between girls and boys, the manner in which participants
the remainder took place during Internet games (12%) or on
used their computer time varied by gender. In both grade levels,
social networking sites (10%). Over one third of online bullying
girls were more likely to use the computer for homework, to
(36%) was perpetrated by friends, followed by a student at their
communicate with friends, and to send pictures. In both grade
school (22%), a stranger (13%), a student from another school
levels, boys were more likely to use the computer for Internet
(11%), and unknown (11%).
games. Girls in both grade levels were more likely to give their
Although 21% of students indicated that being bullied online
online passwords to friends than boys. In Grades 10 and 11,
did not bother them, others reported feeling angry (16%),
girls were significantly more likely to have a cell phone than
embarrassed (8%), sad (7%), or scared (5%). More than half of
boys. Greater detail regarding this analysis is presented in
the participants who were cyber bullied (52%) indicated that
Table 1.
they did not do anything in response, while others confronted
Students who spoke a language other than English at home
the person (20%), told a friend (13%), told a parent (8%), or
spent more hours on the computer per day than students who
told a teacher (3%). It is striking that in the majority of the
spoke English at home. In both grade levels, participants who
cyber bullying incidents (89%) the students reported knowing
spoke a language other than English at home were more likely
the identity of the perpetrator and most participants indicated
to use the computer for homework than participants who spoke
that the perpetrator was someone they considered a friend or a
English at home. There was no difference in online communica-
student at the respondent’s school or at another school. Addi-
tion with friends, playing Internet games, or sending pictures
tionally, one fourth of students indicated they had witnessed an
online by language spoken at home (see Table 2).
act of cyber bullying online.
More than one tenth of participants (11%) believed they were
bullied online because of their appearance, followed by race Relationship Between Gender, Grade, and
(6%), school performance (5%), other (4%), gender (3%), sexu- Cyber Bullying
ality (2%), family (2%), and disability (2%).
While there was no difference in having been cyber bullied
among girls and boys in Grades 6 and 7 (v2 = 2.210,
Cyber Bullying Others p = .137), older girls (Grades 10 and 11) were more likely to be
cyber bullied than older boys (v2 = 6.836, p = .009). Notably,
In the previous 3 months, just over one third (33.7%) of par-
boys and girls were equally likely to have cyber bullied others in
ticipants indicated that they had bullied others online. Almost
both Grades 6 and 7 (v2 = 1.457, p = .227) and Grades 10 and
one fourth (22%) of these incidents involved calling someone
11 (v2 = .302, p = .583).
names. Other acts of cyber bullying constituted pretending to be
In addition to these overall findings, it emerged that the type
someone else (14%), spreading rumors about someone (11%),
of cyber bullying participants experienced and perpetuated was
threatening someone (5%), sending someone’s private pictures
influenced by gender. Girls in all grades were more likely to
to someone else (3%), or sending unwelcome sexual pictures or
have been called names than boys. Older boys were more likely
text to someone (2%). Over half (60%) of the bullying behavior
than older girls to have been threatened online. Girls in both
took place through instant messages, followed by social net-
grade levels were more likely than boys to have had rumors
working sites (15%), e-mail (10%), Internet games (10%), and
spread about them online. Older girls were more likely than
other websites (5%). Friends were the most common targets of
older boys to have had someone send them unwelcome sexual
the participants’ cyber bullying behavior, with 52% of bullying
pictures or text, to be asked to do something sexual online,
aimed at friends. This was followed by another student at
and to have had their private photos distributed online without
school (21%), a stranger (11%), a student in another school
their consent. Younger boys, however, were more likely than
(9%), and unknown (6%). While 41% of those who cyber bul-
younger girls to have been asked to do something sexual
lied indicated that they did not feel anything in response, other
online. Greater detail regarding these relationships is provided
participants who bullied others online relayed feeling guilty
in Table 3.
(16%), powerful (9%), popular (6%), or better than other stu-
Older boys were more likely than older girls to have called
dents (4%). One fourth of participants (25%) reported that
someone names or to have threatened someone online. Youn-
cyber bullying another person made them feel that they were
ger boys were more likely than younger girls to have sent
funny, suggesting the bullying had been entertaining for them-
unwelcome sexual words or photos to someone else online.
selves or others.
Girls were more likely than boys to have spread rumors
Participants were most likely to indicate that they bullied
about someone in both grade levels. Additional findings
online because of the target’s appearance (6%), other (5%), race
regarding the perpetuation of cyber bullying are detailed in
(3%), school performance (3%), sexuality (2%), family (2%),
Table 4.
disability (1%), and gender (1%).
366 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON

