This article is a continuation of the article “Bullying as an object of research and a cultural phenomenon” (Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2013. T. 10, NO. 3. C. 149—159) and is devoted to the peculiarities of bullying on the Internet. The ubiquity of the Internet and the addiction of adolescents to social networks, combined with their lack of user competence and understanding of the need to maintain a certain ethics of online communication, make cyberbullying one of the most serious modern social risks in adolescence. We consider the psychological aspects of cyberbullying that are related to the peculiarity of the virtual environment and distinguish it from traditional bullying, such as the anonymity of the stalker and his constant access to harassment, the fear of denying access to a computer from the victim as a motive for concealing information about cyberbullying from parents, the innumerable and anonymous witnesses, the lack of feedback in stalker-victim communication and the phenomenon of disinhibition. We look at the main forms of cyberbullying (flaming, grieving, trolling, defamation, impersonation, disclosure of secrets and fraud, exclusion/ostracism, cyberstalking and sexting) in order to show the specifics of online bullying. The means of stopping and preventing cyberbullying have a technical part (blocking a user, privacy settings, etc.), but are otherwise similar to working with bullying outside the Internet: raising users' awareness of acceptable behaviors, maintaining and understanding the need for respectful relationships between users (including on Internet platforms without moderators and rules of conduct), not including and, if possible, stopping the spread of negative, unsafe, and degrading statements and images.
The modern space of everyday communication is characterized by a striking new feature, namely its expansion into the virtual world. And while for today's adults, communication skills via emails, instant messaging, and chat are an add-on to already acquired skills of communicating in person, today's children and teenagers are learning both skills almost simultaneously. As for teenagers, we can say that the process of socialization is largely moving to the Internet (Kondrashkin, Khlomov, 2012), along with acquaintances, reference groups, and the development of various social roles and norms. All those communicative processes that take place in ordinary socio-physical space seem to be “duplicated”, sometimes enhanced and sometimes compensated by virtual communication, but in any case acquiring new features. Although historically virtual existence is obviously secondary to real life, we can also expect the reverse influence and transfer of communicative situations and rules common on the Internet into the “real” space of communication.
The advent of the Internet has allowed “virtual communication” to take place, which has become a resource for many and has opened up additional social opportunities. The anonymity allowed on the Internet allows a person to experiment with different social roles and different selves without fear of negative evaluation or social sanctions that would follow when communicating in person. This is supported by data from 2005, according to which a quarter of online teens pretend to be of a different gender, age, ethnicity, political views, sexual orientation than they actually are; just over half have more than one email address or nickname (Lenhart et al., 2005). According to other sources, 39% of teenagers tried to prank someone or introduced themselves as someone else in instant messaging (Lenhart et al., 2001). On the one hand, this can be useful for a teenager who is looking for an opportunity to learn more about themselves. However, on the other hand, virtual communication has created risks associated with the environment's new answers. For example, anonymity makes it more likely that a teenager will meet someone online and, possibly, in the real world who also uses a fictional role and is not who they appear to be. It also reduces the usual level of shyness and provokes behaviors (such as confession) that are not practiced in real life. However, the author and participants in the situation can be deciphered, which can result in psychological trauma. Anonymity reduces the level of personal responsibility and turns a slanderer into an almost simultaneous information environment where it is easy to hide from the aggression of an offended person.
With the widespread use of the Internet and active virtual communications, the task is to regulate these communications and ensure user safety, and develop cyberethics (Voiskunsky, 2010). Although it is common to contrast the “real” and “virtual” worlds, there is no clear boundary between them. According to R. Mahaffey, a criminal researcher with the Mississippi Department of Justice's Cybercrime (Information Technology Crime) Division, the Internet is the Wild West of the 21st century, where thrilling adventures, dangers, and bandits meet all the time: although bullets flying on the Internet aren't real, they can still hurt (Kowalski et al., 2011).
