JOINING FORCES

Joining Families

Volume 17, Issue 1 • Summer 2017

R E A L W O R L D R E S E A R C H F O R F A M I LY A D V O C A C Y P R O G R A M S

F E AT U R E D I N T E R V I E W

Cyberbullying and Its Relationship to
Other Forms of Violence: The Risks
and Dangers of Polyvictimization
Ernest N. Jouriles, PhD

Ernest N. Jouriles, PhD, is a Dedman Family Distinguished Professor in the Departmentof Psychology at Southern Methodist University.
His research addresses violence in adolescentromantic relationships and the development ofintervention programs to prevent such violence.
His research also examines children’s exposure
to interparental conflict and violence, and interventions to help children in violent families.

In This Issue
This issue of Joining Forces Joining Families (JFJF) features an interview
with Ernest Jouriles, PhD, and Kelli Sargent, BA, on the perpetration of andeffects on victims of bullying with an emphasis on cyberbullying. We provide
a brief review of traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and recent research on
risks and benefits of digital technologies that are often used by children andadolescents. In our regular research methods article, we describe differencesin cross-sectional and longitudinal research studies. We also describe thelongitudinal study on cybervictimization conducted by Ms. Sargent andcolleagues. Websites of interest lists useful online resources for families,
counselors, educators, and healthcare providers on violence prevention andhealthy relationships.
CONTENTS
Cyberbullying and Its Relationship to Other Forms of Violence: The Risks
and Dangers of Polyvictimization...................................................................1
Building Bridges to Research: Cross-sectional or Longitudinal Research
Design: What are the Differences and When Do You Use Them?...................4
Multiple Types of Victimization Contribute to Mental Health Symptoms........5
Traditional Bullying, Cyberbullying, and the Internet: Risks to Children andAdolescents...................................................................................................6
Family Violence Increases Child and Adolescent Bullying Victimization and
Perpetration: A Global Public Health Problem..............................................10
Websites of Interest.....................................................................................11

Kelli S.
Sargent, BA

Kelli S.
Sargent, BA, is aclinical psychology doctoral
student in the
Department of Psychology at Southern Methodist University. Her research focuses on intervention evaluation, specifically targeting violence
prevention among adolescents and young adults.
Her research interests also include adolescentrisk factors that render teens more susceptible tonegative consequences of violence and adverse
experiences.



Dr. McCarroll: Bullying is a complex formof interpersonal violence that includes
perpetration and victimization. Your research
has investigated traditional bullying aswell as cyberbullying, which occur throughelectronic media. What are the similarities
and differences in these two?
Dr. Jouriles: Cyberbullying is not that different from other forms of violence, but it isa different mechanism or vehicle by which todeliver the violence. In some ways, it is likewhat we have been studying and dealing withfor years as an act of violence. It might fallunder emotional violence; it might fall understalking. However, the perpetration of cyberbullying does things that cannot be done with
face-to-face violence, and the effects can belonger lasting. Let’s say you post something on
Continued on page 2

The perpetration of
cyberbullying doesthings that cannot bedone with face-to-faceviolence, and the effects
can be longer lasting.

social media such as a harassing message or a
picture. It is not just one act, but also one thatcan be distributed among many people. You
are not just delivering it to an intended victim,
but you are letting everyone know that this is
your thought toward this intended victim. The
effects of cyberbullying may be comparable toa rumor that can be gradually spread to many,
many different individuals.
Ms. Sargent: There are two components toconsider. First, there is the permanence aspectthat makes repeated victimization possible.
Second, it can be quickly passed along to manyother students. It is not like the note in theclassroom.
Dr. Jouriles: The perpetrator can also getat the intended victim by threatening to showa photo or other embarrassing material. Thiscan be devastating to certain age groups, likeadolescents.
Dr. McCarroll: They may also be able todisguise it to make it look like someone elseis the perpetrator.
Ms. Sargent: That is catphishing - the act ofimpersonating another person and using emotional manipulation in order to extort moneyor sexually explicit pictures under the guise ofbeing someone else. That opens up the field to

JOINING FORCES
Joining Families
Editor-in-Chief
James E. McCarroll, PhD
Email:
James.McCarroll.ctr@usuhs.edu
Joining Forces Joining Families
is a publication of the U. S.
Army Installation Management Command and theFamily Violence and Trauma
Project of the Center for the
Study of Traumatic Stress(CSTS), Bethesda, Maryland
20814-4799, tel. 301-2952470. CSTS is part of the
Department of Psychiatry of
Uniformed Services University, which is our nation’sfederal medical school.

