CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This comprehensive review of the literature on cyberbullying explores the construct of cyberbullying, the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences among various age groups, and predictive factors that influence behavior. The focus of this study was to determine if biological gender and level of religiosity influence cyberbullying victimization and online aggression. Grounded in the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB), two inter-related theories, this inquiry asserts that to understand relationships, one must look at behavioral intention as the best predictor of behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008). This review synthesizes the related literature surrounding the construct of cyberbullying; furthermore, it examines the problem, provides pertinent definitions, presents types of cyberbullying, and explores the legal implications, the impact on college students, the international scope of the issue, and religiosity as a factor among students attending faith-based universities. Chapter Two concludes with a summary of the literature reviewed for this research and provides a glimpse into the methods chapter to follow.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework significantly influences the research process by connecting the research to the existing body of knowledge, and providing the structure that can hold, or support, the theory of a research study (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Cyberbullying is best set within the framework of the TRA and the TPB when looking at the perpetrator and the victim (Doane et al., 2014). Cyberbullying is a relatively new construct with limited research that places it within a strong theoretical framework; however, “The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior provide a framework to identify key behavioral, normative, and control beliefs affecting behaviors” (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008, p. 76). This study examined the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences among traditional undergraduate students attending faith-based universities based on biological gender and level of religiosity. The research frames the behaviors of the victim and offender within this conceptual framework.

Theory of Reasoned Action

Fishbein (1967) developed the TRA to understand relationships between intentions, attitudes, and behaviors. The TRA assumes that the best predictor of behavior is behavioral intention, and this theory has been a successful indicator in predicting and explaining a wide variety of behaviors (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) clearly defined one’s underlying beliefs, intentions, behavior, and the measurement of these constructs as critical to having a high degree of correlation between measures of attitude, norm, and perceived control. Operationalization of this theory construct was developed from an attitude measurement theory over a significant time-period, rooted in the idea that attitude can be determined by beliefs or expectations (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008). Understanding the construct of cyberbullying through this lens can provide insight into the behaviors of the bully and the victim. It may also provide insight into behaviors exhibited by staff, faculty, administrators, and resource personnel in reporting or working with victims of cyberbullying.

Doane et al. (2014) examined cyberbullying among college students and tested the TRA as an explanation for the behavior. The researchers also included empathy toward the victim in the theory model. The TRA is applicable to behaviors a person can control and asserts that the person’s attitude toward a behavior and subjective norms of the behavior can influence the individual’s behavioral intentions, which can then influence his or her behavior (Doane et al., 2014). The study determined that the TRA constructs are applicable to the cyberbullying behaviors of deception, malice, public humiliation, and unwanted contact (Doane et al., 2014).

Examining the behaviors of the perpetrator and victim within this theory can potentially provide evidence-based reasons for the behaviors, so mitigation of cyberbullying behaviors is possible. Repeated constructs related to cyberbullying are individual motivation factors, attitudes toward behavior, perceived norms, behavioral beliefs, and empathy (Doane et al., 2014). Prevention plans should identify and address these constructs, and it is important for victims to know the portrait of a cyberbully to help them recognize and address the problem immediately.

The TRA is a framework used for cyberbullying prevention design, targeting attitudes, and normative functions. Zagorscak et al. (2019) conducted a longitudinal study using this theoretical framework on a specific cyberbullying intervention program over a nine-month period. The study indicated that participation in the study significantly reduced the prevalence of cyberbullying. The study also found that developmental trajectories and associations were present, as suggested by the TRA (Zagorscak et al., 2019). The second relevant theory to this research is the TPB.

Theory of Planned Behavior

The TPB directly relates to the TRA; however, it includes the addition of the construct of perceived control (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008). Ajzen (1991) added perceived control over the behavior in question to the TRA and included the supposition that one’s behavior determines intention and behavioral control. The behavioral intention is then determined by examining three basic belief-concepts (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014). According to Ajzen (1991), an attitude is a person’s evaluation of a specific behavior, a subjective norm is the individual’s perception of what others think of the behavior, and perceived behavioral control is the perception of difficulty or ease of carrying out a specific behavior. In adding perceived control, the researcher takes into account situations where one may not have complete volitional control over the behavior (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008). Perceived control can be determined by control beliefs concerning the “presence or absence of facilitators and barriers to behavioral performance” (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008, p. 71).