Table 1. Gender, Grade, and Internet Behavior

Grades 6 and 7 Grades 10 and 11

Girls Boys Girls Boys

Number of computers in home

0 10 (1.9) 7 (1.5) 3 (0.5) 1 (0.2)
1 185 (35.3) 172 (35.9) 199 (30.2) 127 (25.7)
2 166 (31.7) 167 (34.9) 225 (34.1) 184 (37.2)
3 or more 163 (31.1) 133 (27.8) 233 (35.3) 182 (36.8)
v2 = 2.031, p = .566 v2 = 3.473, p = .324
Location of computer used most often
In bedroom 179 (34.3) 174 (35.9) 354 (53.5) 272 (55.6)
In public space in house 306 (58.6) 270 (56.7) 285 (43.1) 195 (39.9)
Other 37 (7.1) 41 (8.5) 23 (3.5) 22 (4.5)
v2 = 1.168, p = .558 v2 = 1.674, p = .433
Hours on computer per day
One 212 (43.3) 209 (46.3) 139 (21.3) 88 (18.1)
Two 176 (35.9) 150 (33.3) 226 (34.7) 188 (38.8)
Three or more 102 (20.8) 92 (20.4) 287 (44.0) 209 (43.14)
v2 = 0.996, p = .608 v2 = 2.743, p = .254
Computer use: Homework
Never 14 (2.7) 32 (6.6) 3 (0.5) 11 (2.2)
Once a month 67 (12.9) 85 (17.5) 22 (3.3) 36 (7.3)
Once a week 76 (14.6) 76 (15.7) 80 (12.0) 58 (11.7)
A few times per week 218 (41.6) 170 (35.1) 251 (37.8) 187 (37.2)
Once a day 85 (16.3) 60 (12.4) 139 (20.9) 103 (20.9)
More than once a day 61 (11.7) 62 (12.8) 169 (25.5) 102 (20.6)
v2 = 18.167, p = .003 v2 = 19.153, p = .002
Computer use: Communicate with friends
Never 42 (8.0) 86 (17.8) 8 (1.2) 19 (3.8)
Once a month 34 (6.5) 45 (9.3) 11 (1.7) 15 (3.0)
Once a week 38 (7.3) 48 (10.0) 27 (4.1) 17 (3.4)
A few times per week 110 (21.0) 95 (19.7) 93 (14.0) 80 (16.2)
Once a day 107 (20.4) 78 (16.2) 161 (24.2) 108 (21.9)
More than once a day 193 (36.8) 130 (27.0) 364 (54.8) 255 (51.6)
v2 = 34.057, p < .0005 v2 = 13.313, p = .021
Computer use: Play Internet games
Never 62 (11.8) 34 (7.0) 217 (32.7) 77 (15.6)
Once a month 79 (15.1) 42 (8.6) 173 (26.1) 83 (16.8)
Once a week 80 (15.3) 64 (13.1) 91 (13.7) 69 (13.9)
A few times per week 128 (24.4) 142 (29.2) 88 (13.3) 117 (23.6)
Once a day 97 (18.5) 88 (18.1) 46 (6.9) 65 (13.1)
More than once a day 78 (14.9) 117 (24.0) 49 (7.4) 84 (17.0)
v2 = 28.907, p < .0005 v2 = 95.281, p < .0005
Computer use: Sending pictures
Never 243 (46.6) 324 (67.8) 93 (14.0) 160 (32.5)
Once a month 135 (25.9) 77 (16.1) 224 (33.7) 141 (28.7)
Once a week 50 (9.6) 26 (5.4) 139 (20.9) 81 (16.5)
A few times per week 50 (9.6) 27 (5.6) 138 (20.8) 59 (12.0)
Once a day 25 (4.8) 12 (2.5) 36 (5.4) 19 (3.9)
More than once a day 18 (3.5) 12 (2.5) 34 (5.1) 32 (6.5)
v2 = 45.890, p < .0005 v2 = 64.745, p < .0005
Given online passwords to friends
No 344 (65.5) 383 (79.1) 380 (57.3) 353 (72.3)
Yes 181 (34.5) 101 (20.9) 283 (42.7) 135 (27.7)
v2 = 23.159, p < .0005 v2 = 27.423, p < .0005
Cell phone ownership
Yes 221 (42.4) 177 (36.6) 459 (69.4) 284 (58.6)
No 300 (57.6) 306 (63.4) 202 (30.6) 201 (41.4)
v2 = 3.490, p = .062 v2 = 14.534, p < .0005

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages.

 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS 367

Table 2. Language Spoken at Home, Grade, and Internet Behavior

Grades 6 and 7 Grades 10 and 11

English Other English Other

Hours on computer per day

One 287 (50.63) 137 (36.3) 119 (20.7) 109 (19.4)
Two 181 (31.9) 145 (38.5) 229 (39.8) 185 (32.9)
Three or more 99 (17.5) 95 (25.2) 228 (39.6) 268 (47.7)
v2 = 19.680, p < .0005 v2 = 8.170, p = .017
Computer use: Homework
Never 34 (5.5) 11 (2.8) 7 (1.2) 7 (1.2)
Once a month 110 (17.9) 42 (10.7) 36 (6.1) 22 (3.9)
Once a week 111 (18.0) 44 (11.2) 81 (13.7) 56 (9.8)
A few times per week 224 (36.4) 164 (41.7) 229 (38.8) 207 (36.4)
Once a day 83 (13.5) 63 (16.0) 127 (21.5) 116 (20.4)
More than once a day 54 (8.8) 69 (17.6) 110 (18.6) 161 (28.3)
v2 = 37.533, p < .0005 v2 = 18.776, p = .002
Computer use: Communicate with friends
Never 77 (12.5) 50 (12.8) 15 (2.5) 12 (2.1)
Once a month 48 (7.8) 31 (7.9) 14 (2.4) 13 (2.3)
Once a week 44 (7.1) 41 (10.5) 18 (3.1) 26 (4.6)
A few times per week 129 (20.9) 77 (19.6) 82 (13.9) 92 (16.2)
Once a day 111 (18.0) 77 (19.6) 149 (25.3) 120 (21.1)
More than once a day 208 (33.7) 116 (29.6) 312 (52.9) 306 (53.8)
v2 = 4.977, p = .419 v2 = 5.205, p = .391
Computer use: Play Internet games
Never 53 (8.6) 42 (10.6) 144 (24.4) 150 (26.3)
Once a month 83 (13.4) 39 (9.9) 131 (22.2) 125 (21.9)
Once a week 92 (14.9) 52 (13.2) 81 (13.7) 79 (13.9)
A few times per week 167 (27.0) 105 (26.6) 113 (19.2) 92 (16.1)
Once a day 114 (18.4) 72 (18.2) 56 (9.5) 56 (9.8)
More than once a day 110 (17.8) 85 (21.5) 65 (11.0) 68 (11.9)
v2 = 5.879, p = .318 v2 = 2.163, p = .826
Computer use: Sending pictures
Never 350 (57.4) 219 (55.9) 128 (21.7) 126 (22.2)
Once a month 122 (20.0) 91 (23.2) 191 (32.4) 174 (30.7)
Once a week 42 (6.9) 34 (8.7) 112 (19.0) 108 (19.0)
A few times per week 49 (8.0) 28 (7.1) 96 (16.3) 101 (17.8)
Once a day 25 (4.1) 12 (3.1) 29 (4.9) 26 (4.6)
More than once a day 22 (3.6) 8 (2.0) 34 (5.8) 32 (5.6)
v2 = 5.157, p = .397 v2 = .774, p = .979
Given online passwords to friends
No 437 (70.8) 292 (74.1) 359 (61.1) 376 (66.7)
Yes 180 (29.2) 102 (25.9) 229 (38.9) 188 (33.3)
v2 = 1.290, p = .256 v2 = 3.926, p = .048

