Cyberbullying Interventions: Perceptions and Research Design
This paper presents a proposed quasi-experimental research study examining whether a school-wide anti-cyberbullying curriculum can measurably alter middle school students' perceptions, empathy, and willingness to report cyberbullying incidents. The paper opens by distinguishing cyberbullying from traditional bullying and surveying the digital platforms young people use. It then reviews relevant literature, including Bandura's social learning theory and studies on media violence, to establish a theoretical foundation for intervention effectiveness. The proposed methodology employs Likert-scale surveys, descriptive statistics, and quasi-experimental design across intact classrooms. The paper concludes with an appendix of screening and survey instruments intended to measure shifts in student attitudes following curricular exposure.
- Introduction: Scope of cyberbullying and digital platforms students use
- Cyberbullying vs. Traditional Bullying: Distinguishing cyberbullying from in-person bullying
- Intervention Effectiveness and Theoretical Framework: Media violence research and social learning theory
- Research Question and Hypotheses: Formal hypotheses and dependent and independent variables
- Methodology and Survey Design: Quasi-experimental design, sampling, Likert scale, and statistics
- Conclusion: Summary of trends and recommendations for parents and schools
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its intervention rationale in well-established social learning research, particularly Bandura's imitation studies and Centerwall's television violence findings, creating a credible theoretical backbone for the proposed curriculum.
- The methodology section is unusually detailed for a research proposal, walking through variable types, Likert scale properties, and specific descriptive statistics (median, absolute deviation) with clear justifications for each choice.
- The inclusion of a full survey instrument in the appendix gives the proposal practical immediacy, demonstrating that the researcher has translated abstract constructs into concrete, answerable items.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates how to build a quasi-experimental research design within real-world constraints — specifically, the inability to randomize students across classrooms. It explicitly names the threat to internal validity this creates and explains the compensatory statistical strategy (treating demographic blocking variables as covariates), modeling transparent methodological reasoning.
Structure breakdown
The paper moves from problem context (scope of cyberbullying, digital platforms) to conceptual distinction (cyberbullying vs. traditional bullying), then to theoretical justification (media influence, social learning), followed by the formal research question and null/alternative hypotheses, and finally a detailed methods section covering sampling, instrumentation, and statistical analysis. A brief conclusion and a full survey appendix close the paper.
Introduction
Cyberbullying is a relatively new phenomenon for today's youth. In years past, bullying occurred within school settings and at events where students gathered with their peers. In the contemporary high-tech world, it is common for students to be online around the clock using computers, tablets, and cell phones. There are many types of social media websites and apps that students use to communicate and connect with peers and others.
The Common Sense Media website lists common dating applications and websites such as Omegle, MeetMe, Skout, and Tinder (Conway, 2015). Texting applications — such as Kik Messenger, ooVoo, and WhatsApp — are also widely used (Conway, 2015). Young people may also encounter secret or self-destructing applications such as Snapchat, Burn Note, Whisper, and Yik Yak (Conway, 2015). A wide variety of chatting, meeting, and micro-blogging applications and sites also exist, including Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, and Vine (Conway, 2015).
The Cyberbullying Research Center illustrates the technology being used by tweens and teens between the ages of 10 and 18 (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).
Educators have a duty to act and must work with students to develop good citizenship, healthy personalities, and a sense of self-responsibility. Educators are well placed to conduct interventions that alter behaviors and attitudes linked to victimization or bullying — whether in person or online. There is a significant opportunity to facilitate educational programs addressing bullying and victimization within school settings, and doing so is critically important before students reach adulthood.
Cyberbullying vs. Traditional Bullying
Experts recognize that bullying has changed from being picked on at school or in the neighborhood to being a relentless assault that can drive an otherwise well-adjusted child to take their own life (Rice et al., 2015). Cyberbullying can be more insidious than traditional bullying because it can reach wide audiences — for example, emails sent to everyone at a school — and can in most cases be carried out anonymously. Cyberbullying has received widespread media attention as students have died by suicide, sometimes posting messages online beforehand with no one taking action.