When examining cyberbullying through the TPB, the subjective norm involves the individual’s normative beliefs, which include the expectations of what others (e.g., parents, friends, or teachers) believe the individual should do in reference to the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). A study conducted by Pabian and Vandebosch (2014) tested the applicability of the TPB to cyberbullying and found that the individual’s intention to engage in cyberbullying behaviors correlated with results of self-reported cyberbullying behavior.

Both theories align cyberbullying as a behavior that is controllable; therefore, it is appropriate to review cyberbullying within this theoretical framework. If students understand the nature of the how and why behind the specific behavior, whether in the role of victim or offender, prevention programs can align with at-risk behaviors, and outcome measurement can be utilized (Zagorscak et al., 2019). Although this is a relatively new field of study, there are significant studies that align the TRA and the TPB to cyberbullying, making them appropriate for the current study (Doane et al., 2014; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008; Zagorscak et al., 2019).

Traditional Bullying

Traditional bullying is a serious public health concern that affects individuals of all ages (Rettew & Pawlowski, 2016). Although there is no universally accepted definition of traditional bullying, Dan Olweus (1994) defined bullying as any aggressive behavior intentionally carried out, repeatedly and over time, by an individual or a group on a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself. Traditional bullying can include, but is not limited to, name-calling, spreading rumors, teasing, and physical assault and involves an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. For decades, people viewed this type of bullying as harmless and simply considered it a part of growing up (Rettew & Pawlowski, 2016). Until the 1970s, authority figures encouraged victims of traditional bullying to toughen up and not be so sensitive (Webber & Ovedovitz, 2018).

In recent years, studies reveal that traditional childhood bullying can cause attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder, separation anxiety, and suicidal ideation (Silberg et al., 2016). Moreover, research now shows that bullying can have long-term effects on the victim and may result in poor health, shame, depression, anxiety, and negative social-relationship outcomes into adulthood (Hashorva, Pengili, Lici, & Prifti, 2017; Strøm, Aakvaag, Birkeland, Felix, & Thoresen, 2018). Bowes, Joinson, Wolke, and Lewis (2015) found that adolescents who were victims of traditional peer bullying were more likely to experience depression in adulthood than peers who did not experience bullying.

Some researchers contend that cyberbullying is simply a form of traditional bullying using technology to inflict the repeated harm to the victim (Olweus, 2012); however, other studies show that there is a distinct difference between traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Potard, & Auzoult, 2015). According to Fahy et al. (2016), cyberbullying has distinguishing features that differentiate it from face-to-face bullying that include the permanence and permeability of online messaging, as well as the publicity it can receive. Both bullying and cyberbullying involve abuse of an individual via intentional negative interaction (Olweus & Limber, 2018). Another noted distinction between traditional face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying is the anonymity that is possible through online communication (Watts, Wagner, Velasquez, & Behrens, 2017). The nature of online communication allows cyberbullies to remain anonymous; therefore, victim abuse conceivably may persist for months or years without detection of the abuse (Watts et al., 2017). Some argue that cyberbullying is very similar to traditional bullying; however, research shows that the characteristics of cyberbullying lead to more incidents and increased severity in consequences because of the anonymity factor (Samara et al., 2017). Developments in technology have changed the boundaries, context, and nature of bullying, which has consequently caused researchers to examine the constructs as two different concepts: cyberbullying and traditional bullying (Elci & Seckin, 2019).

Cyberbullying

Technology use across the world is on the rise, and cyberbullying is a growing 21st century problem that students will potentially face throughout their educational career (Alqahtani et al., 2018; Zych et al., 2015). Cyberbullying research is relatively new and is limited to approximately the last 10 to 12 years, with a majority of the work published in the past five years (Faucher, Cassidy, & Jackson, 2015). Educators across the world are using information and communication technologies (ICT) to engage students for learning and social growth purposes (Cross et al., 2016). However, with the growing use of ICT for educational purposes, the potential for cyberbullying increases, which can have negative impacts on students’ mental and physical well-being, as well as on academic performance (Khine et al., 2020). In some cases, being cyberbullied has caused deep pain and feelings of hopelessness that have led to suicide (J. Kim, Walsh, Pike, & Thompson, 2019; S. Kim, Kimber, Boyle, & Georgiades, 2019). Research shows that cyberbullying victims are 8.7% more likely to commit suicide, and with only a 1% decrease in cyberbullying rates, fatal suicide rates decrease by 11 per 100,000 (Nikolaou, 2017). Whittaker and Kowalski (2015) found that college students saw aggressive comments directed at one’s peers as less humorous, less acceptable, and less malicious than those directed at celebrities or anonymous individuals.