2 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Editorial Advisor
LTC Ricky J. Martinez. PhD, MSC, USA
Family Advocacy Program Manager
Installation Management Command
Department of the Army
Editorial Consultant
Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
Captain, US Public Health Service
Associate Professor/Assistant Chair andScientist
Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress
Department of Psychiatry
Uniformed Services University

a whole array of other problematic actions thatthe perpetrator can undertake against potential
victims.
Dr. Jouriles: Are the effects more harmful if
a victim knows their perpetrator or if the perpetrator is unknown? In addition, the perpetrator is not always aware of who is affected.
Dr. McCarroll: What do you teach kids
about how to protect themselves from being
victimized in these and other potentiallyharmful situations?
Ms. Sargent: The field absolutely needs
more evidence-based prevention and intervention efforts addressing both perpetration andvictimization. With cyberbullying, we are kindof shooting in the dark at this point. But, given
how similar it can be to everyday in-person
bullying, a lot of ongoing classroom-based or
home-based prevention efforts and interventions can be tweaked to apply to cyberbullying.
Some of these ongoing efforts to prevent perpetration of traditional bullying are relevant tocyberbullying. Examples are working on interpersonal characteristics like empathy-building
as well as promoting individual skills for adolescents like self-regulation, anger management,
not blowing up when there are heated emotions,and not jumping straight to the insults or theharassment. A lot of how you interact with yourpeers depends on how you interact at home.
So, when there is family violence at home, or
hostile parent-child interactions, bullying ismodeled. That environment is a training groundfor how they interact with their peers and it issubsequently reinforced outside of the homeenvironment.
Dr. McCarroll: So, you are talking about
addressing those issues in the home as wellas in the school?
Ms. Sargent: Yes, and focusing on promoting open communication between parents andchildren so there is not this sudden, “Oh, no!
Let’s shut down the kid’s Facebook.” Rather thantaking it away, teach them, “You can come to us
with anything and we are here for you and we
can support you,” and making warm communication a very common experience for adolescents.
Dr. McCarroll: You would think that is better if
it comes from the home.
Dr. Jouriles: Not necessarily. It is better if itcomes from multiple sources, the home as well
Continued on p. 3
Summer 2017

An interview with Ernest
N. Jouriles and Kelli S.
Sargent, from page 2

Some interventions
for adolescentsthat are relevant to
the perpetration of
cyberbullying involve
working on interpersonal
characteristics like
empathy-building,promoting individual
skills like self-regulation,
anger management,
and not blowing up
and jumping straightto the insults or theharassment.

as from peers. Unfortunately, with teens, parents lose a little bit of credibility with certain
topics like this. So, getting it from peers andfrom websites is going to be important. If wejust relied on the parents, even if the parents
are doing a great job, they just may not have as
much of an effect.
We could do more community-wide interventions that try to change attitudes about theacceptability of this kind of behavior, by going
beyond who are the perpetrators and who are
the victims. This is one of the keys to a multipronged approach, particularly in a school
environment or even in the military.

the context of other forms of victimization than
if it is not.

Dr. McCarroll: Maybe how people handle theirrelationships is the larger issue.
Dr. Jouriles: One example is how people,
and not just adolescents, handle the breakup ofa relationship. Cyber technology can be used asa way to stalk or monitor another person’s activity. Sometimes, this is promoted by jealousy,
sometimes by more of a controlling attitude. It
is important to talk about what is acceptable relationship behavior, what is unhealthy relationship behavior, and seeking where to draw theline.
A good analogy to what you are saying isthat relationships are important for adolescents.
Adolescence is a time where you really start tolearn about relationships, especially with romantic relationships. You learn about negotiating different things in romantic relationships.
A lot of harm can happen in romantic relationships. Does that mean you shield your childfrom those relationships or from the Internet
and electronic media? I don’t think so.

Dr. McCarroll: How should social service
providers, and especially parents, think
about cyberbullying, both perpetration andvictimization? What do you tell parents?
Ms. Sargent: I think awareness among adults
is helpful because we are all coming at it fromthe same united front. However, you want toknow how victims are handling it in their lives.
For those who are perpetrating it, what are theirmotives?
Dr. Jouriles: From the parent’s role, we aretrying to mitigate harm. A parent can do acouple of things. They can try to reduce theirchild’s exposure to cybervictimization, but I am
not sure how feasible that is going to be. Parents
can let their children know that there are people
who will help them get through this. Anotherway is to talk, to communicate with the child interms of reducing the impact of the event, working on how the events are interpreted. This is
an appraisal mechanism, from experiencing thevictimization to the outcome it is going to have.
It is worthwhile to bring up the perpetrationof cyberbullying with school personnel. “Whatare the policies about this?” “Is the school trying
to do anything?” It is very likely that if yourchild is being victimized, then it is probably notjust your child. Also, getting other professionals involved is important, but sometimes thatis hard with adolescents because the last thing
they want is for everyone to know that they arebeing bullied this way. Moving forward withthis is complicated.

Dr. McCarroll: One of the most important
issues that you have brought up is that ofpolyvictimization. Where do you see this areaof research going?
Dr. Jouriles: There are many different typesof victimization and not all victimization
experiences are the same. Polyvictimization ispart of the article that Kelly first authored (Seearticle in this issue entitled “Multiple Types ofVictimization Contribute to Mental HealthSymptoms.”) We were trying to alert people
that cybervictimization is likely to be part of apattern of victimization. I think that people aregoing to start trying to identify unique aspects
of victimization, and also start to conceptualize victimization more broadly. For example,
intimate partner violence may relate very differently to child problems if it is occurring in
http://www.CSTSonline.org

Dr. McCarroll: Certain kinds of childvictimization experiences may have different
effects depending on when they occur.
Dr. Jouriles: I agree with you and I also
think that what you are talking about is adding
a lot more complexity. Emotional abuse might
be particularly harmful to adolescents if it is at
the hands of peers, whereas emotional abusefrom parents might be more damaging when
you are younger as opposed to when you are anadolescent.

