SkinnerJ_PS520_Final

Middle School
Cyberbullying
Prevention Program
JAKE D. SKINNER
SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY

A Review of the Issue
Cyberbullying is long-term intentional, aggressive, and repetitive action using electronic media
against a powerless individual (Dehue, 2013)
Cyberbullying can also be identified as the use of electronic media by an individual or group to
support deliberate hostile acts or threats against a group of people (Mason, 2008) (Mehari,
Farrell, and Le, 2014)

A Review of the Issue
Sticca and Perren (2013) have shown that the medium in which bullying takes place is not as
significant as the anonymity of the bully and the publicity of the bullying
Although cyberbullying begins in a virtual environment, it has lasting effects on the physical
environment and has been legally considered a responsibility for school personnel to intervene in
(Mason, 2008)

Cyberbullying Prevalence and Incidence
The present focus on cyberbullying research has been in adolescent, school-based demographics
Research into the causes and presentation of cyberbullying began as recently as 2002 (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2012)
Because research into the cyberbullying phenomena is so young there are conflicting reports on
prevalence and incidence, though most research shows similarities in data

In 2011, 35 peer-reviewed papers were published that discovered an average of 24% of students
were cyberbullied, while 17% engaged in cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012)
In one study, 20% of respondents aged 11-18 indicated they were a target of cyberbullying,
while 10% admitted to being both a victim and a bully (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012)

There is some evidence that indicates cyberbullying may be occurring as early as elementary school,
lasting through high school where it reaches its peak (Alvarez, 2012)
Despite some literature and the apparent length of time over which cyberbullying takes place, some
research shows prevalence of cyberbullying may be between 4-15% (Alvarez, 2012)
◦ Pelfrey and Weber (2011) found that 6.8% of students were cyberbullied
◦ Olweus (in: Hinduja & Patchin, 2012) found 4.1-5.0% of youth were cyberbullied

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2013), 27.8% of students report being
bullied at school
◦ 9% report being cyberbullied in and out of school
◦ Though the spreading of rumors was found to be the most prevalent form of bullying in school, the
dissemination of hurtful information on the internet was second to insults and threats sent by text
message in victims of cyberbullying
Girls were more likely to be cyberbullied than boys, though with less frequency (NCES, 2013)

Personal Risk Factors
In traditional bullying, the victims are more often the smallest and most vulnerable (Mishna, Khoury-
Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012) or adolescents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or
transgender (stopbullying.gov, n.d.)
◦ In cyberbullying, however, victims tend to be identified with mainstream groups (Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri,
Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012)
◦ LGBT individuals, however, are at high risk of being cyberbullied with 55.2% reporting such an experience
(stopbullying.gov, n.d.)
In bullies and cyberbullies who were also victims, prosocial, emotional, and peer problems were
predictors of their online behavior (Sourander, Klomek, Ikonen, Lindroos, Luntamo, Koskelainen,
Ristkari, & Helenius, 2010)

Personal and Interpersonal Risk Factors
Poor conduct, hyperactivity, and prosocial difficulties also predict cyberbully behaviors (Sourander
et. al., 2010)
Traditional bullies are four times more likely to engage in cyberbullying than others within a few
months (Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker, & Perren, 2013)
◦ Moral disengagement is a strong indicator of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Robson &
Wittenberg, 2013)
◦ Negative moral qualities, such as meanness, disobedience, and lack of trust also correlate with cyberbullying

Interpersonal and Contextual Risk Factors
Parenting has been shown to have a significant influence on cyber aggression (Mason, 2008)
◦ Low parental monitoring of internet usage has been associated with a 54% increased likelihood in harassing
behaviors online
◦ Further, poor parent/child relationships were significantly correlated to online harassment
Victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying are at risk of becoming cyberbullies
◦ A strong correlation has been found between being a victim of cyberbullying and becoming a cyberbully, and
some suggest that being a victim of traditional bullying can lead to concurrent or future cyberbullying as a
means of retaliation (Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker, & Perren, 2013)
◦ European-Canadians are more likely to engage in reactive cyberbullying than ethnic East-Asians (Shapka &
Law, 2013)

