Cyber bullying has recently received much attention. With the rapid
technological advancements, “Internet’, ‘Text Messaging’, ‘My Space’,
‘Blogs’ and ‘PDAs’ have become household terms, especially among
children and youth. While there have been incredible positive
technological advancements, there have been many downfalls as well, such
as the growing incidence of cyber bullying.
42% of kids have been bullied while online. 1 in 4 has had it happen
more than once.
Based on a 2004 i-SAFE
survey of 1,500 students grades 4-8, it was found that:
v
35% of kids have been threatened online. Nearly 1 in 5 has had it happen
more than once.
v
21% of kids have received mean or threatening e-mail or other messages.
v
58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them
online. More than 4 out of 10 say it has happened more than once.
v
53% of kids admit having said something mean or hurtful to another
person online. More than 1 in 3 has done it more than once.
v
58% have not told their parents or an adult about something mean or
hurtful that happened to them online.
(http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op&sub_id=media_cyber_bullying)
The results of this study validate the growing incidence of cyber
bullying, highlight the grey areas between victims and perpetrators, and
the potential lack of adult awareness regarding the rampant existence of
cyber bullying.
As school counselors, educators and parents, there is an increasing
accountability to become technologically savvy, to teach children and
youth safe and responsible hi-tech utilization, to monitor their
computer use in school and at home, and to appropriately respond to
misuses such as cyber bullying. In order to achieve these goals, it is
crucial that cyber bullying is defined and described, responsibilities
of those involved are outlined, program considerations are addressed,
and assessment protocols and therapeutic responses are delineated. We
need to move beyond the essential discussions of Internet safety and
isolated reactive, disciplinary responses to a collaborative effort
whereby cyber bullies and situations are assessed and proactive,
therapeutic measures are enacted. The first step in this process is to
establish a clear understanding of what cyber bullying is and the forms
it can take.
Overview
Definition and Description
Cyber bullying has been defined as “Cyber bullying involves the use of
information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones
and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal
websites, and on-line personal polling websites, to support deliberate,
repeated and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is
intended to harm others” (Belsey, n.d.). Cyber bullying has also been
referred to as “On-line Social Cruelty” or “Electronic bullying”http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/indexAdult.asp?Area=cyberbullying.
As
illustrated in the definition, many technological forms may be used to
cyber bully another person or group of people.
Profiles & Forms
In the same way, there is not a ‘cookie cutter’ mold of a cyber bully
but many types which exist. It is important to look at these types of
cyber bullies, not as absolute profiles, but as means of gaining further
insight into the motivation for cyber bullying actions. Aftab, as cited
in Kennedy (2005), has described several types of cyber bullies:
‘Vengeful Angels’ (youth who bully online to right a wrong to others or
themselves), ‘Power Hungry’ (youth
who bully online to exert their authority; control others by using fear
tactics: similar to traditional bullies and frequently past victims of
such bullying), ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ (youth who bully online to
frighten or embarrass their victims; settle a score), ‘Mean Girls’
(youth who bully online because they are bored or looking for
entertainment), and ‘Inadvertent’ (youth who bully without realizing
that it’s bullying) (pp. 10-11).
Similarly, cyber bullying forms have been differentiated:
‘Entitlement Bullies’ (“put-downers” who
think they are superior and have the right to harass and demean others,
especially those they think are different or inferior), ‘Victims of
Entitlement Bullies’ (kids who get picked on because bullies think they
are different or inferior), ‘Retaliators’ (“get-backers” who have been
bullied by others and are using the Internet to retaliate), ‘Victims of
Retaliators’ (most often, kids who have been bullying, but are now
receiving the cruelty), ‘Bystanders who are Part of the Problem’ (those
who encourage and support the bully or watch the bullying from the
sidelines but do nothing to intervene or help the victim), and
‘Bystanders who are Part of the Solution’ (those who seek to stop the
bullying, protest it, provide support to the victim, or tell an adult) (http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/parent_cyberbullying.php).