There are different levels of bullying.
Teasing could be interpreted as bullying
by a person who is very sensitive.
Spreading false information is at a muchhigher level than teasing.
Dr. Jouriles: There are a lot of definitional

Continued on p.10
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 3

BUILDING BRIDGES TO RESEARCH

Cross-sectional or Longitudinal Research Design:
What are the Differences and When Do You Use Them?
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
A cross-sectional study
is like a snapshot
whereas a longitudinal
study is like a movie.

A key part of a research project is todetermine the best approach to collecting
and analyzing the information obtained (i.e.,
the research design). The researcher’s choiceof a design depends on the purpose of thestudy. There are methodological and practical considerations in selecting either of thesetwo. The same research question can usually
be approached in different ways depending on
many factors such as the time frame in which it
is possible to conduct the research, the availability of a study population, the financial costof the research and others.
If the question under study is one that canbe answered with a single data collection, it iscross-sectional. A study is called cross-sectional
because a sample of the population is measured once. If your study requires knowledgeof changes in individual participants overtime, the study is longitudinal. Changes in a
population can also be found in sequential
cross-sectional studies, but in this research,
individuals are not compared over time. In
multiple cross-sectional studies, data collection consists only of measures of the sample
as a whole in which different participants may
appear in each cross-section. However, in alongitudinal study, researchers conduct several
observations of the same subjects over a specified period of time. The easiest way to thinkof a cross-sectional study is to compare it to a
photographic snapshot whereas a longitudinal
study is like a movie.
For example, suppose we want to determine
the relationship of exercise to symptoms of depression. There are many ways to approach thisquestion including what population to sample.
Some factors to consider in selecting a population include age, gender, physical conditioning,mental health symptoms and health habits
such as smoking and alcohol consumption. In
addition, the investigator must consider the
resources available to conduct the research. Ultimately, resources amount to time and money.
One approach to the design would be tocollect data on depression among people who
exercise regularly and compare the results to

4 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

data collected from sedentary persons. The
study can become more sophisticated if thesample is selected and analyzed by subgroups.
This is called stratification. In this case, strata
can be selected by gender and age group. Data
from men and women can be analyzed separately and younger persons can be compared tothose who are older. Smokers and heavy alcoholusers can be excluded, as their data would add
an additional level of complexity. The biggest
drawback of a cross-sectional study is that it
can provide no information about cause andeffect. We do not know if those who were notdepressed had the energy to take up exercise
whereas those were depressed were moresedentary. If it is found that those who exercise
regularly have fewer symptoms than sedentary
persons, one has the basis of a hypothesis thatcan be tested by a longitudinal study.
One type of longitudinal study would be totake a group of men and women with no prior
exercise history or depressive symptoms andrandomly divide them into two groups: one
group is given an exercise schedule that they
will be asked to follow over a set period of time
and the other is asked not to exercise. Symptoms of depression are measured at the beginning of the research and thereafter periodically.
If it is found that people with no prior historyof regular exercise or depressive symptoms who
have completed an exercise program have fewer
depressive symptoms than those persons who
did not exercise, one can conclude with a strong
hypothesis that regular exercise is beneficial
in preventing depressive symptoms. However,many other factors would have to be investigated to confirm this conclusion. Such researchwould require replication and inclusion of additional information about the participants.
The study conducted by Sargent and colleagues (2016) was cross-sectional. Participants
completed questionnaires in a single classroom
setting. This approach was economical in that
only a single data collection occurred, but
enough information was collected to test the
hypotheses proposed. Questionnaires measured
Continued on page 5
Summer 2017

Building Bridges to
Research, from page 4

The biggest drawback
of a cross-sectional
study is that iscan provide no
information about
causes and effects.

cybervictimization, psychological intimate
partner violence (IPV), depressive symptoms,
and antisocial behavior. They first found thatcybervictimization and psychological IPV
were correlated. A second analysis found thatboth cybervictimization and psychological IPV
were positively associated (i.e., correlated) withdepressive symptoms. The third analysis usedcybervictimization and psychological IPV (thesame predictor variables) to predict antisocial
behavior. Only cybervictimization was correlated with antisocial behavior.
Because this was a cross-sectional study, no
conclusions can be reached regarding whether
cybervictimization or psychological IPV causes
depression or antisocial behavior. It is possiblethat persons who are depressed might be more
likely to be victimized; similarly, those who engage in antisocial behavior may be more likely
to be cybervictimized. Further research could
be conducted with sequential cross-sectional
studies investigating the same or with additional variables. If feasible, a longitudinal study

could be conducted with those persons who
volunteer to provide further data on the variables in question over a specified time period,
such as during their first year in college.
This study demonstrates the importance oftesting for polyvictimization. That is, whether
having more than one type of victimization has
a more significant effect on the outcome thana single type. In this case, persons who experienced both cybervictimization and psychological IPV had significantly more depressive
symptoms than persons who experienced no
victimization, cybervictimization only, or psychological IPV only.