Anti-bullying programs exist at all levels of education, including higher education. A strength of many current programs is that they include students who have previously bullied or harassed others, either in person or in digital environments. The literature on bullying and cyberbullying has grown alongside the problem itself:
"Cyberbullying perpetrators are more likely to have problems with their behavior, peer relationships, and emotions, and are less likely to be prosocial than their peers who are neither cyberbullying perpetrators nor victims of cyberbullying. Specifically, female cyberbullying perpetrators express greater anxiety and depression than their female peers who are not cyberbullying perpetrators" (Rice et al., 2015).
Definitions of bullying may vary, but the unacceptable behavior is generally characterized by its repetitive nature, perpetrated by only a few individuals — whether students or co-workers — and consists of highly adverse actions or communications (Harris, 2012). As Hirsch (2014) stated, "cyberbullying is the use of technology to harass, threaten, embarrass, or target another person. By definition, it occurs among young people." Bullying can be thought of as an artifact of group existence — a longstanding problem — whereas cyberbullying has existed for only a few decades, following the trajectory of technological innovation, and has been studied seriously for only about the past 15 years. One of the first reported cases of cyberbullying occurred in 1998, when a middle school student designed a website containing derogatory statements and threatening messages about teachers and school administrators.
A gap in the body of knowledge exists about how to prevent cyberbullying and how to help its victims. Ferlazzo (2010) conducted a study to determine the number of students who had been victimized by bullying and who had themselves bullied others. Many students have been victims while also having acted as perpetrators (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Hinduja and Patchin's (2010) study contributes to the theoretical foundation by illustrating that a wide range of bullying types exist that are only a step removed from traditional in-person bullying.
Intervention Effectiveness and Theoretical Framework
Cultural imitation can play a powerful role in people's propensity to behave in particular ways — a factor that research on the influence of television on the behavior of children and adults clearly demonstrates (Bandura, 1961; Bandura, 1973; Centerwall, 1992; Emmons, 2013; Philips, 1983). Bandura and other social psychologists have devoted their careers to understanding the influence of imitation on human behavior.
Much of the research on the influence of television viewing was conducted between the 1970s and 1990s, a period that roughly marks a heyday for broadcast television. According to Centerwall (1992), "All Canadian and U.S. studies of the effect of prolonged childhood exposure to television (2 years or more) demonstrate a positive relationship between earlier exposure to television and later physical aggressiveness." Centerwall concluded that preadolescence is the critical period for the strength of this effect and that the aggression-enhancing influence persisted well into adolescence and even adulthood. Televised violence may, therefore, have more pervasive effects than intuition or conventional wisdom would suggest.
A seminal study of mass media violence in the United States found that publicized prizefights were associated with a 12.46% increase in homicide rates between 1973 and 1978 (Philips, 1983). This brief, sharp increase was statistically significant even after correcting for seasonal variables, secular trends, and other extraneous factors. Philips concluded that the cultural approval and excitement surrounding heavyweight prizefights can "stimulate fatal, aggressive behavior in some Americans" (Philips, 1983).
Taken together, these findings highlight the suggestibility of human behavior and point toward the need for interventions directed at both children and the adults who care for and teach them (Bandura, 1961; Bandura, 1973; Centerwall, 1992; Emmons, 2013; Philips, 1983). A study published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, demonstrated that when three- to five-year-olds watched television programs emphasizing empathy and cooperation rather than aggression, their behavior improved after just six months (Saint Louis, 2013).
By extension, cyberbullying may be viewed as harmful, aggressive behavior influenced by cultural sanctions — even when those sanctions are embedded in pre-adolescent or adolescent subculture. As Emmons (2013) and Saint Louis (2013) indicate, the behavior of young children is influenced by the type of television they watch, yet Centerwall's (1992) review points to a critical developmental window that can be likened to Lorenz's (1988) observations on imprinting. Bandura's social learning theory, however, suggests greater degrees of behavioral fluidity. Bandura emphasized several models of learning — including observation of live models, verbal instruction models, and symbolic models — and stressed an important tenet: that learning does not always produce changes in overt behavior, partly due to the importance of the learner's mental state and the type of external (positive or negative) reinforcement and internal reinforcement (feelings of competency, pride, and belonging) associated with the learning experience (Bandura, 1973; Bandura et al., 1961).