We will focus here on the side of communication on the Internet that is a distinct social problem and needs to be discussed and solutions found. We are talking about cyberbullying, a new and rapidly spreading form of bullying both abroad and in Russia that uses the Internet's capabilities (primarily anonymity and a huge number of users) to aggressively prosecute people. Since in 1993, Norwegian psychologist D. Olvaeus gave the generally accepted definition of bullying among children and adolescents: “bullying is intentional, systematic aggressive behavior that includes inequality of power or strength” (Olweus, 1993) — this topic has become one of the most discussed in the context of children's groups (Bochaver, Khlomov, 2013), both due to its traumatic consequences and because of its widespread and everyday consequences prevalence. Recently, in addition to the traditional bullying space where adults don't monitor the situation — at school, in the schoolyard, on the way to and from school, on the school bus (Craig, Pepler, 1997), Internet platforms have appeared that were quickly developed by those who wanted to bully without getting close to their victim in person. Aggressive human persecution has taken on new forms using a variety of modern technologies. These forms of bullying, called cyberbullying, are causing great concern among children, parents and professionals in Europe and America and are already beginning to appear in Russia. The peculiarity of information processes on the Internet is that nothing disappears from there. That is why even unverified stigmatizing (from Greek — “label, stigma”) information remains there forever. The longer an innocent person makes excuses, the longer his dialogue with someone invisible but possibly nearby, the greater the threat to the psychological safety of the victim of defamation. Ordinary bullying is in some ways more honest and safer because it doesn't involve the uncertainty that exists in virtual space. “A Russian feature is the fact that cyberbullying is often carried out for social or national reasons, in fact representing a form of extremist activity” (Parfentyev, 2009). There are known cases of suicides committed by teenagers after cyberstalking.
Teenagers are the most vulnerable group for cyberbullying. According to Russian data, 78% of children (i.e. almost all citizens) aged 6 to 18 use the Internet every day (Bespalov, 2010). Social networks are growing in popularity, where users create an individual profile and can publish information of varying degrees of candor. At the same time, adolescents, as well as inexperienced adults, often do not understand the risks associated with lack of confidentiality, violation of personal boundaries and the possibility of misusing available information. More than 72% of teens have a personal social media profile. Up to 80% of Russian children post their last name, exact age, and school number online, and a third of requested children's profile settings allow everyone to see the user's personal information; abroad, 62% of children share personal photos publicly (Soldatova, Zotova, 2011; Kowalski et al., 2011). When discussing hypothetical behavior when an unpleasant situation occurs on the Internet, 77% of 6-9-year-old children say that they will seek help from their parents, and among 15-17 year olds, 54% plan to deal with the problem on their own, without specifying how (Bespalov, 2010). Children's high user activity is combined with their poor awareness of the dangers of the Internet and how to avoid or overcome them. Therefore, there is a high risk of children getting into unsafe situations, and the need for education and prevention is obvious.
Cyberbullying and its forms
Cyberbullying, electronic bullying, online social cruelty is a separate area of bullying defined as intentional aggressive actions systematically carried out by a group or individual over time using electronic forms of interaction and directed against victims who cannot easily protect themselves (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). Cyberbullying includes the use of email, instant messaging, web pages, blogs, forums and chat rooms, MMS and SMS messages, online games, and other information communication technologies (Kowals ki et al., 2011). This is a completely new area of research with a terminological system that is not yet well established. Some experts believe that cyberbullying is only possible among children and adolescents, and when it is done by adults, it should be called “cyber harassment” or “cyberstalking” (Af tab, 2011). Others suggest using the term “incivility online”
online) or “cyber incident” (Giumetti et al., 2012).
Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying can be direct or indirect. Direct cyberbullying is direct attacks on a child through letters or messages. Indirectly, other people (both children and adults) are involved in the process of bullying the victim, not always with their consent; the investigator can hack into the victim's account and, mimicking the owner, send messages from this account to the victim's acquaintances, destroying the victim's communicative field and raising doubts about his moral qualities. One of the most threatening situations is when a stalker posts information online that actually puts the victim at risk, for example, posting an ad on her behalf about finding sexual partners. Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying includes a continuum of actions, at one end of which actions are difficult for others to recognize as harassment, and at the other end are violent behavior by the aggressor, which can even lead to the death of the victim.
R. Kowalski, S. Limber and P. Agatston in his book Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age (Kowalski et al., 2011) cites the following most common methods of cyberbullying today.