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages.

Older boys were more likely than older girls to believe they
were cyber bullied due to their race (v2 = 12.074, p < .005) or
disability (v2 = 5.265, p < .05). Older girls were more likely to
believe they were cyber bullied due to their sexuality
(v2 = 6.088, p < .05), gender (v2 = 6.142, p < .05) or appear-
ance (v2 = 4.991, p < .05).
Boys in both grade levels were more likely to indicate that
they cyber bullied someone because of their race (Grades 6 & 7,
v2 = 9.087, p < .005; Grades 10 and 11, v2 = 10.979,
p < .005). Younger boys were more likely to indicate that they
cyber bullied someone because of their sexuality (v2 = 5.044,
p < .05), whereas older boys were more likely to indicate that
they cyber bullied someone because of their family
(v2 = 12.602, p < .0005) or gender (v2 = 4.437, p < .05).
Relationship Between Language Spoken at
Home and Cyber Bullying
Students who spoke English at home were more likely to have
been called names, been the subject of rumors, and have some-
one pretend to be them than those who spoke a language other
than English at home. Participants who spoke English at home
were also more likely to have been asked to do something sex-
ual. Additional findings are detailed in Table 5.
Students who spoke English at home were more likely to have
spread rumors online than students who spoke a language other
than English at home. No other differences in the perpetuation
of cyber bullying were found by language spoken at home (see
Table 6).
368 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON

Table 3. Students Who Were Cyber Bullied in the Last 3 Months by Gender and Grade

Grades 6 and 7 Grades 10 and 11

Students who were cyber bullied in last 3 months Girls Boys Girls Boys

Being called names

Never 370 (71.0) 356 (73.7) 472 (71.7) 368 (75.6)
Once or twice 132 (25.4) 97 (20.1) 160 (24.3 87 (17.9)
More than twice 19 (3.6 30 (6.2) 26 (4.0) 32 (6.5)
v2 = 6.660, p = .036 v2 = 9.751, p = .008
Being the subject of rumors
Never 381 (73.8) 403 (84.5) 494 (75.3) 388 (80.0)
Once or twice 115 (22.3) 64 (13.4) 148 (22.6) 72 (14.8)
More than twice 20 (3.9) 10 (2.1) 14 (2.1) 25 (5.2)
v2 = 16.976, p < .0005 v2 = 16.847, p < .0005
Someone pretends to be you
Never 400 (77.4) 395 (82.8) 553 (84.1) 403 (83.3)
Once or twice 106 (20.5) 71 (14.9) 91 (13.9) 67 (13.8)
More than twice 11 (2.1) 11 (2.3) 13 (2.0) 14 (2.9)
v2 = 5.351, p = .069 v2 = 1.011, p = .603
Being threatened
Never 457 (89.1) 415 (86.3) 615 (93.6) 417 (86.5)
Once or twice 50 (9.7) 51 (10.6 36 (5.5) 42 (8.7)
More than twice 6 (1.2) 15 (3.1) 6 (.9) 23 (4.8)
v2 = 4.865, p = .088 v2 = 22.048, p < .0005
Receiving unwelcome sexual content
Never 471 (92.7) 425 (91.4) 548 (85.2) 465 (93.1)
Once or twice 32 (6.3) 27 (5.8) 74 (11.5 18 (3.9)
More than twice 5 (1.0) 13 (2.8) 21 (3.3) 14 (3.0)
v2 = 4.449, p = .108 v2 = 20.912, p < .0005
Asked to do something sexual
Never 478 (93.0) 436 (92.6) 572 (87.5) 451 (94.2)
Once or twice 33 (6.4) 19 (4.0) 66 (10.1) 14 (2.9)
More than twice 3 (0.6) 16 (3.4) 16 (2.4) 14 (2.9)
v2 = 12.741, p = .002 v2 = 21.734, p < .0005
Private pictures distributed
Never 496 (95.6) 452 (95.2) 594 (90.1) 447 (92.2)
Once or twice 20 (3.9) 14 (2.9) 58 (8.8) 26 (5.4)
More than twice 3 (0.6) 9 (1.9) 7 (1.1) 12 (2.5)
v2 = 4.161, p = .125 v2 = 7.984, p = .018

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages.