Avenues
Similar to the profiles and forms described above, there are
several avenues of cyber bullying which exist. Understanding these
avenues can further assist in the detection of cyber bullying incidents.
These avenues as defined by Willard (2006) include:
‘Flaming’ (sending
angry, rude or vulgar messages directed at a person or persons privately
to an on-line group), ‘Harassment’ (repeatedly sending a person an
offensive message), ‘Cyber Stalking’ (harassment that is highly
intimidating or includes threats of harm), ‘Denigration’ (sending or
posting harmful, untrue or cruel statements about a person to others),
‘Masquerading’ (pretending to be someone else and sending or posting
material that makes that person look bad or places that person in
personal danger), ‘Outing and Trickery’ (sending or posting material
about a person that contains sensitive, private or embarrassing
information, including forwarding private messages or images; engaging
in tricks to solicit embarrassing information that is then made public),
and ‘Exclusion’ (Actions that specifically and intentionally exclude a
person from an online group, such as exclusion from an instant messaging
‘buddies’ list) (pp.1-4).
While cyber bullies may use many of these avenues, assessing patterns
among avenue types and predominant avenues used is important information
in identifying, eliminating and responding to such behavior.
Signs to Look For
Further basic signs to look for in the detection of cyber
bullying include:
displays frustration, anger or anxiety during or after computer use;
avoids discussion of computer use; stops using the computer (cyber
bullied), and excessive use of computer; shows agitation when cannot use
the computer; possesses several on-line accounts; closes screen when
others around; avoids discussion of computer use (cyber bully) (www.cyberbullying.us).
It is important to be aware that cyber bullies do not typically mirror
traditional schoolyard bullies. Unlike the latter, which frequently can
be somewhat easily identified by their direct actions against others on
school property, their poor relationships with teachers, and who fear
retaliation, cyber bullies are often anonymous, against others off
school property, have good relationships with teachers, and fear loss of
computer privileges (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004;
www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov). With a need for a clearer
understanding of what cyber bullying is comes the necessity for a better
understanding of responsibilities among all parties involved.
Responsibilities
Detection of and response to cyber bullying is not the sole
responsibility of any one person. School counselors, social workers,
psychologists, educators, administrators, parents, children and youth
should all be conscientious about and actively involved in addressing
this crucial problem.
Schools
Currently, schools have either typically responded two ways
to cyber bullying incidents. First, they have turned the problem back to
the home due to the events frequently occurring off school grounds or
fear of liability. The second response is the opposite extreme. Based on
zero tolerance policies, and rightful fear from over a decade of school
violence (http://www.columbine-angels.com/SV_Links.htm),
they have evoked disciplinary measures, often suspending or expelling
violators. Further ‘muddying the waters’ is the lack of clear cut
policies for schools in regard to cyber bullying per se. A recent bill
proposed by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles would require cyber bullying to
be included in schools’ lists of prohibited behaviors. Al Roker is just
one of the supporters of the proposed Anti-bullying Act of 2005, which
would establish complaint procedures for parents and students, and to
notify parents of new anti-bullying policies and procedures annually
(Jackson, 2006). Although the bill did not pass, it is still active in
an effort to add electronic bullying to prohibited behaviors listed in
school district policies. In the interim, schools have several federal
laws that can guide them in responding to issues related to privacy of
records and Internet use: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA-protects the privacy of student education records);
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA-requires commercial
online content providers who have actual knowledge they are dealing with
a child 12 or under or who aim their content at children to obtain
parental consent); and Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA-schools
and libraries receiving federal funds must have in place an Internet
Safety policy).
In addition, it is crucial that schools have an Acceptable Use Policy
(AUP) in place. Basically, an AUP can clearly communicate to
students, staff and parents about policies surrounding school Internet
use and safety procedures, and a means of obtaining parental consent.