Alqahtani et al. (2018) argued that society is beginning to accept, and expect, online behaviors that are potentially damaging. A significant amount research examining the effects of cyberbullying among middle and high school students exists; however, the research conducted among postsecondary students, although growing, is relatively small in comparison (Khine et al., 2020; Orel, Campbell, Wozencroft, Leong, & Kimpton, 2017; Slovak et al., 2015). The lack of cyberbullying research among postsecondary students is, in part, due to the thought that bullying did not occur after high school (Webber & Ovedovitz, 2018). Englander (2012) asserted that there is significant evidence to justify expanding the scope of cyberbullying research to a student’s postsecondary career. Although college students are adults, understanding the dangers and pitfalls of navigating the Internet and raising awareness of cyberbullying provides a measure of safety that can assist them in their postsecondary studies and with their overall well-being.

Cyberbullying can cause students of all ages to experience disruption in many areas of life (Muzamil & Shah, 2016; Williford & Depaolis, 2016). According to Zych et al. (2015), one in five students will experience some form of cyberbullying during their educational career. Cyberbullying does not only affect children; college students and adults engage in cyberbullying and do significant harm to their peers, as well (J. Lee, Abell, & Holmes, 2017). Furthermore, a study conducted by Peled (2019) showed that cyberbullying clearly influenced the social, academic, and emotional development of undergraduate students.

Definitions. De Souza Costa Ferreira and Deslandes (2018) asserted that a review of cyberbullying literature shows there is no universal consensus on the concept of cyberbullying. Moreover, scholars do not agree on a singular definition of cyberbullying; however, there are definitions that accurately describe the overall nature of the issue (Selkie et al., 2016). The lack of one consistent definition, even among researchers, makes the problem of cyberbullying more difficult to address (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015). Determining a uniform conceptualization and definition of cyberbullying is complicated further because cyberbullying can occur through different venues and in different forms (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). Unlike traditional playground bullies, cyberbullies have constant access to their victims (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). This constant access causes problems for the student physically, emotionally, and mentally (Carter & Wilson, 2015; Young, Tully, & Ramirez, 2017). According to Patchin and Hinduja (2006), there is an interconnectedness between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, thus making cyberbullying harder to define.

Morgan (2013) asserted that cyberbullying involves the use of technology to harass another individual. According to Feinberg and Robey (2009), a cyberbully sends harmful posts over the Internet through digital devices such as cell phones or computers. Sabella et al. (2013) defined cyberbullying as the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices to inflict willful and repeated harm on another individual or individuals. Shariff and Gouin (2005), as reported by Carter and Wilson (2015), indicated that the acts involved in cyberbullying include, but are not limited to, verbal abuse or written threats using cellphones, websites, chatrooms, weblogs, and multi-user domains. Olweus and Limber (2018) reported cyberbullying as bullying through electronic forms of communication such as instant messages, emails, and websites.

Corcoran et al. (2015) found that the constant evolving nature of technology further complicates the ability of researchers to understand the true nature of the problem; therefore, the lack of a consistent definition of cyberbullying has led to difficulty in understanding the scope and prevalence of the issue (Alqahtani et al., 2018). For this study, cyberbullying is defined as “when someone repeatedly harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person, (on purpose to hurt them) online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015, p. 11).

Role allocation. Cyberbullying often involves four separate parties: the victim, the bystander-defender, the bystander-assistant, and the bully or offender (Van Hee et al., 2018). Those who commit the bullying are the cyberbullies or offenders; bystander-defenders help the victim and discourage the bully; bystanders-assistants encourage the cyberbully or stand by and watch; individuals who are harassed or targeted by the bully are the victims (Van Hee et al., 2018; Zhou, Zheng & Gao, 2019). In a study conducted by Cunningham et al. (2015), more than 60% of university students reported involvement in cyberbullying as witnesses, 4.5% admitted to having cyberbullied an individual or group, and 5.7% reported being a victim of cyberbullying. Zhou et al. (2019) found that 92.4% of college students studied admitted to engaging in cyberbullying as a bystander. According to S. Wang (2020), there are often bystanders who witness cyberbullying events and can play a key role in adding to, or changing the dynamics of, a cyberbullying incident. A mitigating factor to intervention was the level of empathy the bystander felt based on the severity of the cyberbullying incident (S. Wang, 2020).