Respondents in this study were not always knowledgeable,

Discussion
This research is among the first in-depth investigations of
cyber bullying among middle and high-school students in a
large city, with a large and diverse sample. According to our
results, cyber bullying is a significant problem among middle
and high school students.
Analyses reveal that students are clearly proficient with and
regularly use technology, which corresponds with the literature
(Agatson, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Nie & Hillygus, 2002).
The vast majority of respondents appear highly dependent on
communication technology for interaction and connection as
well as for activities such as homework and games. The findings
are supported by evidence which suggests that most youth use
the Internet to communicate with others they already know
(Gross, 2004; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007) and that this online
communication with others who the students know has a posi-
tive effect on the quality of their friendships and romantic rela-
tionships (Blais et al., 2008; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).
however, about the best ways to remain safe while online. This
was made evident by the one third of participants who had
given their online passwords to friends and the three fourths of
participants who did not realize that text or images uploaded
to the Internet could remain online indefinitely, even after
deletion.
A sizable number of the respondents reported being involved
in cyber bullying. Almost half of all participants identified as
having been bullied online. This rate is higher than that
reported in other studies on cyber bullying (Beran & Li, 2005;
Li, 2007; O’Connell, Price, & Barrow, 2004; Patchin & Hinduja,
2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). Additionally, one in three
respondents admitted to bullying others online, also greater
than the rates reported by previous studies (Beran & Li, 2005;
Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Li, 2007; O’Connell et al., 2004; Pat-
chin & Hinduja, 2006; Raskauskas & Stotlz, 2007; Williams &
Guerra, 2007). There is some research, however, in which find-
ings approach or exceed the prevalence of online bullying or
 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS 369

Table 4. Students Who Cyber Bullied Others in the Last 3 Months by Gender and Grade

Grades 6 and 7 Grades 10 and 11

Students who cyber bullied others in the last 3 months Girls Boys Girls Boys

Calling someone names

Never 433 (83.4) 398 (82.9) 502 (76.3) 332 (69.2)
Once or twice 79 (15.2) 65 (13.5) 143 (21.7) 115 (24.0)
More than twice 7 (1.4) 17 (3.6) 13 (2.0) 33 (6.8)
v2 = 5.488, p = .064 v2 = 19.010, p < .0005
Pretending to be someone else
Never 440 (85.6) 417 (88.3) 547 (84.5) 406 (86.2)
Once or twice 68 (13.2) 47 (10.0) 95 (14.7) 56 (11.9)
More than twice 6 (1.2) 8 (1.7) 5 (0.8) 9 (1.9)
v2 = 2.954, p = .228 v2 = 4.482, p = .106
Spreading rumors
Never 449 (86.6) 441 (92.8) 556 (86.3) 431 (90.2)
Once or twice 62 (11.9) 30 (6.4) 84 (12.8) 38 (7.9)
More than twice 8 (1.5) 4 (0.8) 6 (0.9) 9 (1.9)
v2 = 10.609, p = .005 v2 = 8.493, p = .014
Threatening someone
Never 499 (95.9 446 (94.5) 626 (96.0) 436 (92.0)
Once or twice 13 (2.6) 18 (3.8) 21 (3.2) 26 (5.5)
More than twice 3 (0.6) 8 (1.7) 5 (0.8) 12 (2.5)
v2 = 4.186, p = .123 v2 = 9.506, p = .009
Sending private photos of someone else
Never 503 (97.9) 466 (98.1) 626 (96.2) 447 (94.3)
Once or twice 10 (1.9) 5 (1.1) 23 (3.5) 24 (5.1)
More than twice 1 (0.2) 4 (0.8) 2 (0.3) 3 (0.6)
v2 = 3.347, p = .188 v2 = 2.291, p = .318
Sending unwelcome sexual content
Never 510 (99.0) 463 (96.8) 637 (97.7) 460 (97.0)
Once or twice 3 (0.6) 7 (1.5) 12 (1.8) 9 (1.9)
More than twice 2 (0.4) 8 (1.7) 3 (0.5) 5 (1.1)
v2 = 6.100, p = .047 v2 = 1.383, p = .501

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages.