Reference

Sargent KS, Krauss A, Jouriles EN, & McDonald
R. (2016). Cyber victimization, psychologicalintimate partner violence, and problematic
mental health outcomes among first-year college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, andSocial Networking; 19 (9):doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0115.

Multiple Types of Victimization Contribute to 		
Mental Health Symptoms
By James E. McCarroll, PhD
Bothcybervictimizationand psychological
IPV contributed todepressive symptoms,
indicating the needto consider theeffects of multiple
types of victimization
on mental healthsymptoms.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Sargent, Kraus, Jouriles, and McDonald(2016) explored the relationship between
cybervictimization, psychological intimate
partner violence (IPV) and mental health outcomes in a sample of first-year college students(N=342, Mean age=18.33 years; 50% male).
Their hypotheses were that (1) cybervictimization and psychological IPV will be correlated;(2) cybervictimization and psychological IPV
will be uniquely associated with depressive
symptoms; and (3) cybervictimization and psychological IPV will be uniquely associated with
antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior wasconsidered a correlate of cybervictimization inthat perhaps those who engaged in antisocial
behavior were more likely to be attacked online
by others. Depression was conceptualized as an
outcome. These hypotheses suggest that bothcybervictimization and psychological IPV arepart of an individual’s broader experience ofvictimization, or polyvictimization.

Cybervictimization and psychological IPV
were related to each other. Both contributed
uniquely to depressive symptoms, but only
cybervictimization contributed uniquely toantisocial behavior. They suggested that thesefindings indicate a need to consider multiple
forms of victimization when considering relations between specific types of victimizationand mental health problems.

Reference

Sargent KS, Krauss A, Jouriles EN, & McDonald
R. (2016). Cyber victimization, psychologicalintimate partner violence, and problematic
mental health outcomes among first-year college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, andSocial Networking; 19 (9):doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0115.

Joining Forces/Joining Families • 5

Traditional Bullying, Cyberbullying, and the Internet:
Risks to Children and Adolescents
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD

Both bullying
perpetration andvictimization areassociated withserious and longterm psychologicaland physicalconsequences.

Digital technology has made great strides
in the last 10 years in hardware and software(Gallagher, 2016). Smartphones have madecommunication and Internet access available
24/7 and social media sites have worldwide
networks. While these advances have improved
many aspects of modern life, the understanding of their social effects has lagged behind
the technologies. This lack of understanding
has been particularly important when it comesto their use by children and adolescents andyoung adults. Perhaps no aspect of digitaltechnology is more important than the needto protect these often-vulnerable groups fromabuse via the Internet. Mental health and social
service providers should be aware of these risks
as well as the role of law enforcement and legal
issues in the use of digital technologies
Traditionally, being a victim of bullying
has been considered a relatively harmless, but
unpleasant rite of passage for children. Morerecently, it has been found to be associated withlong-term serious psychological and physicalconsequences (Rettew & Pawlowski, 2016).
For example, being a victim of bullying is anindependent risk factor for the development of
future externalizing behavior (e.g., aggressive
and delinquent behavior) (Hwang, Kim, Koh,
Bishop, & Leventhal, 2017). As a result of evidence of negative consequences, it has received
increased research attention, and prevention
and education programs fostering awareness of
its effects have been developed. Definitions ofwhat constitutes the perpetration of bullying
vary, particularly when electronic methods are
involved, but they generally involve intentionally aggressive actions toward another person
who is perceived as vulnerable due to size,
status, peer relation, jealousy, or other social
factors. Bullying of children tends to occur
mostly on school grounds. Physical appearance
is the most common target, followed by sexual
orientation. Boys tend to bully more than girls,
but this depends on the type of bullying being
perpetrated. Boys tend to bully outside theirsocial network whereas girls are more likely tobully within. It can be identified in elementary
school children, but it tends to peak in middle
school, adolescent years.

6 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

The perpetration of face-to-face (traditional) bullying has not been replaced by cyberbullying. Traditional bullying can be physical,
verbal, and relational (Waasdorp & Bradshaw,2015). Students (n=28,104) of school grades
9-12 in the US participated in a web-based
survey of bullying victimization during the past
30 days. Perpetration of bullying included 11
different bullying behaviors that were grouped
into four different categories: relational, verbal,
physical, and electronic. Examples included
threatening, teasing, name-calling, ignoring,rumor-spreading, sending hurtful e-mails andtext messages, and leaving someone out on
purpose. Most victims reported being victims
of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Relational and verbal had the most overlap.
Cyberbullying victimization was associatedwith higher symptoms of internalizing andexternalizing symptoms and there appeared
to be an additive effect suggesting that cyberbullying may signal an overall higher level ofvictimization. Girls received more cyberbullying than boys, but girls were also more likely
than boys to use cell phones. The association
between cybervictimization and depression wasstronger for girls. The authors reported that themost troubling finding was that youth who werecyberbullied did not tell an adult.
A study of 2,745 pupils aged 11-16, fromUK secondary schools aimed to determine if
cyberbullying creates many new victims beyond
those already bullied with traditional means(e.g., physical, relational), and whether it has
similar impacts on psychological and behavioral outcomes beyond those experienced bytraditional victims (Wolke, Lee, & Guy, 2017).
Responses to an electronic survey found that
29% of pupils reported being bullied, but only
1% of adolescents were pure cybervictims. Cyberbullying victimization had similar negative
effects on behavior and self-esteem compared to
traditional bullying victimization. Importantly,
however, those victims bullied by multiplemeans (polyvictimization) had the most difficulties with behavior and lowest self-esteem.
It was concluded that cyberbullying creates few
new victims, but is mainly a new tool to harm
victims already bullied by traditional means
Summer 2017