Through these policies, such guidelines as Internet use, responses to
abuse, delineation of school districts security systems, clarification
of computer property rights, solicitation and advertisement
prohibitions, and specification of a technology coordinator position can
spelled out in advance. Additional components and examples of
AUPs may be found on the following websites:
v
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/olr/aup/aupmod.html
v
http://www.monroe.lib.in.us/~lchampel/netadv3.html;
v
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Technology/AUP/home.shtml
This document, therefore, can be a guiding framework from which schools
can operate. It also behooves schools to have clear policies regarding
additional electronic devices. Implicit responsibilities of the schools
are to monitor computer use, educate all parties involved, thoroughly
assess situations, respond in a holistic manner to those involved; and
elicit the help of other professionals such as resource officers,
community counseling agencies, legal counsel, police, Internet Service
Providers where needed.
Parents
Parents share an equal responsibility in appropriate
technological use by their children and youth. First and foremost, it is
important that they become educated themselves and stay current in their
technological knowledge. They need to be aware of what their children
and youth are doing on the computer, e.g., what they are posting on
websites and communicating in instant messages and e-mails. Early on,
just as children are taught to ‘stop, drop and roll’, parents need to
teach young ones about safety issues such as not sharing personal
information, responding to ‘pop ups’ or visiting sites beyond parental
approval. They must also be taught that it is a privilege not a right,
and that technological use comes with responsibility and an expectation
of ethical behavior. It is important that parents develop an actual
written plan, an ‘Internet Safety Agreement’, with their children and
youth. In this document, such areas as open communication with parents
about problems encountered, agreement to not share personal information
on-line, avoidance of sites with age inappropriate material, and
respectful communication in messages sent are incorporated. Parents
should also have clear policies in place for any misuse of technology,
save evidence of any problems their children and youth encounter,
communicate openly with the school, and seek outside help (e.g. legal
counsel, community counseling) where appropriate.
Children & Youth
Children and youth need to be open to technological
education, and protect their private information. If problems occur
on-line, they need to stop the computer activity, and tell their
parents. Children and youth together can work towards blocking
inappropriate messages and save evidence of any problems. As stated
above, they need to responsibly use technological equipment. If children
and youth become aware of peer misuse of technology, they must be
empowered to disclose these problems to adults. Children and youth must
be advised that there is a difference in ‘narcing’ versus disclosing
potentially dangerous information to adults. Fundamentally, children and
youth must be cognizant of the fact that words can hurt, and to think
through what they want to say before they hit the ‘send’ button.
All parties must be accountable in decreasing cyber bullying
and helping to foster empathy, caring, and kindness in the schools. Many
programs have been developed and implemented to address these goals.
Program considerations will next be addressed.
Program Considerations
Traditional Programs
As previously mentioned, zero tolerance policies are
frequently evoked when incidents of cyber bullying occur. However, there
are problems with this type of policy such as difficulty in getting
peers to report, the wide net of those involved, power the lack of
pro-social models, and ‘lockdown’ school environments have been
reported (Fleming, Towey, Limber, Gross, Rubin, Wright & Anderson, 2002;
Fuentes, 2003). In addition, the fundamental principle of zero tolerance
is to discipline the misbehavior. Focus is on consequences not
assessment, and on getting rid of negative behaviors without teaching
positive behaviors. Just as with technology with its both good and bad
uses, it is important to look at elements of proactive responses to
cyber bullying incidents, and a team approach.
Program Level & Focus
The school program level should not simply involve the school
disciplinarian and cyber bully. Support for such changes must come from
the ‘top down’. Interventions must occur at the parent/community,
school, classroom and individual levels (http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/details/BPPdetails.html).
A recent article entitled “It takes a village: Bringing school into the
community and community into the school” (Cushman, 2005) emphasizes this
collaborative approach. Information sharing, joint decision-making,
mutual responsibility, and problem resolution are just a few of the
benefits of such a team approach. In addition, it is important that the
focus of school programs not end with disciplinary measures. Suspension
and expulsion may take care of immediate safety needs, and be the
‘easiest’ to implement in accordance with zero tolerance policies.