harassment of others found in this study (Beran & Li, 2007;
Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Raskauskas & Stotlz, 2007; Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004b, 2007).
The high rate of reported cyber bullying victimization and
perpetration in this study may be due in part to the nature of
the survey. A review of questions employed by several other sur-
veys (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li,
2007; Raskauskas & Stotlz, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007;
Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2007), revealed that after being pro-
vided a definition of online bullying or harassment, students in
these studies were asked to identify whether they thought they
were ‘‘bullied’’ or ‘‘harassed’’ by others or whether they thought
they ‘‘bullied’’ or ‘‘harassed’’ others online based on the defini-
tion provided. In contrast, in this study we asked students
whether they engaged in or were the target of distinct cyber bul-
lying behaviors without labeling these behaviors as bullying.
When explicitly asked about their experience with ‘‘bullying’’
and ‘‘being bullied’’ online, the results were very different:
85.8% of respondents indicated that they do not bully or get
bullied online, 6.4% indicated that they bully and get bullied
online, 5.1% indicated that they are bullied online, and only
2.6% indicated that they bully others online. Although students
admitted to engaging in specific behaviors online, they may not
have considered these behaviors as constituting bullying.
Exploring cyber bullying in this manner provided an opportu-
nity to examine the prevalence of bullying behavior without
classifying it as such. Therefore, it appears that the scope of
cyber bullying behavior experienced and perpetuated by this
sample far exceeds what participants explicitly identified as bul-
lying, which is itself a notable finding.
No gender differences were found in the overall perpetration
of cyber bullying in our study, which corresponds to the litera-
ture (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Wil-
liams & Guerra, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). However,
gender differences were evident in this analysis regarding the
form of cyber bullying in which participants were involved. The
nature of these differences is consistent with the well-docu-
mented gender differences evident in traditional bullying,
whereby boys are more involved in direct or overt and physical
forms of aggression and girls are more involved in indirect and
relational forms (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005; Prinstein et al.,
2001). According to our findings, even in the online environ-
ment, there is evidence that boys are more likely to be victims
or perpetrators of direct bullying such as threatening and that
girls are more likely to be victims or perpetrators of indirect bul-
lying such as rumors or pretending to be someone else.
370 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON

Table 5. Students Who Were Cyber Bullied in the Last 3 Months by Language Spoken at Home

Language spoken at home

Students who were cyber bullied in the last 3 months English Chinese ⁄ SE Asia India ⁄ Middle Eastern Other

Being called names

Never 853 (70.9) 308 (72.0) 140 (78.7) 268 (77.9)
Once or twice 299 (24.9) 91 (21.3) 30 (16.9) 58 (16.9)
More than twice 51 (4.2) 29 (6.7) 8 (4.4) 18 (5.2)
v2 = 17.655, p = .007
Being the subject of rumors
Never 893 (74.7 360 (84.3) 152 (85.9) 264 (77.9)
Once or twice 262 (21.9) 54 (12.5) 19 (10.7) 65 (19.2)
More than twice 40 (3.4) 13 (3.0) 6 (3.4) 10 (2.9)
v2 = 26.464, p < .0005
Someone pretends to be you
Never 954 (79.8) 363 (85.2) 147 (83.5) 289 (84.8)
Once or twice 218 (18.2) 56 (13.1) 22 (12.5) 41 (12.0)
More than twice 24 (2.0) 7 (1.7) 7 (4.0) 11 (3.2)
v2 = 16.995, p = .009
Being threatened
Never 1,061 (88.9) 378 (88.1) 161 (92.0) 308 (90.9)
Once or twice 109 (9.1) 39 (9.1) 11 (6.3) 20 (5.9)
More than twice 24 (2.0) 12 (2.8) 3 (1.7) 11 (3.2)
v2 = 7.211, p = .302
Receiving unwelcome sexual content
Never 1,042 (88.9) 381 (92.7) 154 (92.8) 303 (90.2)
Once or twice 92 (7.8) 26 (6.3) 10 (6.0) 24 (7.1)
More than twice 38 (3.3) 4 (1.0) 2 (1.2) 9 (2.7)
v2 = 9.459, p = .149
Asked to do something sexual
Never 1,065 (89.7) 401 (95.0) 163 (93.7) 312 (91.8)
Once or twice 86 (7.3) 16 (3.8) 7 (4.0) 23 (6.8)
More than twice 35 (3.0) 5 (1.2) 4 (2.3) 5 (1.4)
v2 = 14.044, p = .029
Private pictures distributed
Never 1,107 (92.7) 400 (93.5) 169 (94.4) 317 (93.0)
Once or twice 71 (5.9) 25 (5.8) 4 (2.2) 17 (5.0)
More than twice 16 (1.4) 3 (0.7) 6 (3.4) 7 (2.0)
v2 = 11.079, p = .086

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages. Language spoken at home: English = English; Chinese ⁄ S.Asian = Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese;
Indian ⁄ Middle Eastern = Tamil, Persian (Farsi) Urdu, Punjabi, Arabic; Other = Somali, Russian, Portuguese, Other.

The finding that older girls were more likely than boys in
their grade level to be sent unwelcome sexual pictures or text or
to be asked to do something sexual online corresponds with
research on cyber harassment (Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor,
2007). With respect to offline sexual bullying or harassment,
although the evidence seems clear that girls experience more
physical sexual harassment than boys there is conflicting evi-
dence about whether the frequency and severity of sexual
harassment experienced by girls is greater than by boys (Timm-
erman, 2003), or whether they endure similar levels but different
forms of harassment (McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig,
2002). The important point is that there is compelling evidence
that sexual harassment is a prevalent form of peer victimization
both online and offline, for students of both genders and partic-
ularly for girls.
While the literature suggests marginalized students may be at
higher risk of online victimization (Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkel-
hor, 2007), our research found that students who spoke a
language other than English at home were not at higher risk of
being bullied. This finding may be influenced by the manner in
which students who spoke a language other than English at
home spent their time on the computer, as these students were
far more likely to spent their time online completing homework
than other students. Further research in this area is necessary to
explore the relationship between marginalization and cyber
victimization.
Another finding that is consistent with the literature on cyber
bullying and cyber abuse is that many students did not report
their experiences of cyber bullying to their parents (8%) or
teachers (3%; Finkelhor et al., 2000; O’Connell et al., 2004).
Other results indicate that children and youth were more likely
to report incidents of cyber bullying to their parents than to
teachers although the percentage of students that tells their par-
ents is disturbingly low (Agatson et al., 2007). This finding that
students do not report cyber bullying corresponds with the
troubling and stable finding that reported traditional bullying
 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS 371