Traditional Bullying,
Cyberbullying, and theInternet, from page 6

Among the benefitsof the use of digitaltechnology by youth
are that it helps themstay in touch withfamily and friends,
makes downtime
less boring, allows
participation in adultworlds, and makes
armchair adventures
much less risky thanthey may be offline.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

and extends the reach of bullying beyond theschool gate. Consequently, intervention strategies against cyberbullying may need to include
approaches against traditional bullying and its
root causes to be successful.
Patterns of the perpetration of bullying
were investigated in 7,508 US adolescents ingrades 6–10. Types perpetrated were physical bullying, verbal bullying, social exclusion,
spreading rumors, and cyberbullying (Wang,
Iannotti, & Luk, 2012). Boys were more likely
than girls to be involved in all types of bullying perpetration (10.5% vs. 4.0%, respectively).
Verbal/ social bullying was approximately
equal (29%). Those perpetrating cyberbullying belonged to a group of highly aggressive
adolescents and were at highest risk of using
substances and carrying weapons.
A longitudinal study of the adult consequences of being the victim of malicious
teasing, and other peer victimization experiences in childhood was conducted on a sample
of 206 boys in the US at ages 10-12 from highdelinquency neighborhoods (Kerr, Gini, &Capaldi, 2017). While the long-term consequences of bullying victimization have been
investigated, this study extended victimization
to focus on teasing that adults believed wasnotable and frequent rather than infrequent,equivocal, or transient. The perpetration ofother types of bullying was also included if it
included cruelty or meanness to others, but
teasing was the primary focus of the study.
Mother, father, and teacher reports identified
perpetrators of teasing: victims, perpetratorvictims, or uninvolved boys (n=26, 35, 29, and116, respectively). Family income, parent andchild depressive symptoms, and child antisocial behavior served as controls. Boys wereassessed to age 34 for suicide attempt history,
suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, alcoholuse, patterned tobacco and illicit drug use, andarrest. Odds were higher for suicide attempts
among perpetrator-victims, criminal arrest
and tobacco use among perpetrators. It was
concluded that childhood involvement in teasing, for both perpetrators and victims, predicted serious adverse outcomes in adulthood.
Peer victimization prevention programs that
identify individuals already involved in teasing or bullying may have positive impacts on
the diverse public health problems of suicide,crime, depression, and tobacco use.
The relationship of bullying perpetrationand victimization to substance abuse (recent
alcohol, cigarette, and inhalant use) was studied

in a sample of 809 adolescents in a US schoolbased substance abuse prevention program (Sangalang, Tran, Ayers, & Marsiglia, 2016). Bullying
was classified by perpetrators, bullying victims,
those who were perpetrators and victims (bullyvictims), rarely involved bully-victims, and noninvolved youth. Those perpetrating bullying weremore likely to engage in alcohol and cigaretteuse, and bully-victims were more likely to use
alcohol, cigarettes, and inhalants. In contrast,
victims were not significantly at risk of substanceuse compared to non-involved youth. Thus,
chronic bullying perpetrators and bully-victims
were particularly at risk for substance use, withchronic bully-victims reflecting the greatest
risk of using multiple substances. The authors
concluded that prevention and early intervention
programs aimed to reduce bullying perpetration
could also work to decrease other risky behaviors, such as substance use. While this study did
not report whether reducing substance abusedecreased bullying perpetration, this outcome isalso likely.
Children and adolescents are potential victims of sexual predators, a type of cybervictimization. Privacy is often assumed, but neverguaranteed when accessing Internet sites or communicating by e-mail and the identity of users
can be faked to lure vulnerable individuals into
harmful situations. With the loss of face-to-facecontact in which there can be embarrassment orapprehension, these inhibitions can be reduced,
a false sense of security created, and the boundaries between fantasy and reality can become
blurred (McGrath & Casey, 2002).
Parents are concerned about their children’s
potential for high-risk behavior while in cyberspace and look for ways to prevent harm tothem. However, the means to do this are limited.
Parents may mediate children’s Internet use
through a variety of means. A longitudinal studyof 568 adolescents (53% female) of ages 13-15
from a Midwestern US city was conducted todetermine the relationship between cyberbullying victimization, parental mediation, andmental health outcomes (loneliness, anxiety,and depression) one year later (Wright. 2016).
Participants were asked to rate their face-to-faceand cybervictimization experiences and how
often their parents were involved in their digital
media use. Three types of parental mediation
were inquired (restrictive, co-viewing, and instructive). Co-viewing mediation and instructive
mediation reduced cyberbullying victimization.
Restrictive mediation (limiting exposure, but notdiscussing ways to deal with unwanted exposure
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 7