Detecting cyberbullying and identifying an individual’s role in the incident, by manually monitoring social media and other Internet communication, has become an unrealistic endeavor; however, automatic detection of cyberbullying signals is currently being researched (Van Hee et al., 2018). When the characteristics in a cyberbullying exchange are identified, machine learning and natural language processing allows for automatic detection by matching text data to specifically identified traits; however, non-holistic consideration of cyberbullying and a lack of labeled datasets are two challenges facing cyberbullying detection research (Salawu, He, & Lumsden, 2020). Although still in the emergent phase, the development of an effective, researched-based, automatic detection program will provide a tool for widespread use to help mitigate and deter incidents of cyberbullying across the world.

Prevalence and perception. Although cyberbullying is a relatively new problem, it is going to continue to increase as technology advances; therefore, awareness of the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences is critical to addressing the issue. Cyberbullying, and behaviors related to cyberbullying, are increasing each year (Hinduja & Patchin, 2019a). Due to the lack of a uniform, agreed-upon definition of cyberbullying and a lack of reliable measurement tools, determining accurate prevalence rates is difficult, which contributes to the varying prevalence rates of cyberbullying victimization and aggression around the world (Jenaro, Flores & Frias, 2018). Some other factors that hinder obtaining a realistic picture of cyberbullying prevalence rates are differences in age, time measurement, cross-cultural barriers, differences in sample size, focus of the studies, and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the issue by undergraduates participating in the studies (Myers & Cowie, 2017; Pörhölä et al., 2020).

Studies show that adolescents who engage in violent online behavior and activity are more likely to become a cyberbully (Bergmann & Baier, 2018; Selkie et al., 2016). Furthermore, bullying and cyberbullying are common phenomena in schools across the United States (Zych et al., 2015). Cross et al. (2016) reported that estimates of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents vary between studies, with victimization rates ranging from 1% to 62%, and perpetration rates ranging from 0.8% to 53%. Middle school students report more incidents of bullying and have higher cyberbullying prevalence rates then high school students (Hong et al., 2016). These negative behaviors can have a significant impact on the health and particularly mental health of those involved in such behaviors, both as victims and as bullies (Bergmann & Baier, 2018).

According to Wright (2017), studies on the prevalence of cyberbullying based on gender are mixed and inconclusive. Zhou et al. (2019) asserted that gender is a critical factor that influences human behavior, and the effect of gender on the construct of cyberbullying needs further study. In a meta-analysis of 109 studies by Bartlett and Coyne (2014), the researchers found that cyberbullying perpetration was higher among males than among females. S. Kim et al. (2019) found that female adolescents had a higher prevalence of cyberbullying victimization at 13.3% than males of the same age at 7.8%. Similarly, in studies conducted by Heiman, Olenik-Shemesh, and Eden (2015) and Leung, Wong, and Farver (2018) a larger percentage of females reported being victims of cyberbullying, whereas a larger percentage of males reported being perpetrators. In contrast, Zhou et al. (2019) found that among college students, 71.8% of males reported being victims of cyberbullying as compared to 44.4% of females. There are limited studies that provide evidence of a gender difference among witnesses of cyberbullying, especially among university students (Campbell et al., 2017).

In a small sample of global studies, estimates of prevalence ranged from 1% to 30% for cyberbullying perpetration (offending) and from 3% to 72% for cyberbullying victimization (Selkie et al., 2016). Faucher, Jackson, & Cassidy (2014) reported prevalence rates among college students to be 20% over 12-month period yet included in their findings disparities from other studies showing prevalence rates varying from 7% to 62%. Webber and Ovedovitz (2018) conducted a study at a Catholic University and found that 4.3% of students surveyed reported being victims of cyberbullying, and 7.5 % reported they had participated as a cyberbully. Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018) reported that 67% of university students were involved in cyberbullying as a bully (offender) or a victim. Varghese and Pistole (2017) found that 15.1% of undergraduate students were victims of cyberbullying, and 8% reported having cyberbullied another individual.

Sobba et al. (2019) conducted a study that found college students perceive cyberbullying as serious issue that needs attention on a wider scale; moreover, the results indicated that female college students are more likely to perceive cyberbullying as a serious issue when compared to male college students. With the rise in technology use in schools, colleges, and universities across the nation and constant access to phones, tablets, and computers, the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences increasing is inevitable.

Impact on college students. The transition from high school to higher education requires the student to adapt academically but also requires the establishment of new relationships, decisions about a career, and the maintenance of personal wellness (Peled, 2019). College and university students across the world use technology and the Internet on a daily basis for social and educational purposes. Although cyberbullying begins in the virtual world, it often has devastating psychological consequences in the physical world. The tragic death of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi thrust the issue of cyberbullying at the postsecondary level into the spotlight. Tyler Clementi became the victim of cyberbullying when his roommate, Dahrun Ravi, posted a video of Tyler kissing another man on the Internet and subsequently ended his life because of the shame and public reaction (O’Connor, 2018).