Conclusion
As one reviews the data already available about bullying and cyberbullying, trends show no signs of improving — and as new technologies, apps, and websites emerge that help conceal perpetrators' identities, this problem will continue to worsen. However, as schools, teachers, and parents become better educated about the issue, greater control over bullying becomes possible. An informal sample of approximately 200 parents and students revealed a notable gap in perceptions: nearly all students reported that bullying had moved primarily online, while most parents believed it was still predominantly face-to-face.
There are practical steps that parents can take to protect their children from both cyberbullying and traditional bullying. A number of apps can restrict what children see and do on cell phones, tablets, and laptops. Perhaps most importantly, one of the most effective things a parent or teacher can do is maintain an open dialogue in which a child feels comfortable discussing problems they are experiencing.
Appendix I: Screening Questions and Survey Instrument
Have you ever been the victim of bullying or harassment?
Have you ever bullied or harassed anyone?
Have you ever been the victim of cyberbullying?
Have you ever acted as a cyberbully or harassed anyone online?
What digital devices do you own?
1 — Laptop 2 — Smartphone 3 — Tablet 4 — Other
How often do you go online for digital information?
1 — Every day 2 — Several times per day 3 — Several times per week 4 — Always connected 5 — Only when I have to 6 — Rarely
How many hours per day do you spend online?
1 — 0–1 hours 2 — 1.5–2.5 hours 3 — 3–4 hours 4 — 5–6 hours 5 — 7–8 hours 6 — 9 or more hours
1. I feel comfortable speaking my mind when I am online or texting.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
2. In the future, I plan to be more careful about what I write and text.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
3. Most kids my age don't take online and text messages seriously.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
4. I don't participate when others tease or make fun of kids they don't like.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
5. Some kids really don't care if they hurt other kids.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
6. Bullies feel powerful and important when they can hurt others.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
7. I don't think anything can be done to prevent cyberbullying because it is done in secret.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
8. My parents would be horrified if I ever participated in cyberbullying.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
9. Teachers, principals, and counselors can help prevent cyberbullying.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
10. I think kids can learn to be kind to one another if they have empathy.
__ Strongly Agree __ Agree __ Neutral __ Disagree __ Strongly Disagree
11. (Open-ended) I would like to participate in a program that helps to prevent cyberbullying and helps kids who have been victims of bullying. Why or why not?
References
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Centerwall, B. S. (1992). Television and violence: The scale of the problem and where to go from here. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 267(22), Special Communication.
Conway, P. (2015). 15 apps and websites kids are heading to after Facebook. Common Sense Media.
Darlington, R. B. (1997). Factor analysis. Retrieved from http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm
Emmons, S. (2013). Is media violence damaging to kids? Parenting.com. CNN.
Ferlazzo, M. (2010). Gay youth reluctant to report cyberbullying. Iowa State University News.
Harris, S. (2012). Texas middle school principals' perceptions of bullying. NASSP Bulletin, 34(8), 21–34.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80, 614–621. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x
Hirsch, L. (2014). Cyberbullying. Retrieved from
Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. doi:10.4135/9780857020116
Lorenz, C. (1988). Here I am — where are you? A lifetime's study of the uncannily human behaviour of the greylag goose. (R. D. Martin, Trans.).
Martinez-Martin, P. (2010, February 15). Composite rating scales. Journal of Neurological Science, 289(1–2), 7–11.
Philips, D. P. (1983). Impact of mass media violence on U.S. homicides. American Sociological Review, 48(4), 560–568.
Punch, K. F. (2003). Survey research: The basics. London: Sage Publications.
Rice, E., Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Goldbach, J., Plant, A., & Kordic, T. (2015). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among middle-school students. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), e66–e72. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302393
Saint Louis, C. (2013). Certain television fare can help ease aggression in young children, study finds. The New York Times.
Spector, P. A. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.