Traditional Bullying,
Cyberbullying, and theInternet, from page 7

Research could
address the context
of digital technology
use from the pointof view of the user,
the child and youth,
to investigate how itcreates excitement
and contributes totheir development.

to digital media) did not reduce cyberbullying victimization. Mediation through highlevels of co-viewing and instruction reduced
adolescents’ reports of anxiety and depression,
but not loneliness. The authors suggested thatloneliness may be more stable than anxiety
and depression and not influenced by parental
mediation strategies. Further, they suggested
that these mediation techniques are minimal,
but yet may reduce adolescents’ vulnerability
to victimization. A key message of this study
is that parental mediation is social support
and that parents should recognize that theirinvolvement in their children’s use of digital
media can help to offset negative effects ofcybervictimization and adjustment difficulties.
Digital technology can be used to support
parents and help to safeguard children. Such a
program, Netmums, in the UK provides family support services (Lamberton, Devaney, &Bunting, 2016). This program functioned as a
discussion forum through posting specific topics such as babies, children, food and feeding,and an advice and support section. The latter
addresses such issues as prenatal and postnatal
depression, domestic violence support, andothers of a serious nature. Applicants to thesite sign up with their name, postal code, ande-mail address. Members can receive peer andpractitioner support.
A total of 13 staff of Netmums participatedin semi-structured interviews on procedures,challenges, and child safeguarding. Key themes
developed were satisfaction with the work, highlevels of motivation, and challenges in identifying and responding to child safeguarding in the
online community. The authors believed that
Netmums provided social support that bufferedstress, decreased parental sense of isolation,and provided access to advice and companionship. However, there were also concerns about
confidentiality, informed consent, and anonymity of members. This was an exploratory
study, but such online resources are very likely
to proliferate and increase support and information available to parents.
There is little information on how tointervene with those who perpetrate bullying.
Such methods as group therapy, zero tolerance (such as school expulsion or suspension),or mediations sessions between the bully andvictim have not been shown to be particularly effective (Rettew & Pawlowski, 2016).
Bystander intervention may prevent or stopbullying. Education about such intervention
may be a useful strategy for parents, educa-

8 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

tors, and others. A study of caregiver advice andchildren’s bystander behavior was conducted with106 racially/ethnically diverse 4th- and 5th-gradestudents and their caregivers (Grassetti, Hubbard,
Smith, Bookhout, Swift, & Gawrysiak, 2017). Data
collected in school classrooms consisted of peer
reports of children’s bystander behaviors. In home
visits, caregivers and children completed a codedinteraction task in which caregivers advisedchildren about how to respond to situations inwhich they might be victims of bullying at school.
Bystander intervention was positively predictedby caregivers’ advice to help or comfort the victim,
while bystander passivity was predicted by caregivers’ advice to not intervene and not advice tohelp or comfort the victim. Contrarily, bystander
reinforcement or assistance of the person perpetrating the bullying was predicted by caregivers’
advice not to intervene and not to tell adults.
A measure of bullying perpetration, the Bullying, Harassment, and Aggression Receipt Measure(BullyHARM), consists of 22 items and 6 subscales: physical bullying, verbal bullying, social/relational bullying, cyber-bullying, property bullying, and sexual bullying, was developed on a sample of 275 middle school students (Hall, 2016).
The authors indicated that the BullyHARM scale
and its subscales have very good internal consistency reliability and good properties regarding
content validation and respondent-related validation. They further suggested that it is a promising
instrument for measuring bullying victimizationin school.
While there are many concerns about all typesof bullying, the prevalence of its perpetration andthe effects upon victims are poorly understood
except in general terms. Differentiating the effectsof traditional bullying from cyberbullying also isfraught with difficulties for researchers, parents,
and the various authority stakeholders. Not theleast of these is identifying persons who are bullies, victims, or both, vulnerabilities, and subtypesof each. In other words, all bullies and victims
are not the same. Cyberbullying is a new form ofvictimization that complicates the problems forresearchers. Among suggested research challenges
are the explicit assessment risk and harm associated with risk, longitudinal designs, studies ofpre-adolescent children, protective factors, andevaluation of risk awareness training (Livingstone& Smith, 2014).
Professional organizations give a great dealof information on detection and intervention forvictims and perpetrators. (See Websites of Interest.) Reviews have highlighted epidemiological,
psychological and physical impacts, and the role
Summer 2017

Traditional Bullying,
Cyberbullying, and theInternet, from page 8

Research questions
to be considered are:intentionality, therole of mental healthfactors, peer relations(e.g., dominancewithin a social
hierarchy), subtypesof bullies and victims,
and interventions forboth.