However, often times, this type of response is one of overreaction and
may be biased (, i.e. if the situation were assessed, it may be found
that the child or youth was safe to stay in school, others were also
involved). At the very least, the main message given is that the cyber
bullying was wrong. No effort exists to address the reasons for the
cyber bullying, and ways to equip the cyber bully with psychological,
educational and social skills are not explored. The question must be
ultimately asked, ‘What does the student ultimately learn from the
process?’
Program Nuances
These practices are called further into question when the
‘nuances’ of cyber bullying are considered. As Willard (2006) indicated,
not all cyber bullying incidents involve threats, and such threats may
arise from the ‘victim’ not just the cyber bully. In addition, students
may try on new roles on the computer which they would not consider
adopting in actuality, and computer language tends to be coarser than
spoken language and thus mistakenly seen as more serious. Compounded by
the problems of impersonation and difficulty in identification of all
parties involved, it seems that discipline without assessment is a major
concern, and in fact, could create more problems. This is not to say
that if there is any concern that an imminent threat of danger exists,
that suspension should not be utilized. In most cases, however, a
comprehensive assessment should be completed, and therapeutic
interventions should be considered, before outcomes are decided.
Assessment
Assessment Process & Focus
The first step in assessment is accurate documentation of
the incident which occurs. Areas such as who was involved, how was it
detected, location of the incident, description of the event, level of
seriousness, and interventions taken are important to address. The cyber
bully should also complete an assessment form in which his/her feelings
and thoughts about, reasons for, and circumstances surrounding the
incident are evaluated. General areas of further assessment may be
obtained from those addressed in the Youth Assessment Screening
Instrument (http://www.orbispartners.com/yasi/yasi/htm).
The cyber bully’s home situation (e.g. dual or single parent family,
level of stability, existence of abuse, proximity to gangs/violence),
social networks, physical and mental health status, and attitudes are
considered. Similar to those areas assessed in the above instrument,
assessment of the cyber bully’s risk and resiliency factors are also
important to consider (Cesarone,1999; Kumpfer, 1999; Rutter, 1993; Sege
& Licenziato, 2004). Risk factors might include the cyber bully’s
genetic history, temperament; stressed, absent family situations;
evidence of physical, sexual or drug abuse; poor academic performance;
conduct problems; and exposure to violence. Resiliency factors to
consider would be the cyber bully’s social competence, problem solving
skills, autonomy, and sense of purpose/future.
In addition to assessing the specific cyber bullying
situations, it is worthwhile to globally evaluate the school’s cyber
bullying awareness and responses. Conducting a survey at the beginning
and the end of each year, including such areas as cyber bullying
definition, incidence, detection, location, means, ‘profiles’,
consequences, school staff involved, assessment and intervention
procedures, could provide a wealth of information in terms of program
planning, evaluation and changes needed.
Assessment Measures
Schools may develop their own surveys pertinent to their assessment
needs, as well as use pre-existing measures such as cyber bullying
surveys and quizzes:
v
Cyber Bullying Parent and Student Assessments (https://auth.isafe.org/selftest/index.php)
v
Cyber Bullying Survey (http://www.cyberbully.org/docs/cbsurvey.pdf)
v
Cyber Bullying Quiz (http://www.wiredkids.org/ktt_universal/games/javascript/cyberbullying_quiz_1/index.html)
General bullying and safe school assessment measures may also be
utilized such as those found in Hoover & Oliver’s handbook (1996), as
well as those available online:
v
http://www.hamfish.org/measures/b/instruments;
v
http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/bully_supps.pg1htm
v
http://www.teachingtolerance.org
Once such assessment information is collected, is important to determine
what type of therapeutic responses best fit the individual situations.