The lack of research on cyberbullying at the university level presents a challenge to understanding the widespread effects of cyberbullying on postsecondary students (Cassidy et al., 2017; Watts et al., 2017). O’Connor (2018) asserted that university students face greater risk of cyberbullying and Internet exploitation because of their constant use of technology and are more likely to be victims and perpetrators than any other age demographic. Recent studies involving college and university students indicate that there are physical and mental impacts of cyberbullying including embarrassment, depression, sadness, poor concentration, and low selfesteem (Cassidy et al., 2017; Khine et al., 2020; W. Wang et al., 2019). Varghese and Pistole (2017) asserted that undergraduate cyber-victims present as lonelier and having more maternal attachment anxiety as compared to students who had not been victimized (although the reported sample size was small). Cassidy et al. (2017) also found that students reported cyberbullying negatively affected their academic performance, home life, and personal relationships both on and off campus. Khine et al. (2020) asserted that undergraduate victims of cyberbullying positively associated the bullying with increased alcohol use, smoking, and substance abuse. In a study conducted by Orel et al. (2017), among 282 college students, blocking the cyberbully, seeking help from friends, and steering clear of the platform the bully was using are students’ most widely used strategies to cope with the cyberbullying incidents. Another relevant finding from this study was the likelihood of college students to report the cyberbullying to a professor or lecturer (Orel et al., 2017). Among the available studies conducted with college and university students, evidence shows cyberbullying is an issue among this demographic; moreover, the importance of addressing the issue is heightened because students need intervention before they take the poor digital behaviors into the workforce (Watts et al., 2017).

Types of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying occurs in cyberspace and is often difficult to detect; however, gaining understanding and awareness of the different types of cyberbullying is important for all administrators, faculty, and students. Hinduja and Patchin (2015) identified the following cyberbullying behaviors:

Cyberstalking is a repetitive, threatening behavior that causes fear.
Flaming is when two students exchange angry messages.
Harassment is the sending of mean and hurtful messages
Impersonation is the bully pretending to be someone they are not.
Denigration is one student posting damaging information about another student.
Trickery is convincing someone to give out personal information, and then posting it publicly without the victim’s permission.

Peled (2019) described the following additional methods used in cyberbullying:

Fraping is gaining access to a person’s social media account to impersonate them and embarrass them.
Dissing involves sharing or posting cruel information online with the intent to cause harm.
Trolling is provoking an individual online to try to initiate a negative response.
Phishing is the persuading or tricking of another individual online to reveal personal and/or financial information.
Shunning involves consistently rejecting or ignoring someone who is communicating via a social network or through technology.
Catfishing is the stealing of another person’s identity to create false social media profiles in the victim’s name for purposes of exploiting the victim.
Cyberstalking is the use of publicly posted information from social networking sites to send unwanted, unsolicited messages and gifts, carried out by an individual (stalker) who does not have the victim’s permission.

One specific type of cyberstalking is doxing. Doxing (or doxxing) is the release of an individual’s personal information by a third party to intentionally threaten, humiliate, punish, or intimidate (Douglas, 2016; Li, 2018). Swatting is a type of cyberbullying where “swatters” make false calls to law enforcement indicating the victim is committing a dangerous crime and SWAT teams are falsely sent in (Li, 2018). A mitigating factor that pertains to certain types of cyberbullying is the ability of the perpetrator to remain anonymous; cyberbullies can create fake email addresses and false profiles that appear real to the victim, thus allowing individuals of all ages, at home and abroad, to be potential targets (Douglas, 2016; El Asam & Samara, 2016).

Sexual cyberbullying. With the ever-increasing expansion of technology, young adults are venturing into new ways to interact in personal, intimate relationships using different Internet applications. Unfortunately, while scholarly research in this area of cyberbullying that focuses on interpersonal relationships among adults and sexual interaction online is growing, it is still in its infancy (Ehman & Gross, 2019; Myers & Cowie, 2017). One form of sexual cyberbullying, revenge porn, is the sharing of private photos or videos of a sexual nature without the person’s consent to seek revenge or for entertainment purposes (Hearn & Hall, 2019; O’Connor, 2018). Sexting is also a growing form a sexual cyberbullying and involves sending sexually explicit photographs of oneself via text message (Peled, 2019). According to Marganski (2017), young adults are frequent “texters,” and technology use is directly related to sexting; furthermore, the researcher asserts that many ignore the fact that technology has power over social relationships. It is important to note, according to Roberts and Ravn (2020), all sexting is not sexual cyberbullying; however, it is crosses into bullying when used inappropriately against a person.