Table 6. Students Who Cyber Bullied Others in the Last 3 Months by Language Spoken at Home

Language spoken at home

Students who cyber bullied others in the last 3 months English Chinese ⁄ SE Asia India ⁄ Middle Eastern Other

Calling someone names

Never 930 (77.8) 330 (77.1) 138 (79.3) 272 (79.1)
Once or twice 230 (19.2) 85 (19.9) 28 (16.1) 59 (17.2)
More than twice 36 (3.0) 13 (3.0) 8 (4.6) 13 (3.7)
v2 = 3.223, p = .780
Pretending to be someone else
Never 991 (84.1) 382 (89.9) 149 (87.6) 293 (86.9)
Once or twice 172 (14.6) 39 (9.2) 17 (10.0) 39 (11.6)
More than twice 15 (1.3) 4 (0.9) 4 (0.9) 5 (1.5)
v2 = 12.076, p = .060
Spreading rumors
Never 1,042 (87.3) 382 (89.9) 158 (91.9) 310 (90.6)
Once or twice 139 (11.7) 40 (9.2) 9 (5.2) 26 (7.6)
More than twice 12 (1.0) 4 (0.9) 5 (2.9) 6 (1.8)
v2 = 15.188, p = .019
Threatening someone
Never 1,123 (95.0) 404 (95.1) 162 (93.6) 323 (95.6)
Once or twice 40 (3.4) 19 (4.4) 9 (5.2) 10 (3.0)
More than twice 19 (1.6) 2 (0.5) 2 (1.2) 5 (1.4)
v2 = 5.772, p = .449
Sending private photos of someone else
Never 1,139 (96.2) 413 (97.7) 165 (95.4) 330 (97.3)
Once or twice 39 (3.3) 9 (2.1) 6 (3.4) 8 (2.4)
More than twice 6 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 2 (1.2) 1 (0.3)
v2 = 4.596, p = .597
Sending unwelcome sexual content
Never 1,158 (97.4) 421 (98.8) 163 (95.9) 333 (98.2)
Once or twice 17 (1.4) 4 (0.9) 5 (2.9) 5 (1.5)
More than twice 14 (1.2) 1 (0.3) 2 (1.2) 1 (0.3)
v2 = 8.343, p = .214

Note. Values in parentheses are percentages. Language spoken at home: English = English; Chinese ⁄ S.Asian = Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese;
Indian ⁄ Middle Eastern = Tamil, Persian (Farsi) Urdu, Punjabi, Arabic; Other = Somali, Russian, Portuguese, Other.