The authors propose the ‘PEAS’ (Psychological-Educational-Social)
program, described in the next section.
‘PEAS’ Program
As previously discussed, traditional programs such as zero
tolerance have their flaws, and reliance on strictly disciplinary
measures do not remediate the problems or teach positive behaviors. The
authors, therefore, have developed a comprehensive
Psychological-Educational-Social (‘PEAS’) program designed to be a means
of providing both cyber bullying intervention and prevention.
Psychological Response
Psychologically, there are several goals. It is important to
assess and address the cyber bully’s motivation for the behavior. If the
cyber bully’s needs can be identified, such as power, belonging, fun,
esteem, safety and survival (Glasser, as cited in James and Gilland,
2003; Maslow, 1954), then alternative behaviors to cyber bullying may be
developed to meet those needs in a more productive manner.
Building on the principles postulated in the
Strong Kids: The Oregon Resiliency Project
(http://orpuoregon.edu),
psychological responses may include affective, cognitive and behavioral
components. Affectively, the cyber bully may need to work through their
feelings of anger, guilt, and isolation, as well as develop empathy for
the ‘victim’. This may be accomplished through role plays, rehearsals,
and reversals, letters of apology, review of movies and books, through
structured activities, and moderated apology session. A more formalized
program, such as Pika’s (1989) Common Concern Method, may also be
utilized. Cognitively, it is important to look at the cyber bully’s
thoughts prior to and following the behavior.
Support for such cognitive-behavioral interventions is found in the
Strong Kids: The Oregon Resiliency Project (http://orpuoregon.edu),
Safe and Responsive Schools project (http://www.unl.edu/srs),
and in the general treatment of numerous youth disorders such as anxiety
and depression (Barrett & Ollendick, 2003). The steps outlined in
Ellis’ (1973) Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy may be utilized:
identification of the A- Activating experience (e.g. exclusion
from a group of peers); B-Thoughts about event (e.g. worthless),
and C-Emotional Reactions (lonliness). In this way, emotions and
thoughts tied to the behavior can be explored, and adaptive behaviors
developed. Such behaviors can be practiced via role playing, rehearsal
and reversal. Similarly, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy REBT
(Huber, 2000) may be readily adapted to use in the school setting: A-Detailed
Success Descriptions e.g. report problems to administrators instead of
cyber bullying), B-Rational Beliefs associated with Successful
Solution (e.g cyber bully believes in own control over situations), and
C-Positive Emotional and Behavioral Consequences (e.g. cyber
bully feels less stress and school administrator addressing problems).
Educational Response
In order to effectively identify and respond to cyber bullying,
students, counselors, educators and parents must be educated. This cyber
bullying education can take place in many formats such as in the
classroom, during school assemblies, and in after school continuing
education programs. Fundamental to this education is awareness of
Internet Safety. Several excellent websites exist in regard to this
topic:
v
http://www.csriu.org
v
http://www.cyberbullying.us/resources.php;
v
http://i-safe.org/;
http://www.webwisekids.com/index2.html
v
http://wiredsafety.org
Specific cyber bullying curriculum may be adopted such as that developed
by Nancy Willard (http://www.csriu.org).
If this is not possible, there are many avenues to utilize pre-existing
courses to address the topic of cyber bullying. For example, movies
could be watched or books read on the topic in Language arts, and
reports written. In Social Studies, people who have been bullied or who
have bullied can be discussed and ‘mock trials’ conducted. Technology
classes could be devoted to the development of anti cyber bullying
websites, art classes could sponsor an art contest on the impact of
being a cyber bully victim, and Communication classes could address
public service announcements on the topic. School assemblies and
continuing education programs could involve Internet Service Providers,
Police and Lawyers dealing with Internet Safety, and school staff and
students who have either cyber bullies or been victims of cyber
bullying. Implicit in this educational process is awareness and
utilization of articles, books, movies, websites and activities
pertaining to cyber bullying. A collection of such information may be
found in Demystifying and deescalating cyber bullying in the schools:
A resource guide for counselors, educators and parents (Trolley,
Hanel & Shields, 2006).