Scott and Gavin (2018) studied 239 university students, of whom 41% reported they had sent intimate pictures to romantic partners, while 17% admitted to sending intimate images to potential partners. Similarly, Cole, Policastro, Crittenden, and McGuffee (2020) found that 49% of adults admitted to sending a sexually explicit photo to their romantic partner; however, the study also showed that romantic partners could not always be trusted with the images, often resulting in revenge porn. An exploratory study conducted among 470 college freshmen in the United States revealed that only 10% of participants had a sexually explicit photo shared without their permission; furthermore, the same study showed that a higher percentage of females had been victims of revenge porn (Branch, Hilinski-Rosick, Johnson, & Solano, 2017). In contrast to Jung (2016), who found that Christian young adults do not engage in sexually deviant, online behaviors as often, Klein and Cooper (2019) studied 812 undergraduate students and asserted that undergraduate students who admitted to practicing some form of Christianity did engage in sexting behaviors. Recognizing and understanding the different types of cyberbullying can help administrators, faculty, staff, and students know what to watch out for and which prevention strategy could potentially help address and eradicate specific cyberbullying issues.

Social media. Social media platforms can allow for connectedness and belonging that a person lacks in his or her everyday life and have become a popular means for friends and family to communicate (Chan, Cheung, & Wong, 2019; Kırcaburun, Kokkinos, Demetrovics, & Çolak, 2019). However, social media is one of the many places where individuals of all ages are falling prey to the inappropriate behaviors of the cyberbully (Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015). Social media platforms are among the most widely used and popular applications on the Internet (Kemp, 2017). The introduction of Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have changed the way college students interact and have facilitated the increase in cyberbullying experiences across college campuses (White & Carmody, 2018). Abaido (2020) asserts that the increased use of the Internet is causing young people and adults to inflict harm on one another.

Social media platforms allow for the wide dissemination of personal and private information to a large audience. Emerging adults, ages 18–22, report using two or more social media applications (on average); furthermore, among the same demographic, those who used more than two social media applications reported higher levels of depression and anxiety (Vannucci, Ohannessian, & Gagnon, 2019). Varghese and Pistole (2017) found that 86% of college-age adults report sharing their personal information on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Social platforms such as Snapchat allow for instant removal of information; therefore, the problem is often masked (Milosevic, 2016). According to Alqahtani et al. (2018), 8% of females and 10% of males indicated the most common avenues used for electronic harassment were Facebook and text messages. Elci and Seckin (2019) found that most cyberbullying incidents among postsecondary students occur through harassing messages posted on social media sites. Whittaker and Kowalski (2015) concurred that social media sites are widely used among college students for cyberbullying; however, they also asserted that texting is also a preferred method for this demographic. Kowalski, Limber, and McCord (2019) argued that instant messaging is the most widely used medium for cyberbullying among college students.

Many social media companies have official policies posted on their websites; however, these policies often do not explain the consequences associated with cyberbullying, nor are consequences uniformly administered (Milosevic, 2016). In a study conducted by White and Carmody (2018), university students reported concerns with social media’s online tracking, ease of ability for harassment, and identity theft. Studies also show that incoming freshmen are at a higher risk for cyberbullying and online harassment on social media sites due to navigating romantic relationships for the first time (Myers & Cowie, 2017; White & Carmody, 2018). Chan et al. (2019) suggested that one potential solution to minimize cyberbullying and online aggression is for countries to pass regulatory legislation that would protect social networking users from harm.

Reviewing social media platforms and policies on a regular basis is imperative because of the changing nature of technology (Faucher et al., 2015). New applications for tablets, phones, and computers are constantly emerging, so staying up to date on new policies is essential for administrators, faculty, and students (Corcoran et al., 2015). Understanding the social media platforms that students use to interact on a daily basis and the different types of cyberbullying that take place on each application can help those in leadership develop relevant polices and prevention programs to protect students in the online environment (Vannucci et al., 2019). Although students at the postsecondary level are adults, the necessity to maintain student safety is paramount to the overall health and safety of the college campus.