Contextual Risk Factors
The use of the internet and electronic media places individuals at risk of being cyberbullied (Mason,
2008)
◦ Risky internet usage is a strong predictor of cyberbullying, as is high usage volume (Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker,
& Perren, 2013)
◦ Cellular phones and other technology increases the opportunity for bullying and abuse in teen dating
relationships (Alvarez, 2012)
Ethnic issues also exist regarding parenting and cyberbullying prevention(Shapka & Law, 2013)
◦ In Canadian-born students, lower levels of disclosure to their parents correlates with higher levels of
cyberbullying
◦ In East-Asian students living in Canada, parental solicitation showed to be a significant factor with child
disclosure showing no significance

Protective Factors
It is impractical to remove the medium or media of cyberbullying as a means of prevention
Prevention is intended to reduce incidence (Conyne, 2010), and thus the goal of a cyberbullying
prevention plan should be to address factors of traditional bullying to lower incidence

Interpersonal Protective Factors
Parental oversight is believed to be significant in preventing cyberbullying
◦ Teachers polled in one Utah high school suggested that parental oversight of adolescent online behaviors
should be encouraged (Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012)
◦ Diamandouros, Downs, and Jenkins (2008) argue that school psychologists should hold informational
sessions about cyberbullying and promote awareness among parents
School personnel should be encouraged to address how cyberbullies emerge and empower
adolescents to police and reject cyberbullying (Mason, 2008)
◦ Robson and Wittenberg (2013) argue that values and morals should be discussed explicitly in the school
environment

Contextual Protective Factors
Teaching impulse control at a critically sensitive time in individual development has been thought to
curb the onset of aggressive and antisocial behaviors (Wasserman, Keenan, Tremblay, Coie,
Herrenkohl, Loeber, & Petechuk, 2003)
The development of prosocial attitudes and behaviors is also important so as to establish healthy
relationships in the school setting (Mason, 2008)

Current Cyberbullying Prevention
Programs
Few schools and other programs have adopted empirically based cyberbullying prevention
programs
This is likely due to the absence of prevention programs specific to the issue of cyberbullying

Current Cyberbullying Prevention
Programs
Those who are cyberbullied typically also experience bullying at school and in other physical
environments (Alvarez, 2012) (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012) (Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, &
Falconer, 2011)
Research has shown that whole-school approaches are the most effective and least stigmatizing
means of preventing bullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012) (Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, &
Falconer, 2011)

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
A common and popular prevention program currently in use is the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program (OBPP)
OBPP was developed in the mid-1980s in response to suicides that were linked to school bullying
◦ It was part of a national Norwegian campaign to create an effective anti-bullying program
◦ An extended-section cohorts design was used, and results showed a clear relationship between
administration of OBPP and a reduction in bullying (Olweus & Limber, 2010) (Limber, 2011)

The goal of OBPP is to reduce the existence of current bullying (intervene) and inhibit the
development of new bullying (prevent) (Limber, 2011)
OBPP is based on four principles that guide the behavior of adults in the school (and, ideally the
home) setting (Limber, 2011)
Adults should
◦ Show warmth and positive interest in their students
◦ Set firm limits to unacceptable behavior
◦ Use consistent nonphysical, nonhostile negative consequences when rules are broken
◦ Function as authorities and positive role models (Hong, 2009) (Limber, 2011)

Components of OBPP are administered at the individual, classroom, school, and community levels
(Limber, 2011)
Major components of the program include
• Parent involvement through discussion and
informational seminars
• Intervention with bullying perpetrators and
victims
• Regular classroom meetings with students to
increase knowledge and empathy
• School-wide rules against bullying
• Staff meetings concerning the program
• Formation of a Bullying Prevention
Coordination Committee
• Training for school staff and Committee
members
• Development of a coordinated system of
supervision
• Anonymous student questionnaire to assess
bullying prevalence (Hong, 2009)

OBPP was designed specifically to address physical bullying through the implementation of whole-
school prevention and intervention methods (Olweus & Limber, 2010)
School-level components of the program, such as staff training and the establishment of anti-bullying
rules, tie into individual components that include
◦ Supervision of student activities
◦ Intervention in observed acts of bullying
◦ Meeting with students involved in bullying and developing individual intervention plans (Limber, 2011)