Social Response
With the growing age of technology, it is not surprising
that the problem of poor social skills is compounded. Children and youth
are frequently working on the computer in schools instead of small
groups, and playing on it at home instead of with peers. If one looks at
the different potential motivations for cyber bullying, such as
isolation, entertainment, and power, it is essential that fundamental
social skills be addressed. Traditional concepts found in Character
Education (http://www.goodcharacter.com),
and in the work of Search Institute’s Developmental Assets (http://www.search-institute.org/assets/forty.htm)
speak to the fundamental values and social skills children and youth
need. Children and youth need to feel socially competent, to learn
leadership skills, and to be involved in cooperative learning
experiences. This focus on social skill building may take place in
counseling sessions, in lunch buddy groups, community volunteer
projects, classroom competitions, mentoring opportunities, and
community-based programs such as the YMCA and Big Brother/Big Sister.
Inherent in these experiences is access to appropriate social role
models.
It would be helpful to design such a program once a needs
analysis of the school (district) is completed, and prior to the start
of the school year in order that the program may be clearly communicated
to all parties. A master calendar would help to delineate a
comprehensive, systematic approach to such a program. Note, the three
tiers of the ‘PEAS’ program may be used both as intervention and
prevention measures.
Summary
Decision Tree
Designing a decision tree that is written into school policy
and communicated to school staff can facilitate the holistic therapeutic
response. The top of the ‘tree’ would include completion of the incident
report and collection of evidence. The next tier would involve obtaining
information from multiple domains (school, family, and social networks),
looking at risk and resiliency factors; gathering data from numerous
sources (teachers, students, administrators, and parents); and compiling
details utilizing a variety of methods (self-report, interviews,
collateral information, assessment surveys, and standardized
instruments). The last tier would include the possible disposition
outcomes: required contacts (administration, parents, police);
disciplinary measures (detention, suspension, expulsion, arrest); and
therapeutic measures (‘PEAS’ program, family support, outside
counseling, residential settings). The final level would pertain to
ongoing prevention efforts.
Program Development & Evaluation
As with any program, it is essential that programs are
clearly thought out and designed before implementation. Questions should
be raised as to how educators, administrators and parents will be
involved; what are the specific objectives, goals and timetable; what
resources and barriers exist; and what training is required. Insight
into such a worksheet may be obtained from reviewing the literature on
general bullying (Brewster & Railsback, 2001), and school counselor
program improvement (NYSSCA, 2005).
In addition, crucial to any program is accountability, is the program
effective? A survey may be developed in which types and frequency of
cyber bullying incidents, interventions utilized, knowledge of cyber
bullying and internet safety obtained, and policy awareness are
assessed. This survey could be completed throughout and at the end of
the school year. This would facilitate formative changes that could
perhaps increase the effectiveness of the program and decrease incidents
during the course of the year, as well as plan for summative changes at
the end of the year that may need larger resources such as financial
funding. Students, counselors, educators, administrators and parents
should be a part of this evaluation process.
Conclusion
With the expansion of technological use and misuse by our
children and youth, the lack of clear school policy in regard to cyber
bullying, and the questionable effectiveness of traditional programs, it
is imperative that the school community work collaboratively and
proactively in addressing this problem. As addressed in
Safe and Responsive Schools (http://www.unl.edu/srs),
a notion of a caring, supportive school and community environment must
be established. Discipline alone is not working. If children and youth
are to learn more appropriate, pro-social behaviors, then we must look
at assessment and therapeutic intervention. It’s not just the child that
must change but the school environment as well
(http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/bullying_fs.html).
