Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission
to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
It took a seditious incursion by an angry mob into the American Congress to limit Donald Trump’s four plus years of online deceit and cyberbullying. During that period, the world’s population was exposed to his use of social media to promote aggression toward almost everyone. His behaviour was egregious, providing license to behaviour for which children and youth are admonished by parents and teachers: name calling, demeaning characterizations, misogynistic rants, taunts, incitement of violence, and lies.
The last four years have shown that connectivity is a two-edged sword. Better and more rapid access to information on the one hand, increased susceptibility to manipulation and damage on the other. Online aggression – also called cyberbullying or cyberharassment – is a form of bullying that has serious negative consequences for the victim and for the perpetrator. According to a 2017 meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization by Chen and her colleagues, those with greater access are more likely to become involved in online aggression.
Online aggression can lead to anxiety, stress, depression, poor self-esteem, negative school performance, a higher chance of dropping out, and suicide. Pediatricians, mental health workers, and social workers express concerns about the exposure that children and youth have to social media. It is common to find parents giving their smartphones to infants to distract or entertain them. Children and youth – like most of us - are rarely untethered from their phones.
Access to information and communication technology has given us enormous advantages and opportunities. Evident in the extreme from Trump’s behaviour, those same technologies can victimize. In a wired world, denying or restricting access are not realistic means of addressing the issue. In the case of children and youth, denying or restricting access encourages students to seek covert access. Children and youth are reluctant to disclose their victimization for fear that their access will be limited or cut off completely.
Technological solutions – apps that detect and prevent the transmission of negative language and harassment or apps that facilitate the reporting of harassment – are of limited usefulness. As is often the case, education is a more promising approach, but it too has limitations.
In 2019, my colleagues and I reviewed 35 programs designed to address cyberbullying among children (ages 6-11), youth (ages 12-17), and young adults (ages 18-25). The programs focused on: creating awareness of cyberbullying; developing knowledge about cyberbullying topics; equipping participants with skills to address cyberbullying (coping strategies, social skills, skills to form improved/respectful relationships, self-empowerment, and empathy); on creating safe, respectful, bullying-free school environments and policies; building teacher capacity to address cyberbullying and bullying issues; and increasing knowledge and awareness among parents.
We found that most programs have not been systematically studied. But we were able to formulate recommendations that ought to help educators think about selecting or designing programs to address cyberbullying. Not surprising, the first recommendation is that you need to know what you are trying to achieve and for whom. Are you trying to influence behaviour change among young children or youth? Develop empathy for others or specific skills for improved communication and better relationships with others? Is the program aimed at a specific segment of the population or the entire school? You get the idea.
Clarity of purpose is indispensable to the selection of the relevant practices and to ensuring that they are aligned with the goals. Programs aimed at increasing awareness of unhealthy behaviours differ from programs that seek to equip students with the skills they need to extricate themselves from situations in which those behaviours are present.
Some cyberbullying programs treat cyberbullying like ‘bullying with technology,’ but there are important differences between bullying and cyberbullying: the anonymity of perpetrators, the almost limitless opportunities for victimization, and long-lasting impact because the attacks are difficult to expunge. So, it is important to pay attention to the similarities and differences between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
Making certain that the approach is age appropriate and sensitive to vulnerable populations (racialized students, LBGTQ2S, for example) is important. Equally important is developing the capacity of those who will implement the program. Most established programs go off the rails when applied to other contexts because those in the new context do not faithfully implement the program.
Trump makes me think of two significant challenges that cyberbullying programs must face. One is motivating behaviour change. The other is the example set by socially prominent models. Trump’s visibility and the position he occupied made his behaviour seem acceptable, and he has shown that he has no desire to change. I am guessing that it will be a bit easier to address cyberbullying when Trump is gone, but it still won’t be easy.
If you want brief descriptions of the 35 programs or a copy of the full report that my colleagues and I prepared for Public Safety Canada, please send me an email at oneducationcanada@gmail.com