Outcome evaluations in Norway and in the United States have shown significant, positive effects
from the implementation of OBPP
◦ Bullying decreased in schools that implemented OBPP in the short- and long-term
◦ There was, however, some indication of the ineffectiveness of the program in non-White students (Olweus &
Limber, 2010)
Hong (2009) discussed some of the difficulties of combating bullying in schools populated with
students from low-income families
◦ Students in such schools are typically not protected farm as well as students in higher income demographics
◦ Penalties for bullying are usually accompanied by stiffer penalties
◦ Implementation of OBPP in these settings must account for institutional difficulties as, presently, it is not
prepared to do so

KiVa Anti-Bullying Program
The KiVa Program is a Finnish anti-bullying intervention program with some prevention
components (Williford et. al., 2012)
It is a theory-based program based on studies of the social standing of aggressive children and
bullies in general, and on research in participant roles of bullying (Kärnä et. al., 2013)

Main components of the KiVa program include universal actions, which comprise the preventive
steps, and indicated actions, which consist of interventions (Kärnä et. al., 2011)
The lesson goals of universal actions (prevention) are to
◦ Raise awareness of the role the group plays in maintaining bullying
◦ Increase empathy toward its victims
◦ Promote children’s strategies of supporting the victim (Kärnä et. al., 2013)
Media used during universal actions includes class discussion, television, and interactive computer
software (Williford et. al., 2012)

Indicated actions (intervention) consist of a series of meetings with the victim(s) and bully(ies)
designed to clarify and explain the incident (Kärnä et. al., 2013)
In the KiVa program, interventions are led by a team of three school staff and the classroom teacher
of the bullied student
◦ This team is only responsible for incidents of bullying and must determine whether the reported case is or is
not a bullying incident
◦ In cases of bullying the team meets with the victim prior to seeking out the bully(ies), discussing the
situation, and reaching an agreement on how to stop the behavior
◦ The classroom teacher also meets with four prosocial, high-status classmates to encourage them to support
the victim through inclusion in activities (Kärnä et. al., 2013)

KiVa has been proven in controlled studies to be effective in reduction bullying in schools (Kärnä et.
al., 2011) (Kärnä et. al., 2013) (Williford et. al., 2012)
The KiVa Program has also been shown to reduce students’ reduce and depression, as well as to
increase their peer perceptions (Williford et. al., 2012)
The strongest gains from implementation of KiVa are seen at the grade school (Grades 1-6) level,
while older students see more modest gains that are dependent on gender (Kärnä et. al., 2011)
(Kärnä et. al., 2013)

Similarities and Differences Between
OBPP and KiVa
OBPP is a whole-school approach that seeks to build large overlapping systems of oversight and
instruction while KiVa relies on small intervention teams and a specific, targeted curriculum
Both seek to include students in the program methodology, though OBPP utilizes student
involvement in prevention while KiVa does so in intervention
OBPP requires schools to reach out to parents and communities while KiVa is restricted to the school
setting

The Next Steps
What is lacking in current approaches to bullying is a methodology that includes the specific
targeting of antisocial, maladaptive, and otherwise deliberately harmful online behaviors
The CyberTraining program, funded by the European Union and tested from 2008-2010, showed
promise in specifically addressing the issue of cyberbullying
◦ CyberTraining is a research-based cyberbullying prevention program with a “European perspective” on
prevention methodology
◦ The goal of CyberTraining is to provide targeted prevention from various perspectives on different groups
(Jäger, 2009)
◦ As of this publication, no information has been released on a finished manual

The Next Steps
OBPP includes systems in its methodology that engage students through participatory activities, such
as classroom discussion and the Bullying Prevention Coordination Committee
No bullying prevention program researched in the course of this study included online instruction,
socialization, or engagement as a means of teaching internet etiquette
A new, unique approach to prevent cyberbullying must consider the unique attributes of online
communication and learned patterns of physical bullying

The Early Cyberbullying Prevention and
Intervention Program
The Early Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention Program (ECPIP) is an attempt to unify theory
and practice regarding physical bullying, cyberbullying, and classroom instruction
The goal of the program is to teach prosocial, useful means of communicating in digital and physical
environments at a sensitive time for students
It can be used as an individual element to bullying prevention or in conjunction with presently
implemented bullying prevention systems