The most emotionally violent form of cyberbullying is flaming, which begins with insults and develops into a rapid emotional exchange of remarks, usually in public, less often in private correspondence. It occurs between two interlocutors with initially equal positions, but sudden aggression introduces an imbalance, which is aggravated by the fact that the participant does not know who his opponent can attract to his side in this battle. Forum visitors, witnesses, can join one of the parties and develop rude correspondence without fully understanding the original meaning of the clash and often viewing the situation as playful, unlike the initiators of the aggressive dialogue. You can compare this to a “wall to wall” fight, where the participants do not fully understand what was the reason for the conflict, nor what are the criteria for joining colleagues to each other.
Harassment is a flaming-like but unidirectional form of bullying: these are usually persistent or repetitive words and actions addressed to a particular person that cause irritation, anxiety, and stress without a reasonable goal. Cyberharassment is usually expressed in repeated offensive messages to the victim that make the victim feel morally destroyed, unable to respond to them due to fear or inability to identify the perpetrator, and sometimes has to pay for the messages received. A specific form of harassment is carried out by so-called griefers, players who deliberately pursue other players in online multiplayer games. They are aimed at destroying other players' enjoyment of play, actively use abuse, block certain areas of the game and cheat. This is a combination of vandalism and bullying, which in the “material” world resembles the behavior of children who come to trample on cakes made by younger children in a sandbox, depriving them of immediate pleasure and achievements. More extreme methods are also known, for example, one game featured a specially designed flashing panel with moving objects that was supposed to provoke players to have an epileptic seizure. 95% of fans of the Second Life virtual world reported that they met griffers (Ibid.). Trolling is another form of harassment: cyber trolls post negative, alarming information on websites, social media pages, and even memorial pages dedicated to deceased people (Famig lietti, 2011), provoking a strong emotional response. Initially, the term “trolling” is fishing and means fishing with a spoon. “Real” trolls are usually called provocateurs — they are those who use other people's “weaknesses” to manipulate people and enjoy their affective explosion. In this case, the aggressor experiences a feeling of omnipotence due to power over the victim, over her emotional state.
Close in meaning, but less manipulative and more directly aggressive, is cyberstalking (from English to stalk), the use of electronic communications to harass victims through repeated alarming and irritating messages, threats of illegal actions, or harm that may result in the recipient of the message or members of his family.
In addition, so-called sextes can cause shame, anxiety or fear. Sexting (from English sex — sex and text — text) is sending or publishing photos and videos with naked and half-naked people. The older children are, the more likely they are to be involved in sexting. According to the study, 10% of 14—24 year olds sent or posted images of themselves with sexual overtones, and 15% received such messages directly from someone else (Kowalski et al., 2011). Among the participants in the US National Campaign for the Prevention of Adolescent and Unwanted Pregnancies, 71% of girls and 67% of boys sent “sexts” to their romantic partners; 21% of girls and 39% of boys sent sexually explicit pictures to people they would like to have a romantic relationship with; 15% of boys and girls sent them to someone they knew only through online communication (Lenhart, 2010). While some people send such messages as part of a harmonious relationship within a couple, others pursue the goals of bullying and harm, for example, posting photos of a naked ex-girlfriend on the Internet as revenge for the painful breakup.
Another form of harassment on the Internet is the dissemination of libel (denigration): this is the publication and distribution of degrading and false information about a person, his distorted images, in particular in a form that is sexualized and/or harmful to his reputation, etc. One form of defamation is “online slam-books”. Slam books are notebooks where classmates post various ratings and comments — “who is the prettiest girl in class”, “who dresses the worst”, etc. Accordingly, “online slam books” are entertainment sites where classmates post similar ratings and comments, often rude and unpleasant, such as “The Worst Couple in Class”. Entertainment sites aimed at students and schoolchildren often serve as a platform for this purpose. Some people visit them not to gossip and leave comments, but simply to see if they themselves have become another object of slander and malicious entertainment by their acquaintances (Lisson, 2008).
False information is also spread when impersonating someone else (impersonation). The stalker, using the stolen password, sends negative, cruel or inadequate information from the victim's accounts and, as it were, on her behalf to her friends. The victim is very humiliated when receiving feedback and often loses friends. In addition, the stalker can use a password to change the victim's personal profile on the website, post inappropriate, offensive information there, and send threatening or degrading e-mails from the victim's address. As a last resort, the stalker can post provocative offensive messages or comments on the forums, signing with the victim's name and providing her real name, address, and phone number, thereby putting the victim at risk of actual harassment and assault.