We must overcome our fear initiated by Columbine and reinforced by
subsequent incidents of school violence. Safety of our children and
youth is at the foremost of our intentions. However, we cannot continue
to look at all cyber bullies as violent and dangerous. Having clear
assessment policies in place will help differentiate the small number
who must leave the school grounds for safety sake, and receive more
severe consequences and intensive treatment. The majority of students
who do not fall in this category may also need disciplinary measures but
they also need assistance in coping with their thoughts and feelings in
a more healthy way, and develop positive life skills. It is not always
clear cut as to who is the victim and who is the cyber bully, but we do
know that through technology, one act can exponentially have an impact
on others. Helping the cyber bully can help decrease further
victimization. It can also help the cyber bully become better adjusted
and perhaps resolve trauma experienced by him/her as well. Efforts to
achieve the cessation of cyber bullying are a responsibility of the
entire school community. As typewriters are long outdated and replaced
by computers, use of ineffective responses such as banishment from
school should be replaced with well thought out, holistic,
therapeutically driven programs. Adults attest to the need to ‘learn
form their mistakes’. Shouldn’t we also help our children and youth, who
are developmentally more impulsive and cognitively more immature, do the
same rather than quickly impose a disciplinary action which may
academically and emotionally scar them?
References
Acceptable use policy model. (January 12, 2005). Retrieved January 10,
2006
from:http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/olr/aup/aupmod.html
Acceptable use
policies (March 11, 2000). Retrieved November 10, 2005 from:
http://www.monroe.lib.in.us/~lchampel/netadv3.html
Acceptable use
policies: A handbook. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006 from:
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Technology/AUP/home.shtml
Aftab, P. (2005). Cyber bullying types. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/parents/howdoyouhandleacyberbully.html
Bargh, J. A., &
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55,
573-590.
Barrett, P. & Ollendick, T. H. (2003). Handbook of interventions that
work with
children and adolescents: Prevention & treatment.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Belsey, B. (n.d.). Cyber bully definition. Retrieved January 4, 2006
from:
http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/indexAdult.asp?Area=cyberbullying
Brewster & Railsback, J. (December 2001). Schoolwide prevention of
bullying.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Library. Retrieved
January 10,
2006 from:
http://pathwayscourses.samhsa.gov/bully/bully_supps_pg1.htm
Bullying characteristics. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006 from:
www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov
Center for safe and responsible internet use. (n.d.). Retrieved January
4, 2006
from:http://www.csriu.org
Cesarone,
B. (Ed.). (1999). Resilience guide: A collection of resources on
resilience in children and families.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and
Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Identifier No. ED436307).
Retrieved May
28, 2006 from:
http://eric.ed/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&pageLabel+
RecordDetails&ERICEExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED436307&ERIC
ExtSearch_SEarchType_0=eric_accno&obbjectld=0900000b8008fcad
Character education. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006 from:
http://goodcharacter.com
Children’s internet protection act. (2006). Retrieved May 27, 2006 from:
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.htm
Children’s online privacy protection act. (1998). Retrieved May 27, 2006
from:
http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm
Cohn, A. & Canter, A. (2003). Bullying: Facts for schools and parents.
National
Association of School Psychologists Center. Retrieved January 4,
2006 from:
http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/bullying_fs.html
Cushman, K. (2005). It takes a village: Bringing school into the
community and
community into the school. Edutopia, November 2005, p.
47-49.
Cyber bullying curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
http://www.csriu.org
Cyber bullying forms. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2005 from:
http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/parent_cyberbullying.php
Cyber bullying quiz. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
http://www.wiredkids.org/ktt_universal/games/javascript/cyberbullying
quiz_1/index.html
Cyber bullying signs. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2005 from:
http://www.cyberbullying.us
Cyber bullying signs. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2005 from:
http://www.loveourchildrenusa.org/parent_cyberbullying.php
Cyber bullying statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2005 from:
http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op&sub_id=media_cyber_bullying
Cyber bullying us. (n.d.). Retrieved January 10, 2006 from:
http://www.cyberbullying.us
Ellis, A. (1973). Rational-emotional therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.).
