Few intervene when cyberbullying occurs

As different types of social media grow and communication over the Internet becomes increasingly common, the question arises: What to do about cyberbullying? A recent study from Ohio State University found that most people will not directly intervene if they see a case of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying is defined by the National Crime Prevention Council as using the Internet, a cell phone or another device to send text or images designed to hurt another person. Cyberbullying has become an increasingly serious issue in recent years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 2013 which found that 13 to 14 percent of the high school students surveyed had been bullied online.

There are several ways in which cyberbullying is considered more severe than regular bullying: The perpetrator can remain almost completely anonymous, there is often a lack of moderation on Internet forums and most people have access to the web all the time due to cell phones so their bullies can harass them constantly.

Recently the suicides of young people connected to cyberbullying have made legislators more aware of the problem. One such high profile incident is that of Tyler Clementi, a student at Rutgers who committed suicide in 2010 due to the actions of two people who lived in his dorm and spied on him using a webcam. Clementi’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, was convicted of invasion of privacy among other offenses.

Another widely-publicized case in 2006 was the death of Megan Meier, who committed suicide due to cyberbullying through MySpace. Lori Drew, the mother of a friend of Meier’s, was convicted of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Her conviction was overturned on appeal. After Meier’s death, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) proposed a federal law against cyberbullying.

Many states have started to pass laws against cyberbullying and online harassment. California was one of the first to pass such a law. In 2008, the state legislature gave school administrators the ability to punish students for harassing or stalking each other online. However, some of the problems faced by such laws are how broadly to define cyberstalking and cyberbullying as well as the issue of the bully’s freedom of speech.

Research has documented the harmful effects of cyberbullying. Unlike Meier and Clementi, most victims may not be driven to suicide, but people who suffer from cyberbullying have lower self-esteem and demonstrate emotional responses such as being frustrated, scared, angry and depressed. The researchers point out that cyberbullying can be more harmful than real-life bullying because there is no way to escape it.

The researchers tested the responses of 221 college students to online harassment. The students were led to believe that they were going to test a feature of a chat room.

The participants took a series of online personality surveys while a chat room was open. In the chat room was a monitor, supposedly present to assist the students if necessary. In reality, both the monitor and the “bullied” student were part of the research team.

The bullied student began to use the chat room to say they were having trouble saving an answer to a survey question. The chat monitor became increasingly hostile to the other student, including using such phrases as “How did you get into college if you can’t even take a survey?” and “Figure it out yourself.”

After the experience, 68 percent of the students reported noticing the abuse in the chat room. Only 10 percent of the students both noticed the abuse and responded directly.

Some responded by reprimanding the bullier, such as saying, “How are you being helpful at all right now?” Others responded by insulting the monitor. More rarely, some of the students encouraged the bullying victim. For example, one said, “I’m sure you’re smart!! You’ll get it.”

Seventy percent of the people who noticed the cyberbullying did not intervene but later graded the chat room and chat monitor poorly, which the researchers classified as indirect intervention. About 15 percent of the students noticed the bullying and did not take any action.

Kelly Dillon, the lead author and a doctoral student at Ohio State, said that she was disappointed in the result of the study, but not surprised. She points out that other studies in the past have also found that bystanders seem reluctant to intervene in cases of bullying.

After the experiment was over, the students were told the real reason for it, and many responded that they wished they had intervened. Dillon noted that many students said that they wanted to intervene, but had no idea what to say. She thinks that this might be a problem common to many people. They feel that they have to confront the bully, which they are reluctant to do.

Instead, she suggests, future training for bystanders should focus on supporting the victim and removing him or her from the situation.