Outing and trickery (outing originally meant “exposing a secret gay or lesbian”) involves sharing personal, classified, confidential information about a victim online. This form is similar to revealing secrets “in real life”, which is also accompanied by feelings of shame and fear of rejection by the victim, and differs only in the number of possible witnesses.
Exclusion from a community to which a person feels they belong can be experienced as social death. Exclusion/ostracism from online communities can occur in any password-protected environment or through deletion from the buddy list. The experiment showed that exclusion from the Internet community reduces the participant's self-esteem and helps them become more conformal in the next community (Williams et al., 2000). Often, after expulsion, a person joins other groups (in particular, thematic groups dedicated to revenge on the first community), and this makes it possible to partially cope with the feelings; many accomplices” inspires a person and strengthens the belief that it is possible to avenge the ostracism, on their own or with the help of members of a new group. In the absence of direct grounds, this is analogous to indirect harassment, expressed in the isolation and rejection of one of the group members (“no one wants to sit with him”, “we are not friends with her”).
The importance for a person of community recognition is also exploited when publishing videos of physical assaults/happy slapping and hopping. Happy slapping is a hooligan attack on a passer-by by a group of teenagers, during which one of the hooligans films what is happening with a mobile phone video camera. To increase the victim's sense of humiliation, the stalkers post a video of the attack on the Internet, where thousands of viewers can watch and comment on it. Unfortunately, uploading a video to the Internet is much easier than deleting it from there.
Thus, the main leitmotifs of online bullying are exploiting the importance of the victim's reference community. Involving multiple witnesses significantly increases feelings of shame, fear, helplessness and rejection); the uncontrolled dissemination of any (false, shameful, confidential) information; and the provocation of hypertrophied affective feedback from the victim. The aim of cyberbullying is to worsen the victim's emotional state and/or to destroy their social relationships.
Researchers distinguish four categories of children engaged in cyberbullying, depending on the motivation for this activity and the style of doing it: a) the angel of revenge” (feels right, often avenges the fact that he was bullied at school); b) “power eager” (similar to a traditional stalker from the schoolyard, wants control, power and authority, but may be smaller and weaker than peers, or she can take out her anger and helplessness when she is vulnerable, for example, when her parents get divorced or sick); c) “nasty girl” ( can be both a girl and a boy; cyberbullies for the fun of scaring and humiliating others); d) “unintentional stalkers” (they engage in cyberbullying by inertia after receiving negative reports about someone, often as a result of indirect harassment, in which they are involved as witnesses and accomplices) (Aftab, 2011). Today, researchers believe that cyberbullying victims are often about the same children who are being persecuted in real life: for various reasons, they are more vulnerable and less confident, often having some differences in appearance, origin, behavior, and health status compared to their peers (Kowalski et al., 2011).
Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying involves being systematic, aggressive, and unequal in the strength/power of the perpetrator and the victim. However, power in cyberspace also has peculiarities: the stalker is anonymous, can hide behind false identities and address a huge audience that listens to rumors and slander; in addition, the victim of harassment is available through electronic devices anytime and anywhere (Ibid.). And while possible costs can stop a stalker from ordinary bullying, not so much moral arguments, cyberbullying practically does not require interrupting or distracting from your main activity, i.e. it is a very comfortable way to increase adrenaline levels.
Let us dwell in more detail on the features of cyberbullying — anonymity, continuity, countless invisible witnesses, lack of feedback and the phenomenon of disinhibition.
Unlike traditional bullying, where the aggressor is well-known and can be avoided, in cyberspace the stalker is often anonymous. The victim does not know if the stalker is one or more; whether it is a boy or a girl; older or younger; whether they know each other and whether they are friends. Such uncertainty increases anxiety; the victim may begin to fantasize about the power and strength of the aggressor and, in this regard, about their own defenselessness and vulnerability, relying on their personal past experience and personal experiences. Thus, cyberbullying can be especially dangerous for children and adolescents who have traumatic experiences or are experiencing rejection within the family.
Uncertainty is underpinned by continuity: bullying via the Internet and cell phones may not stop day or night. Moreover, one published message can work as a repeated act of bullying, causing more and more comments that are painful for the victim, in addition to the fact that the victim can re-read the offensive or threatening text received and experience retraumatization. Since the Internet performs a communicative function and is a space for socialization, a victim may experience a situation of bullying as a complete loss of opportunities for building relationships, development, and socialization.