underestimates the problem (Hanish & Guerra, 2000). While
some of the reasons children and youth withhold disclosure of
cyber bullying parallel those in the traditional bullying litera-
ture, such as fear of retaliation and worsening of the bullying or
fear that telling adults would not help (Agatson et al., 2007;
Mishna & Alaggia, 2005), some reasons for not disclosing cyber
bullying incidents appear unique to the cyber world. A major
barrier to children and youth disclosing cyber victimization is
fear that their parents would remove their Internet or cell phone
privileges (Agatson et al., 2007; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). This
lack of disclosure belies the students’ emotional responses,
whereby a significant proportion reported feeling angry, embar-
rassed, sad, or scared, in the current and other research (Beran
& Li, 2005; Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007; Wolak, Mitch-
ell, & Finkelhor, 2006).
The finding that most students knew the identity of the
perpetrator breaks the assumption commonly noted in the
literature that cyber bullying is anonymous (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2007, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Raskauskas
& Stotlz, 2007; Shariff, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a).
Such results are not surprising, however, considering the evi-
dence that the majority of youth communicate online with
other individuals they already know (Gross, 2004; Valken-
burg & Peter, 2007). The findings correspond with other
research in which it was found that 73% of youth who had
experienced cyber bullying reported that they knew the per-
son who bullied them (Magid, 2005). The assumption of ano-
nymity is further challenged by our finding that one fourth
of cyber bullying occurs in the presence of ‘‘cyber’’ witnesses.
A sizable body of research demonstrates that the majority of
traditional bullying incidents occur in the presence of peers
(Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Craig & Pepler, 2007; O’Connell et al.,
1999) and that the roles peers play are pivotal, whether they
passively watch, join or intervene to stop the bullying (Haw-
kins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001; O’Connell et al., 1999). Although
‘‘cyber’’ witnesses may differ from offline bystanders due to
the unique online context, the large proportion of respon-
dents who reported witnessing cyber bullying points to the
importance of addressing bystanders in education and preven-
tion interventions, in order to alter their attitudes and
responses to online bullying. Moreover, it is important to be
mindful that in cyber space ‘‘the potential audience of
bystanders and observers of electronic bullying is limitless’’
(Kowalski & Limber, 2007).
372 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON
Not only did the results suggest that students knew the perpe-
trator but the findings also indicated that students were often
cyber bullied by someone they considered a friend and that stu-
dents bullied others online who were considered friends. This
finding corresponds to the small body of literature that exam-
ines traditional bullying that occurs among friends and that
may consequently pose distinct challenges (Casey-Cannon,
Hayward, & Gowen, 2001; Crick & Nelson, 2002; Dane, 2001;
Grotpeter & Crick, 1996; Mishna, Wiener, & Pepler, 2008). For
example, aggressive children may use the features that are
unique to friendship, such as disclosure of confidences, to bully
their friends by exerting control (James & Owens, 2005). For
vulnerable children who may be bullied by a friend, having or
desiring the friendship may complicate the situation and thus
limit the child’s options (Newman, Murray, & Lussier, 2001).
Although there is evidence that communication technology can
be beneficial for friendships (Blais et al., 2008; Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007), the findings of this study suggest that such technol-
ogy may also pose difficulties such as cyber bullying.
Limitations
Although the present analysis utilized a large and randomly
selected sample of youth, limitations must be noted. Although
data from the included school boards highlight that the final
sample is quite similar to the overall population on key demo-
graphics (see Table 1), the low response rate limits the generaliz-
ability of these findings. These results should therefore be
viewed as preliminary. Another limitation is that all grades
between 6 and 12 were not sampled due to constraints imposed
by the participating school boards out of concern about
resource issues. Caution must thus be taken in generalizing the
results to students in the nonparticipating grades.
Implications for Prevention: Families and
Educators
The findings of this study correspond with the literature that
documents the integral role of electronic technology for children
and adolescents, both as a way of communicating and relating
positively and as a means through which they bully and are bul-
lied. Parents and educators must not ignore or underestimate
children’s and youth’s knowledge and skill with computers, the
Internet, and other communication technology. In addition to
recognizing the centrality and importance of cyber interactions
for children and youth’s socialization, adults need to differenti-
ate technology use that is neutral or positive from technology
use that is abusive or negative. Underestimating children’s
almost ubiquitous use of technology and its significant meaning
for them can produce a gap in knowledge across generations,
resulting in adults’ inability to protect children and youth from
the potential dangers of this technology.
Recognition by parents and educators of the importance of
Internet activity, particularly online communication, may facili-
tate disclosure of cyber bullying among children and youth who
fear that online prohibitions may result from any discussion of
cyber victimization or perpetration. Further, it is pivotal that
parents and educators understand the differential risk associated
with gender and grade to tailor prevention messages to the
grade- and gender-specific behaviors that most place children
and youth at risk.
Implications for Practice and Service Delivery
An implication of the present study is the need for practi-
tioners to both understand and attend to the importance and
meaning of online relationships for children and youth, and
address the inherent risks in online communication and inter-
actions, including the potential for cyber bullying among
friends. For example a child or youth may give a trusted
friend a password, without anticipating the risks should the
relationship change, such as the friend becoming angry and
using this password to perpetrate cyber bullying. What
occurs within the context of what a child or youth considers
a trusted friendship (for example giving a password or send-
ing a picture) may quickly move into the realm of cyber
space with its potential for immediate, widespread and long-
standing distribution. Children and youth therefore need
education and support to navigate the complexity of their
online interactions and friendships.
The findings indicting that cyber bullying occurs among peer
groups, including friends and acquaintances, suggests that pre-
vention and intervention should occur in schools within the chil-
dren’s and youth’s social worlds and with the support of their
teachers and parents. Research is required to examine and deter-
mine how to optimally intervene to support children and youth.
Along with recognizing the centrality and meaning of elec-
tronic communication for children and youth, practitioners
must understand the phenomenon of cyber bullying including
similarities with and differences from traditional bullying. An
important focus must be on facilitating the ability of children
and youth to tell their parents and other adults about their
experiences of cyber bullying and on helping parents and other
adults to respond effectively.
Implications for Policy
As the results highlight that cyber bullying predominantly
occurs within existing social relationships and by known perpe-
trators, it is important that judicial policy makers incorporate
an understanding of peer-to-peer victimization in their preven-
tion and intervention efforts in the field of cyber abuse.
Although a focus on cyber abuse, exploitation, and solicitation
by strangers remains vital, it is important to recognize the harm
associated with cyber bullying and cyber sexual victimization
within the context of peer groups.
Conclusion
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) identifies
adults as responsible to protect children from all forms of physi-
cal and mental violence, injury, or abuse. Children’s and youth’s
habitual and intense involvement in the cyber world and the
rapid increase of cyber bullying signal an urgent call to action
for adults to intervene and protect children and youth. Results
of the study reported in this article revealed that cyber bullying
largely occurs within children’s existing social relationships. This
finding provides further support for the need to address the
 CYBER BULLYING BEHAVIORS
problem of cyber bullying through a systemic approach, encom-
passing different levels of the system including peers, teachers,
school administrators, mental health professionals, law enforce-
ment, and parents.
Keywords: adolescents; Canada; cyber bullying; victimization;
gender; ethnicity.
References
Agatson, P., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives
on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S59–S60.
Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. (1998). Observations of bullying in the class-
room. Journal of Education Research, 92, 86–99.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method
for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32,
265–277.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and
school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 15–33.