of health care providers in prevention, detection, and intervention (Livingstone & Smith,
2014; Rettew & Pawlowski, 2016). All of theseemphasize early intervention, particularly byparents, as well as engagement by others suchas a pediatricians, teachers, principal, school
counselors, or family physicians.
The Internet poses risks to children andadolescents beyond being victims of cyberbullying. How great a risk is the Internet to them?
While much recent literature seems to givethe impression that the digital environmentis inherently perilous for youth, this premise
ignores the balance between risks and benefits, the latter, which are rarely acknowledged.
Among benefits of the use of digital technology by youth are that it helps stay in touchwith family and friends, makes downtime
less boring, and allows participation in adultworlds and makes armchair adventures muchless risky than they may be offline (Finkelhor,
2014). Research could address the context ofdigital technology use from the point of viewof the user, the child and youth, to investigate
how it creates excitement, and contributes totheir development.
Much remains to be learned about bullying perpetration and victimization (Rettew& Pawlowski, 2016). Among the questions
to be considered are: intentionality, the roleof mental health factors, peer relations (e.g.,dominance within a social hierarchy), subtypesof bullies and victims, and interventions forboth. Finally, if a culture shift is to occur within
schools making bullying a socially unacceptable behavior, it will require participation fromall stakeholders: students, parents, teachers,
counselors, and community leaders.

References

Finkelhor D. (2014). Commentary: Cause foralarm? Youth and Internet risk research — A
commentary on Livingstone and Smith. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry; 55(6):655–658.
Gallagher B. (2016). The role of digital technology in child protection: Still helping andharming. Child Abuse Review; 25: 327–331.
Grassetti SN, Hubbard JA, Smith MA, Bookhout MK, Swift LE, & Gawrysiak MJ. (2017).
Caregivers’ advice and children’s bystander
behaviors during bullying incidents. Journalof Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology; 20
March: 1–12.
doi: 10.1080/15374416.2017.1295381.
Hall WJ. (2016). Initial development and validahttp://www.CSTSonline.org

tion of the BullyHARM: The Bullying, Harassment, and Aggression Receipt Measure. Psychology in the Schools; 53(9): 984–1000.
Hwang S, Kim YS, Koh YJ, Bishop S, & Leventhal
BL (2017). Discrepancy in perception of bullying experiences and later internalizing andexternalizing behavior: A prospective study.
Aggressive Behavior; Mar 22.
doi: 10.1002/ab.21707.
Kerr DC, Gini G, & Capaldi DM. (2017). Young
men’s suicidal behavior, depression, crime, andsubstance use risks linked to childhood teasing.
Child Abuse & Neglect; 67: 32–43.
Lamberton L, Devaney J, & Bunting L. (2016). New
challenges in family support: The use of digitaltechnology in supporting parents. Child Abuse
Review; 25: 359–372.
Livingstone S, & Smith PK. (2014). Annual
research review: Harms experienced by childusers of online and mobile technologies: thenature, prevalence and management of sexualand aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry; 55(6): 653–654.
McGrath MG, & Casey E. (2002). Forensic psychiatry and the Internet: Practical perspectives on
sexual predators and obsessional harassers incyberspace. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law; 30: 81–94.
Rettew DC, & Pawlowski S. (2016). Bullying. Childand Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America; 25: 235–242.
Sangalang CC, Tran AG, Ayers SL, & Marsiglia FF.
(2016). Bullying among urban Mexican-heritage
youth: Exploring risk for substance use by status
as a bully, victim, and bully-victim. Child andYouth Services Review; 61:216–221.
Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP, & Leaf PJ. (2012). The
impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer
rejection: a randomized controlled effectivenesstrial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine; 166:149–156.
Wang J, Iannotti RJ, & Luk JW, (2012). Patterns ofadolescent bullying behaviors: Physical, verbal,
exclusion, rumor, and cyber. Journal of School
Psychology; 50: 521–534.
Wolke D, Lee K, & Guy A. (2017). Cyberbullying:
A storm in a teacup? European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Feb 10.
doi: 10.1007/s00787-017-0954-6.
Wright MF. (2016). The buffering effect of parental
mediation in the relationship between adolescents’ cyberbullying and victimization andadjustment difficulties. Child Abuse Review; 25:
345–358.
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 9Family Violence Increases Child and Adolescent Bullying Victimization
and Perpetration: A Global Public Health Problem
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
Recent studies from four different countries have exploredthe effects of family violence on the occurrence of bullying
perpetration and victimization. In a sample of 3,175 middle
school Chinese students, the annual prevalence of witnessing
family violence was 30.3% and the annual prevalence of bullying victimization was 44.5%. The co-occurrence of witnessing
family violence and bullying victimization was 30.4%. Family
violence was a unique risk factor in predicting bullying victimization, (Zhu, Chan, & Chen, 2015).
A nationally representative sample of 3,197 youth ages
14-15 in Sweden found that 36% of girls and 26% of boys
reported bullying victimization and 24% of girls and 36% ofboys reported bullying perpetration. Physical and emotional
violence in the home, including witnessing, were significantly
associated with both bullying perpetration and victimization(Lucas, Jernbro, Tindberg, & Janson, 2016).
In Japan, 17,530 adolescents in grades 7–12 responded toa survey to explore the association of current violence fromadults with adolescent bullying involvement and suicidal feelings. Both current bullying perpetration, victimization, andbully perpetration-victimization were associated with increasing odds of current suicidal feelings (Fujikawa et al., 2016).
A study of 2,060 Spanish high school students found thatbullying aggression by girls was related to physical punishment
by parents. For boys, parental psychological aggression pre-dicted bullying aggression (Gómez-Ortiz, Romera, & OrtegaRuiz, 2016).
There are multiple effects of family violence on the bullying perpetration and victimization experiences of children
and adolescents. Such experiences can indicate the presenceof severe victimization in the home. When evaluating children
involved in bullying perpetration and those who are victims, it
is important to explore family factors that can influence their
behavior and put them at risk for additional harm.