Legal framework. At present, there is no national legal directive regarding cyberbullying, thus allowing states to respond to cyberbullying incidents individually, with the severity of consequences differing from state to state (O’Shea, 2017). As of 2017, all 50 states have legislation in place making cyberbullying policies mandatory in Grades K-12 (TeenSafe, 2017). However, according to Kamali (2015), only a few states have laws for cyberbullying among university students, and only a small number of universities have policies in place to address this growing problem facing postsecondary students. The difficulty with legal issues surrounding cyberbullying is writing and implementing laws that do not infringe on the person’s First Amendment right of free speech (Li, 2018). Forta (2019) stated that although it is tempting to try to find one legislative solution for cyberbullying at the national level, lawmakers should proceed with caution because the First Amendment is imposing, and dealing with this issue judiciously is paramount to enforcing any future laws. Li (2018) asserted that the key to stopping online aggression and harassment is to focus on data privacy and target the resulting conduct itself.

Although no national legislation has passed, the Tyler Clementi Higher Education AntiHarassment Act of 2019, initially introduced in 2015, proposes to require colleges and universities that receive federal funding to implement anti-harassment policies that would include cyberbullying. According to the Tyler Clementi Foundation (2019), the bill is commonsense legislation that costs little but has the potential to stop bullying and cyberbullying incidents across the country. O’Shea (2017) asserted that a national response to cyberbullying might be the answer to help curtail this growing public health concern. One proposed solution is a national “notice-and-takedown mechanism where cyberbullying speech can be removed from the Internet” (O’Shea, 2017, p. 144), providing the cyberbullying victim with a way to move forward without the bullying language or pictures remaining in cyberspace forever.

Laws specifically addressing sexual forms of cyberbullying are inconsistent across the United States. According to Cole et al. (2020), there are presently no federal statutes that refer to revenge porn as a crime; however, as of May 1, 2019, 40 states and the District of Columbia do have statutes in place that address revenge porn. The 10 states that presently do not have revenge porn legislation are Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wyoming (Cole et al., 2020). It is important to note that even though there are statutes addressing revenge porn, only 19% of the states with statutes protect victims who consensually shared images, but later had those images shared by others without the individual’s permission (Najdowski, 2017).

Presently, cyberbullying falls more into the category of immoral or inappropriate behavior; however, once the issue becomes a widespread legal concern, perpetrators will face serious consequences (Myers & Cowie, 2017). The location of the perpetrator (offender) and the victim are both concerns when discussing legal implications. Cyberbullying can take place anywhere around the globe, thus making it necessary for prosecutors to research jurisdiction laws and realistically assess the difficulties associated with prosecuting a perpetrator from another country (El Asam & Samara, 2016). Understanding the prevalence of cyberbullying in context of legal implications is critical to the debate and to the ability to forge the path ahead to relevant, evidence-based policies and prevention plans.

International research. Cyberbullying is an international health concern that knows no borders because students across the world are using the Internet to learn, socialize, and communicate (Dennehy, Cronin, & Arensman, 2019). The international scope of the problem is staggering, with the number of studies related to cyberbullying increasing across the globe using students of all ages as research subjects (Caravaca Sánchez et al., 2016; Francisco, Veiga Simão, Ferreira, & das Dores Martins, 2015; Khine et al., 2020; Myers & Cowie, 2017; Rao et al., 2017; Safaria, 2016;). A cyberbully can be sitting next to his or her victim, be across the room, in another city, in another state, or around the world (Watts et al., 2017). Understanding the scope of the problem and results of studies from around the globe can only serve to provide insight for this research study.

Cassidy et al. (2017) conducted a qualitative study of Canadian university students that revealed cyberbullying among the student population; moreover, the study concluded that it is imperative that universities develop research-based policies on cyberbullying to ensure the digital safety of students. Abaido (2020) found, following a study with 200 university students from the United Arab Emirates, 91% of the students agreed that cyberbullying is an issue, with 55% of perpetrators utilizing Instagram and 38% of perpetrators utilizing Facebook to carry out the bullying. In a study conducted among Indian university students, Yadav and Yadav (2018) found that spirituality and existential well-being negatively relate to cyberbullying and victimization. Myers and Cowie (2019) asserted that most universities in the United Kingdom are lacking specific policies addressing cyberbullying; furthermore, the study reports that there are no laws specifically making cyberbullying an offense in the United Kingdom. In a study with 638 Israeli students, Peled (2019) found that cyberbullying exists among undergraduate students and can influence emotional, social, and academic development; however, the researcher indicated that further investigation among this population is necessary. Francisco et al. (2015) conducted a study among university students in Lisbon with findings indicating that female students were more likely aggressors than male students were.