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks of
violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online study
of adolescent girls in the United States. Meridian: A Middle School
Technologies Journal, 5, 1–32.
Blais, J. J., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2008). Adolescents
online: The importance of Internet activity choices to salient relation-
ships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 522–536.
Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth heart social network sites: The role of net-
worked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth,
identity, and digital media (pp. 199–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. (2006). IMing, text
messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Med-
iated Communications, 11, 577–592.
Campbell, M. (2005). The impact of the mobile phone on young people’s
social life. Presented at the Social Change in the 21st Century Confer-
ence, Queensland University of Technology.
Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, K. (2001). Middle-school
girls’ reports of peer victimization: Concerns, consequences, and
implications. Professional School Counseling, 5, 138–153.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. GAOR
Supp. 49 at 165, U.N. Doc. A/44 736 (1989).
Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research
to practice. Canadian Psychology, 48, 86–93.
Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimiza-
tion within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599–607.
Cullerton-Sen, C., & Crick, N. (2005). Understanding the effects of
physical and relational victimization: The utility of multiple perspec-
tives in predicting social-emotional adjustment. School Psychology
Review, 34, 147–160.
Dane, A. V. (2001). A multimethod examination of the friendships of
overtly aggressive and relationally aggressive children. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
62(4-A), 1323.
Eslea, M., & Mukhtar, K. (2000). Bullying and racism among Asian
school children in Britain. Educational Research, 42, 207–217.
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A
report on the nation’s youth. National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/
Youth Internet info page.html
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what
teens report. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–
649.
Grotpeter, J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt
aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328–2338.
373
Hanish, L., & Guerra, N. (2000). Children who get victimized at school:
What is known? What can be done? Professional School Counseling,
4, 113–119.
Hawkins, D., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2001). Naturalistic observations
of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2007). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analy-
sis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior,
29, 129–156.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Pre-
venting and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, L., von Eye, F., Biocca, F., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzger-
ald, H. (2006). Does home Internet use influence the academic perfor-
mance of low-income children? Developmental Psychology, 42, 429–
435.
James, V. H., & Owens, L. D. (2005). ‘‘They turned around like I wasn’t
there’’ An analysis of teenage girls’ letters about their peer conflicts.
School Psychology International, 26, 71–88.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?
Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–
505.
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22–S30.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in
schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791.
Magid, L. J. (1998). Child safety in the information highway. National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved December 8,
2008, from http://www.safekids.com/child_safety.htm
McMaster, L., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2002). Peer to peer
sexual harassment among early adolescents. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 14, 91–105.
Media Awareness Network. (2005). Young Canadians in a wired world.
Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.media-awareness.ca/
english/research/ycww/phaseII/key_findings.cfm
Mishna, F., & Alaggia, R. (2005). Weighing the risks: A child’s decision
to disclose peer victimization. Children and Schools, 27, 217–226.
Mishna, F., Wiener, J., & Pepler, D. (2008). Some of my best friends:
Experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology Interna-
tional, 29, 549–573.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003a). Victimization of
youth on the internet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
8, 1–39.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2003b). The exposure of
youth to unwanted sexual material on the Internet: A national survey
of risk, impact, and prevention. Youth & Society, 34, 330–358.
Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Trends in youth
reports of sexual solicitations, harassment and unwanted exposure to
pornography on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 116–
126.
Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative impor-
tance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency
and substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12, 314–324.
Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Haynie, D., Ruan, J., Scheidt, P. (2003).
Relationships between bullying and violence among U.S. youth.
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 348–353.
Newman, R. S., Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation with
aggressive peers at school: Students’ reluctance to seek help from the
teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 398–410.
Nie, N., & Hillygus, D. (2002). Where does Internet time come from?: A
reconnaissance. IT & Society, 1, 1–20.
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bul-
lying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence,
22, 437–452.
374 MISHNA, COOK, GADALLA, DACIUK, AND SOLOMON
O’Connell, R., Price, J., & Barrow, C. (2004). Cyber stalking, abusive
cyber sex and online grooming: A programme of education for teenag-
ers. Central Lancashire, UK: Cyberspace Research Unit.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and
effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171–1190.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first
generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the school yard:
A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Jus-
tice, 4, 148–169.
Peskin, M., Tortolero, S., & Markham, C. (2006). Bullying and victim-
ization among Black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 467–
484.
Prinstein, M., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. (2001). Overt and relational
aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological functioning of aggres-
sors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 477–489.
Raskauskas, J., & Stotlz, A. (2007). Involvement in traditional and elec-
tronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43,
564–575.
Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Three national innovations in
Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135–143.
Schrock, A., & Boyd, D. (2008). Online threats to youth: Solicitation,
harassment, and problematic content: Literature review prepared for the
Internet Safety Technical Task Force. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/RAB_
Lit_Review_121800.pdf
Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: Balancing
free expression and student safety in cyber-space. McGill Journal of
Education, 40, 467–487.
Shariff, S., & Johnny, L. (2007). Cyber-libel and cyber bullying: Can
schools protect student reputations and free expression in virtual envi-
ronments? McGill Journal of Education, 16, 307–342.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of
bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
Timmerman, G. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated
by teachers and by peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power,
culture, and gender in secondary schools. Sex Roles, 48, 231–244.
Tynes, B. (2007). Role taking in online ‘‘classrooms’’: What adolescents
are learning about race and ethnicity. Developmental Psychology, 43,
1312–1320.
Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’
online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 267–277.
Williams, K., & Guerra, N. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet
bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14–S21.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization
of youth: Five years later. Washington, DC: National Center for Miss-
ing and Exploited Children.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harass-
ment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harassment by
known peers and online-only contacts Journal of Adolescent Health,
41, S51–S58.
Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. (2007). Examining the overlap
in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school
intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50.
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-occur-
rence of internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victim-
ization and perpetration: Associations with psychosocial indicators.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S31–S41.
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004a). Online aggressor ⁄ targets, aggres-
sors and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004b). Youth engaging in online
harassment: Associations with caregiver-child relationships,
Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27,
319–336.
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of Inter-
net harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 41, 189–195.
j