Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 28;2(1):e12683.
doi: 10.2196/12683.

Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: Stakeholder-Driven Concept Mapping Approach

Affiliations

Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: Stakeholder-Driven Concept Mapping Approach

Megan Andreas Moreno et al. JMIR Pediatr Parent. .

Abstract

Background: Cyberbullying includes bullying behaviors on the Web; these behaviors are inconsistently measured and lack standardized definitions. The Uniform Definition of Bullying provides a consensus-based definition of bullying, and it highlights the need for an evidence-based definition of a model for cyberbullying.

Objective: Toward understanding the key elements and constructs defining cyberbullying, the objective of this study was to develop a stakeholder-driven conceptual model of cyberbullying.

Methods: Concept mapping is a validated research method that leverages both qualitative and quantitative approaches to integrate stakeholder input on complex topics. This process was used to develop a concept map and adapt it through participant input to a conceptual model. The validated concept mapping approach includes 5 steps: preparation, generation (brainstorming), structuring (sorting), representation (statistical analysis), and interpretation. We recruited stakeholder participants, including adolescents, as well as parents and professionals representing education, health, and the justice system. Analysis included hierarchical cluster analysis to develop a cluster map representing cyberbullying, followed by adaptation of that map to a conceptual model through qualitative participant feedback.

Results: A total of 177 participants contributed to the concept mapping process, including 69% females, 50% adults, and 68% Caucasian, representing each of our stakeholder groups. A total of 228 brainstorming items were generated and sorted into a concept map that included 9 clusters. Clusters included topics that had strong overlap with traditional bullying, such as consequences for perpetrators and targets, with example items "alienating" and "crippling." Some clusters were unique, such as cyberbullying techniques, with example item "excessive messaging," and characteristics of the cyberbullying experience, with example item "constant." Through the interpretation step, a conceptual model emerged, illustrating connections and distinctions between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.

Conclusions: We found that in generating a stakeholder-driven concept map of cyberbullying, participants could not describe cyberbullying without integrating key concepts from traditional bullying. On the basis of our conceptual model, there are unique characteristics of cyberbullying that suggest that uniform definitions of bullying need to be evaluated to ensure their application to cyberbullying.

Keywords: adolescent; cyberbullying.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cyberbullying concept map developed by stakeholders including adolescents and young adults, parents, community members such as educators, clinicians and attorneys. Each number represents a single item proposed by participants, and the clusters represents how participants sorted items into groups of alike concepts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conceptual model of cyberbullying and its relationship with bullying. Cluster numbers on the diagram are from cyberbullying concept map in parentheses.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. May 29, [2019-05-31]. Youth Risk Behavior Survey http://www.cdc.org/yrbs .
    1. Patchin J, Hinduja S. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard a preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2006;4(2):148–69. doi: 10.1177/1541204006286288. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sameer_Hinduja/publication/25820101... - DOI
    1. Ybarra M, Mitchell K, Wolak J, Finkelhor D. Examining characteristics and associated distress related to internet harassment: findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):e1169–77. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0815.118/4/e1169 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Slonje R, Smith PK. Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scand J Psychol. 2008 Apr;49(2):147–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x.SJOP611 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hinduja S, Patchin J. Cyberbullying: neither an epidemic nor a rarity. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(5):539–53. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.706448. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254222960_Cyberbullying_Neither... - DOI

LinkOut - more resources