Intervention Program
ECPIP is designed to incorporate a whole-school approach using three levels
◦ Student Level: Utilize classroom instruction and multimedia presentations as a means of prevention
◦ Teacher/School Level: Provide prevention and intervention methods for school staff
◦ Parent Level: Establish a framework for parental inclusion and oversight
Target Demographic
◦ Grade 3 students
◦ Single- and multi-ethnic classrooms
◦ Average and above-average IQ
◦ Unimpaired by a process disorder, emotional disability, or social disability

Intervention Program - Approach
The program assumes several pedagogical approaches to prevention
◦ Guided instruction: Teaching of internet communication and etiquette
◦ Discovery learning: Through the use of multimedia games and narratives provided via guided instruction,
presentation, and internet technology
◦ Differentiated instruction: Bullying is addressed through cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning
◦ Peer teaching: Offering cybervictims and cyberbullies an opportunity to express themselves to a group and
encouraging peer inclusion
◦ Locus of control: Permitting students to guide instruction and exploration of cyberbullying themes
Assessment and evaluation will also be included as a pedagogical approach to indicate progress and
social engagement

Intervention Program – Curriculum
The ECPIP curriculum will be administered for 20 total hours, in half-hour increments, over the
course of a 40-week school year
Each course will be inserted into the standard class schedule for one day a week
◦ ECPIP courses, regardless of the day that is chosen by the teacher or the school, will be conducted every
week on the same day and at the same time
◦ On days that ECPIP is scheduled but the school was closed for unforeseen reasons, courses will be made up
on a separate day as soon as is reasonable
The curriculum exists in three phases, the completion of each leading to an award for its participants
◦ Phase 1: Understanding internet technology and communication
◦ Phase 2: Understanding bullying and cyberbullying
◦ Phase 3: Understanding conflict and resolution in physical and digital settings

Intervention Program – Student Level
The first step for the student is to understand how to properly use internet technologies
◦ This includes an understanding of how to navigate the internet and conduct internet searches
◦ From here, teachers will introduce students to communications technologies such as e-mail, instant
messaging, and social media that adhere to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) (FCC, 2014)
Alongside this instruction, the students will be presented with
◦ Media presentations that act out bullying and cyberbullying scenarios
◦ Peer discussions on, and student-guided exploration of, bullying
◦ Games with a cyberbullying theme that react to the student’s choices

Intervention Program – Student Level
Currently accepted and recognized physical bullying prevention programs utilize peer interactions to
decrease victimization and increase peer interactions among students
In order to teach and encourage peer interaction and prosocial online activity, a CIPA compliant
social network for students will be created
◦ In this environment, students will be taught through guided and peer online instruction, as well as through
feedback in the physical environment, how to interact with others online in a prosocial manner
◦ Moderation of the network will be executed by respective classroom teachers

Intervention Program – Teacher Level
Prior to each school year, teachers will be trained on
◦ The implementation and use of student-level cyberbullying prevention materials
◦ How to identify the signs of bullying and cyberbullying
◦ What interventions are available to them
The ECPIP curriculum is its primary prevention methodology and provides teachers with the activity
schedule, comprised of
◦ 12.5 hours of guided instruction on internet usage, identifying bullying, conflict resolution, and how to stand
up to bullies
◦ 3 hours of differentiated learning through thought inductive games and role-play
◦ 2.5 hours of discovery learning through multimedia games and presentations
◦ 2 hours of peer teaching and shifted locus of control where students lead the exploration of bullying topics

In addition to instruction on curriculum requirements, school staff will be trained on how to observe
the student population and intervene in situations of physical bullying
◦ All school environments will create a feeling of safety and equality
◦ As physical bullying has been strongly linked to cyberbullying, such incidents will be treated with the same
administrative approach
School staff will also be trained on how to make themselves approachable by students who are
victims of cyberbullying
◦ The school and staff may not be able to observe acts of cyberbullying and thus will make themselves appear
available not only through posturing, but through instruction to students
◦ Teachers and school psychologists will maintain open-door policies for all students during their hours of
employment

The school’s internet technologies department will prevent access to sites that violate CIPA
requirements
◦ Additional restrictions will be in place to restrict access to content proven to increase antisocial online
behaviors
◦ Keystroke monitors and individual student accounts with dual-authentication will be implemented to ensure
local network security and safety
◦ Observation of online behaviors will be limited to on-site computer usage due to legal restrictions
If a bully or cyberbully is found, teachers will hold an intervention meeting that includes the
parent(s), school principle, and psychologist to formulate an individual action plan, which will include
◦ Strong social components to include the cyberbully in group activities
◦ Incentives at home for proper behavior and online communication
◦ Meetings with the school psychologist to discuss bullying behavior