The child's fear of persecution is accompanied by the fear of being denied access to the network. For many parents who learn that their child is being electronically abused, the first step is to prevent their child from using a computer or cell phone. Although this seems like a logical way to stop the flow of messages from the stalker, for a child, the fear of being deprived of a computer exceeds even the fear of continuing bullying, since lack of access to electronic communication greatly cancels their social life. Therefore, children often hide the facts of electronic harassment. Depriving a child of technological equipment is an additional punishment for the victim.
In a cyberbullying situation, the stalker does not see the victim's facial expression, does not hear her intonations and is not aware of her emotional reactions: e-mail or instant messages allow him to distance himself from them. Emotional feedback regulates human interaction; without it, there is no “ruler” that can help measure violent behavior. A cyberstalker forgets that a real person is reading his messages on the screen of his electronic device. The victim also cannot see the stalker, imagine his facial expressions, or interpret his intonations, which makes it difficult for her to read the meaning put into the stalker's messages. Reducing the emotional component in emails and instant messages leads to severe misunderstandings between communication participants and at the same time to underestimating this misunderstanding. Thus, communication is distorted both ways, and participants may not be aware of it.
Although community members sometimes clearly join the abuser or victim, as a rule, there are many silent witnesses whose non-intervention supports the stalker and enhances the victim's already humiliating and painful experiences. Presumably, it is easier for witnesses of electronic violence to join the aggressor than to witness traditional bullying, since this does not require any physical effort or social skills from them; the weakest child can actively poison the strongest using modern technologies. In addition, anonymity and the absence of face-to-face contact anonymize interaction, making it easy to forget about the human component of interaction and perceive what is happening as a kind of simulation, like a computer game.
The anonymity allowed on the Internet is changing people's behavior. The ability not to be identified leads to the phenomenon of disinspiration: without the threat of punishment and social disapproval, people say and do things that they would not say or do under their own name and allow themselves much more than they are used to in everyday life, where they are responsible for their actions and statements. This anonymity is more of an illusion than a reality — users leave “electronic footprints” (Willard, 2006), but even when identified, the stalker can claim that someone else has used it
an account to bully and try to evade punishment.
Thus, Internet users face a lot of communication risks that they are not always aware of. What can be done to try to warn them? The fight against misconduct on the Internet is moving in two directions. On the one hand, this is the development of technical devices that limit inappropriate content (filters, censorship), various alarm buttons (“report”) located on social networks and websites designed to include site employees in an unpleasant situation, and configure the confidentiality of personal accounts. On the other hand, Internet users are being trained in basic safety rules and correct behavior towards other users. There are special websites abroad dedicated to improving Internet literacy1 and teaching correct, non-aggressive and non-aggressive behavior on the Internet2. In particular, they consider the value aspects of certain actions on the Internet, discuss the internal choices that a person makes when sending nude photos of someone, behaving cruelly, disrespectfully or spying on others on the Internet. Runet is currently working intensively to censor content and develop filters, and there are also materials on Internet safe behavior, such as recommendations for children, parents and teachers as part of the Children Online project3 or on the Friendly Runet Foundation website4. These recommendations mainly focus on the technical side of the problem (how to block messages from the aggressor and who should be reported about the situation of rights violations) and emphasize the importance of parental control over children's online activities. However, the actual psychological aspect of the cyberstalking situation — the feelings and behavior of victims, aggressors, witnesses, and the opportunity to work with them — are not sufficiently disclosed in such recommendations.
In a situation of traditional bullying and cyberbullying within a particular community (for example, a study group), psychological work focuses on changing the quality of relationships within the group so that in these relationships, instead of the value of power and patterns of dominance-submission and the covert use of violence, values of mutual respect and cooperation are formed.
In a situation of cyberbullying, in the absence of a “real” relationship between the victim and the aggressor, apparently, the main target of psychological work should be the victim's personal boundaries and skills to ensure their resilience. The topic of parental control as a guarantee of children's safety is becoming controversial in this context: of course, a child's immersion in the Internet is a challenge to trust, openness, consistency, and honesty in relationships between children and parents. However, children need to learn to make decisions independently and consciously, to understand their own and others' motives, and the Internet is a platform for developing these skills. The relationship between children and parents is a background and, if appropriate, a resource of support in situations that children face during their socialization on the Internet.