Current
psychotherapies. Ithaca, ILL: F.E. Peacock.
Family educational rights and privacy act. (2005). Retrieved May 27,
2006 from:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
Fleming, M., & Towey, K., eds. (2002). Educational forum on adolescent
health:
Youth bullying. May 2002. Chicago American Medical Association.
Retrieved
October 10, 2005 from:
www.ama-assn.org/go/adolescenthealth
Fuentes, A. (2003). Discipline and punish: Zero tolerance policies have
created a
‘lockdown environment’ in schools. The Nation Magazine; December
15,
2003.
Retrieved October 18, 2005 from:
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Education/Discipline_Punish.html
Hamfish
institute. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
http://hamfish.org/cms/view/195/
Hoover, J.H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying prevention handbook:
A guide for
principals, teachers, and counselors.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational
Service.
Huber, C. H. & Backlund, A. A. (2000). The twenty minute counselor:
Transforming brief conversations into effective helping
experiences.
New
York: Crossroad.
I
safe. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2005 from:
http://i-safe.org
Jackson, C. (2006). E-bully. Retrieved May 27, 2006 from:
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/magazine/features.jsp?&is=38&ar=653
James, K. & Gilliland, B. (2003). Theories and strategies in counseling
and
psychotherapy (5th Ed). NY, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Students fall victim to high-tech harassment:
Bullies
discovering new playground in cyberspace. Counseling Today, June
2005,
10-11.
Kumpfer, K.L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to
resilience: The
resilience framework.
In M.D. Glantz and J.L. Johnson (Eds.) Resilience and
development: Positive life adaptations. Longitudinal research in
the social and
behavioral sciences. 179-224. New York: NY, US.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
NYSSCA,
(2005). The New York state model for comprehensive k-12 school
counseling programs.
Retrieved January 10, 2006 from:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/2145.html
Olweus bullying prevention programs (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006
from:
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/details/
BPPdetails.html
Pikas, A. (1989). The common concern method for treatment of mobbing. In
David A. Lane (Ed.). Bullying: An international perspective.
London, England:
David Fulton Publishers.
Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations.
Journal of
Adolescent Health, 14,
(8), 626-631.
Safe and responsive schools project. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12,
2005, from:
http://www.unl.edu/srs
Search institutes developmental assets. (2005). Retrieved January 4,
2006 from:
http://www.search-institute.org/assets/forty.htm
Sege R. and Licenziato V. (Ed.). (2004). Recognizing and preventing
youth
violence: A guide for Physicians and other health care
professionals.
Waltham, MA: Massachusetts Medical Society.
School violence links. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006 from:
http://www.columbine-angels.com/SV_Links.htm
Strong kids: The Oregon resiliency project. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4,
2004
from:http://orpuoregon.edu
Teaching tolerance. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2006 from:
http://www.teachingtolerance.org
Trolley, B., Hanel, C. & Shields, L. (2006). Demystifying and
deescalating cyber
bullying in the schools: A resource guide for counselors, educators
and
parents.
http://www.booklocker.com
Web wise kids. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2005 from:
http://www.webwisekids.com/index2.html
Willard, N. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the
challenge
of online social cruelty, threats and distress. Eugene, OR: Center
for Safe and
Responsible Internet Use. Retrieved May 1, 2006 from:
http://www.cyberbully.org/cbbook.html
Wired safety. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2005 from:
http://wiredsafety.org
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online
harassment:
Associations with caregiver-child relationships, internet use, and
personal
characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336.
Youth assessment screening instrument. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10,
2005
from:http://www.orbispartners.com/yasi/yasi.htm
Author's Biography
Barbara C. Trolley,
Ph.D., CRC, Linda Shields, MSEd., and Connie Hanel, MSEd. Contact
Person: Dr. Trolley, St. Bonaventure University,
btrolley@sbu.edu