Intervention Program – Parental Inclusion
Outreach to parents by the school will consist of
◦ Literature in the form of pamphlets and brochures that inform of the dangers of unmonitored internet usage
by children
◦ Seminars on internet communication and the signs of cyberbullying and cybervictimization
◦ How parents can involve themselves in the digital lives of their children
Discussions on cyberbullying and digital activities will be included in all formal outreach to parents,
particularly in Parent-Teacher Association meetings and other organizations that link parents with
school staff
Parents will be notified whenever individual intervention plans are required to address bullying or
cyberbullying incidents

Validating ECPIP
Validating ECPIP will require an experimental design across a sample of statistically significant size
and ethnic diversity
A random selection of schools in New York state will be invited to participate in validation studies of
ECPIP
Those schools that accept will be provided
◦ Training from program developers
◦ Program resources
◦ Integrated digital systems for incidence reporting

Validating ECPIP – Sampling
Twenty schools teaching grade 3 will be contacted in New York state
◦ Schools providing only special education will be excluded
◦ The schools that volunteer will be randomly stratified by ethnicity
◦ Participating schools will be randomly assigned to experiment or control conditions
Contact information to schools will include information regarding the goals and outcomes of ECPIP,
as well as its content
◦ A request for ECPIP content in non-English will be provided
◦ Enrollment forms will be included

Validating ECPIP – Procedure
Data on incidents of bullying and cyberbullying in previous years involving grade 3 will be collected
from participating schools prior to the initiation of the study to establish a baseline
The Olweus Bullying/Victim Questionnaire (OBVP), which has been shown to have high internal
validity and consistency in identifying bully and victim behaviors (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay,
2006), will be issued to participating students to establish baseline behavioral prevalence
During the experimental period, data will be collected during the year in which the program is being
administered with a one-year follow-up on participants
Hypothesis will be tested across experimental and control groups on all three levels of ECPIP’s
approach to prevention and intervention

Validating ECPIP – Hypotheses
The experiment will seek to determine if
1) Instruction on ECPIP will curb bullying and cyberbullying behaviors during exposure
2) ECPIP is successful at reducing interpersonal factors leading to bullying and cyberbullying
3) Participants in ECPIP will exhibit fewer bullying and cyberbullying behaviors following exposure

Validating ECPIP – Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis: ECPIP instruction will curb bullying and cyberbullying behaviors during exposure
Student-Level Methods:
◦ Students will take a mid-test and post-test OBVP during the experiment to indicate bully and victim behavior
◦ Students will be provided tri-monthly surveys incentivized by raffle prizes which inquire about bully/cyberbully
incidence and reporting
Teacher-Level Methods:
◦ School staff will observe for and report incidents of physical bullying
◦ IT will report on monitored incidents of cyberbullying
◦ School staff will record student self-reports of bullying and cyberbullying
Parent-Level Methods:
◦ Parents will be provided tri-monthly surveys which inquire about their child’s bully/cyberbully incidence

Hypothesis: ECPIP is successful at reducing interpersonal risk factors leading to bullying and cyberbullying
◦ Use results from tri-monthly self-report bully/cyberbully surveys to indicate an increase, decrease, or maintenance
in cyberbullying prevalence
◦ Students will be screened for moral engagement at the beginning and end of the experiment using the Mechanisms
of Moral Disengagement scale
◦ Students will be provided a short survey in class regarding their relationship with their parents at the beginning of
the first and last ECPIP classes
◦ Parents will be provided a survey following ECPIP outreach components which inquire as to risks they observe
regarding their child, their relationship with their child, and their child’s online behavior
◦ Parents will be administered a survey at the conclusion of the curriculum asking about improvements in their
relationship with their child and the parent’s perceptions of the child’s bullying/victim and
cyberbullying/cybervictim behaviors