References

Fujikawa S, Ando S, Shimodera S … Nishida A. (2016). The
association of current violence from adult family memberswith adolescent bullying involvement and suicidal feelings.
PLoSOne. October 6, 2016. doi: 10.1371.journalpone.0163707.
Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, & Ortega-Ruiz R. (2016). Parenting
styles and bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect; 51: 132–143.
Lucas S, Jernbro C, Tindberg Y, & Janson S. (2016). Bully, bullied
and abused. Associations between violence at home and bullying in childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health; 44:
27–35.
Zhu Y, Chan KL, & Chen J. (2015). Bullying victimization among
Chinese middle school students: The role of family violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence; First Published 27 Dec 2015.
doi: 10.1177/0886260515621082.

An interview with Ernest N. Jouriles and Kelli S. Sargent, from page 3

issues in this area. Some people will define cyberbullying as
requiring intent to harm. On the other hand, some of this canhappen in a more teasing context, joking, and still have devastating effects. There are certain age periods where people aremuch more sensitive.
Other definitional issues occur when you mix scientificissues with legal ones. The perpetration of cyberbullying is notoften mentioned in many definitions of violence or abuse, butmany state statutes that include stalking as a crime very clearlymention receiving repeated unwanted e-mails.
Consider polyvictimization from the awareness perspective. If you find out that your child is being harassed via theInternet or through unwanted e-mails and texts, basically,
your child is experiencing cybervictimization. The research on
polyvictimization suggests that this may not be the only formof violence or aggression that your child is experiencing andit might be a more pervasive issue than just getting unwanted
e-mails.

10 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Dr. McCarroll: So, you ask the question, “What else is goingon?”
Dr. Jouriles: Exactly. Because, again, according to the literature on polyvictimization, more often than not, there is moregoing on.
Ms. Sargent: It is ok if parents are not able to keep up withevery social media outlet or messaging system. None of us can.
It is just going to outpace our research abilities right now. We
can foster their awareness without the need to have all of thefacts all of the time. Having the conversation with their kid
about what else is going on may be more important.
Dr. McCarroll: So, you are saying, “You are never going toknow everything, but at least you can offer to be there and tounderstand.” Thank you, Dr. Jouriles and Ms. Sargent, foryour work.
Dr. Jouriles and Ms. Sargent: You are welcome.

Summer 2017

Websites of Interest
Traditional bullying is addressed in many websites. For
example, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website:
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/
Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Bullying-080.aspx
emphasizes the importance of early engagement by parents and intervention by a pediatrician, teacher, principal, school counselor, or family physician.

Connected Kids was developed by the American
Academy of Pediatrics as a patient education programfor pediatricians and their staff. It addresses violence
prevention, and contains a variety of resources including clinical guides, a counseling schedule for children
by age group, educational brochures, and a power point
presentation on the program for staff training.
https://patiented.solutions.aap.org/DocumentLibrary/Connected%20Kids%20Clinical%20Guide.pdf

www.stopbullying.gov is managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. It defines cyberbullying, provides prevention tips to parents and kids,
and describes reporting and documenting procedures.
Under Get Help Now, are state laws and policies onbullying that can be searched on a map of the U.S. states
and territories. It also includes suicide prevention tips.

Continued on page 11

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Joining Forces/Joining Families • 11

Websites of Interest, Continued
The National Crime Prevention Council and the Office of Victims of Crime (Office of Justice Programs)
http://www.ncpc.org/topics/cyberbullying havea variety of resources on cyberbullying including a
power point presentation for community educators
about cyberbullying prevention designed to educate
and increase awareness of cyberbullying training.

Several websites exist to help young people withrelationships as well as cyberbullying.
http://endcyberbullying.squarespace.com/why-dopeople-cyberbully
is a program to stop online harassment. It has
resources that answer a lot of questions that parents
might have as well as news articles about initiatives
people have taken to stop cyberbullying.
http://www.loveisrespect.org/ is another websitethat teaches about relationships. One interesting aspect is that it features quizzes about healthy relationships and dating abuse. Help is offered through chats,calls, and texts.
https://thatsnotcool.com/ is a program for decreasing teen violence and raising awareness about
healthy dating relationships. It also has tips for
adults.