1 For example, http://mediasmarts.ca/
2 For example, http://www.athinline.org/, https://www.wiredsafety.org/
3 http://detionline.com/helpline/rules/parents
4 http://www.friendlyrunet.ru/safety/66/index.phtml
Thus, we have shown how the tendency to move traditional forms of interaction to virtual space transforms the way bullying situations are organized. The ability to avoid personal contact during aggressive interaction leads to the depersonalization of participants, the feeling of unreality of what is happening to the pursuer, and, ultimately, to the fact that the persecution becomes even more brutal in its infinity. The transfer of such communication experience, with loss of sensitivity and lack of reliance on feedback, to “real life” is fraught with a completely different environmental response, when faced with which a teenager will have to face their social incompetence. This highlights the need to develop psychological programs to develop communication skills as users among adolescents and young people.
The originality and possible threats of communications on the Internet have not yet been fully reflected. We have identified a number of differences in communication online and in reality, which are known through research. However, users rarely analyze what is happening; there is no clear “security system” for online behavior and no clear ethical standards. In this regard, unpleasant and sometimes tragic situations occur regularly. On the Russian Internet, especially on social networks, there is currently a wave of revelations of various crimes, in the context of which various personal information about the lives of criminals is being actively published and disseminated. It is very difficult to distinguish between cases when publicity resists silence and has a positive effect on the community, and situations where publicity totally violates personal boundaries and (even as part of professional journalism) turns into cyberbullying. It is very important, especially among children and adolescents, to develop a conscious and valued attitude towards their online behavior and broadcast a consistent system of precautions to reduce the risk that a child or adolescent will be the subject or initiator of cyberstalking.
Bespalov, E. AND. (2010). The results of the online survey “Young Internet User” in 2010. Access mode: http://www.friendlyrunet.ru/files/281/110530-otchet.pdf
Bochaver, A. A., Khlomov, K. D. (2013). Bullying as an object of research and a cultural phenomenon. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 10 (3), 149—159.
Voiskunsky, A. E. (2010). Psychology and the Internet. Moscow: Acropolis.
Kondrashkin A.V., Khlomov, K. D. (2012). Deviant behavior in adolescents and the Internet: changing the social situation. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 9 (3), 102—113.
Parfentyev, U. (2009). Cyber aggressors. Children in the Information Society, 2, 66—67. Access mode: http://detionline.com/assets/files/journal/2/threat2_2.pdf
Soldatova, G. V., Zotova, E. YU. (2011). Risk zone: Russian and European schoolchildren: problems of online socialization. The results of the study “Russian children online”. Children in the Information Society, 7, 46—55. Access mode: http://detionline.com/assets/files/journal/7/ 12research_7.pdf
Aftab, P. (2011). Cyberbullying: An Interview with Parry Aftab. 2011. Access mode: http://etcjournal.com/2011/02/17/7299/
Craig, W., & Pepler, D.J. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the Schoolyard.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13, 41—60.
Famiglietti, C. (2011). Cyber-trolls vandalize Facebook page for Isabella Grasso. Retrieved from http://glencove.patch.com/articles/cyber-trolls-vandalize-facebook-page-for-isabella-grasso
Giumetti, G.W., McKibben, E.S., Hatfield, A.L., Schroeder, A.N., & Kowalski, R.M. (2012). Cyberincident @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15, 148—154.
Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatston, P.W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lenhart, A. (2010). Cyberbullying: What the research is telling us. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2009/18-Cyberbullying-What-the-research-is-telling-us.aspx
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully and mobile nation. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teens-and-Technology.aspx
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Teenage-Life-Online.aspx
Lisson, M. (2008). Out-of-Control Gossip on Juicy Campus Web Site. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/oncampus/story?id=5919608#.ULtYHWdOehU
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know what we can do. New York: Blackwell.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russel, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school students. Journal of Child and Psychiatry, 49, 376—385.
Willard, N. (2006). Cyber bullying and cyberthreats: Responding to a challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and distress. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.
Williams, K., Cheung, C.K.T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303—311.
Source: Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2014. VOL. 11. NO. 3. PP. 177—191.
.png)