Hypothesis: Participants in ECPIP will exhibit fewer bullying and cyberbullying behaviors following
exposure
◦ Students will take the OBVP one year after ECPIP exposure to discover bullying/victim and
cyberbullying/cybervictim traits
◦ Students will be provided a survey incentivized by a raffle prize which inquire as to bully/cyberbully incidence and
reporting
Teacher-Level Methods:
◦ Participating schools will provide bullying and cyberbullying incidence data regarding grade 4 (student participants)
◦ Parents will be provided a survey to indicate how often their child reports incidents of bullying/victimization and
cyberbullying/cybervictimization

Evaluating ECPIP – Data Collection and
Analysis
Data collection from school staff will be
◦ Paper or digital submission as per the participant school’s preference
◦ Collected following the completion of the ECPIP curriculum
The data collected by ECPIP evaluators will include only
◦ Bullying and cyberbullying prevalence and incidence provided by schools
◦ Bullying and cyberbullying prevalence and incidence reported by participants and parents
◦ Participant and parent survey responses
◦ Test results from OBVP and MMD administrations
Students who miss two hours of ECPIP courses will be discounted from the study

Evaluating ECPIP – Process Evaluation
ECPIP stakeholders will conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of the program’s prevention and
intervention components
◦ Factor analysis of specific components will determine their effectiveness
◦ Ethnic bias will be examined through covariate measures
Satisfaction surveys will be provided to
◦ School staff at the conclusion of the experimental stage
◦ Parents at the conclusion of the experimental stage and at the one-year follow-up
Results and feedback will be used to lead a refinement of the ECPIP logic model

References
Alvarez, A.R.G. (2012). “IH8U”: Confronting cyberbullying and exploring the use of cybertools in teen dating relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In
Session, 68(11), 1205-1215.
Conyne, R.K. (2010). Prevention Program Development and Evaluations: An Incidence Reduction, Culturally Relevant Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Diamandouros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, E.J. (2008). The role of school psychologists in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 693-704.
Dehue, F. (2012). Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative methodologies; Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community and
Applied Psychology, 23(1), 1-6.
Federal Communications Commission. (2014). Children’s Internet Protection Act. Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-
act

References
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa Antibullying Program. Child
Development, 82(1), 311-330.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Alanen, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 535-551.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 781-801.
Limber, S.P. (2011). Development, evaluation, and future directions of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 71-87.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J.W. (2012). Commentary: Cyberbullying; Neither an epidemic nor a rarity. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 539-
543.

References
Hong, J.S. (2009). Feasibility of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in low-income schools. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 81-97.
Mason, K.I. (2008) Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 323-348.
Mehari, K.R., Farrell, A.D., & Le, A.H. (2014). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 399-415.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies, and bully-victims. Children
and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 63-70.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying: Results from the 2011 school crime supplement to the
national crime victimization survey.
Olweus, D. & Limber, S.P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of
Orthpsychiatry, 80(1), 124-134.

References
Pearce, N., Cross, D., Monks, H., Waters, S., & Falconer, S. (2011). Current evidence of best practices in whole-school bullying intervention and its
potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 21(1), 1-21.
Pelfrey, W.V. & Weber, N.L. (2013). Keyboard gansters: Analysis of incidence and correlates to cyberbullying in a large urban student population.
Deviant Behavior, 34(1), 68-84.
Robson, C. & Witenberg, R.T. (2013). The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and
cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 211-231.
Shapka, J.D. & Law, D.M. (2013). Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting behaviors and motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 723-738.

References
Sourander, A., Klomek, A.B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Lutamo, T., Koskelainen, M., Ristkari, T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychological risk factors
associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720-728.
Stauffer, S., Heath, M.A., Coyne, S.M., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and intervention
strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 353-367.
Sticca, F. & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and
anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739-750.
Sticca, F., Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2012). Longitudinal risk factors for cyberbullying in adolescence. Journal for Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 23(1), 52-67.

References
Stopbullying.gov. (n.d.) Facts About Bullying. Retrieved from: http://www.stopbullying.gov/news/media/facts/#ftn17
Wasserman, G.A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R.E., Coie, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.I., Loeber, R., & Petechuk, D. (2003). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Effects of the KiVa Anti-bullying Program on adolescents’ depression,
anxiety, and perception of peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1), 289-300.

SkinnerJ_PS520_Final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à SkinnerJ_PS520_Final

Similaire à SkinnerJ_PS520_Final (20)

SkinnerJ_PS520_Final