Tesler, Nissanholtz-Gannot, Zigdon, and Harel-Fisch (2019) studied 7,166 Israeli adolescents ages 11–17 and found that cyberbullying behaviors were more frequent among students who attended state-secular schools as compared to state-religious schools. Finally, Souza, Veiga Simão, Ferreira, and Ferreira (2018) conducted a study among 979 Brazilian and Portuguese university students where the research indicated that a student who had been a cybervictim had a higher likelihood of becoming a cyberbully. The totality of these findings indicate that cyberbullying is an international problem; however, there is not consistent statistical data across domestic or international studies to support gender or level of religiosity as mitigating factors.

Policies and prevention. Cyberbullying is a worldwide concern that has negative outcomes; therefore, prevention and intervention programs are important to ensuring the digital safety of all students (Tanrikulu, 2018). There are specific cyberbullying prevention strategies that have proven to be effective in assisting students in Grades K-12 successfully deal with cyberbullying. Prior to college, parents are a significant part of the student’s immediate support system and are traditionally included in a school’s online safety and behavior plan. Programs such as Media Heroes provide an evidence-based intervention, designed for use within an established curriculum, for cyberbullying prevention among middle-school students; however, adapting this and other successful K-12 prevention programs can be difficult (Chaux, Velásquez, Schultze-Krumbholz, & Scheithauer, 2016). Doane, Kelly, and Pearson (2016) conducted a study among college students using a TRA-based video to increase knowledge of cyberbullying and to provide instruction on prevention, empathy, and reducing cyberbullying behaviors. The study utilized random assignment to an experimental group who viewed the video and an assessment-only control group. Results indicated that the experimental group who viewed the video did show improvement in knowledge of cyberbullying and reduced cyberbullying perpetration behavior (Doane et al., 2016). Unfortunately, evidence-based strategies for cyberbullying prevention for use at the university level are limited due to the lack of research among this demographic (Cunningham et al., 2015).

Recent studies show that cyberbullying continues to be a growing problem at the postsecondary level because administrators and faculty are not acknowledging the severity of the issue (Cunningham et al., 2015). O’Connor (2018) showed that 45% of university students thought their university had a cyberbullying policy, and only 21% reported receiving policy training. Alqahtani et al. (2018) found that 47.7% of undergraduate students surveyed did not think the faculty or staff at the university would understand or believe their report of cyberbullying. In a study among undergraduate students, Khine et al. (2020) reported that over 12-month period, two in five students had been cyberbullied; however, half of the students who had experienced cyberbullying never told anyone else about it. Myers and Cowie (2019) asserted that 62% of undergraduate students reported receiving no support or follow-up after reporting a cyberbullying incident. There is evidence that focusing on teaching anti-bullying strategies, enabling anonymous reporting of incidents, providing victim sensitivity training, and using a combined prevention and consequence model is a strong place to start to begin to mitigate cyberbullying on college campuses (Cunningham et al., 2015).

In order for university administrators and faculty to address the issue of cyberbullying on campuses across the world, research must keep pace with the growing problem and provide evidence-based strategies for use among postsecondary students. Universities can, and must, develop clear expectations for online behavior. Elci and Seckin (2019) asserted that universities should have clear, well-written policies for handling cyberbullying; moreover, students need to be trained how to recognize and report cyberbullying and be proactive concerning personal, and corporate, digital safety. Myers and Cowie (2017) suggested that universities are not working toward preventing the incidents but are instead drafting policies as “knee-jerk” reactions to individual incidents. Outlining appropriate consequences so that all stakeholders understand the ramifications of all infractions is important. Zhou et al. (2019) suggested that universities should pay more attention to the students’ online behaviors while proactively providing policies and training, so students can recognize inappropriate online behavior and develop systematic plans to address the inappropriate behaviors when they occur. Looking at the problem through the lens of prevalence among certain demographic populations will help facilitate the tailoring of prevention programs and policies in higher education settings.

Predictive risk factors. Today’s students interact with technology daily. Research indicates there are more students who are victims of cyberbullying than there are cyberbullies (Beyazit et al., 2017). Beyazit et al. (2017) conducted a study that revealed several risk factors for bully victimization, including: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) grade, (d) father’s age, (e) household income, (f) owning a computer, and (g) parental control of Internet use. According to Von Marées and Petermann (2012), a strong predictor for cyberbullying is cyber-victimization; furthermore, they found that students who are bullies have a higher risk of becoming a victim. Moreover, students who have been cyberbullies may have been using specific techniques while in school and see their online behavior as normal (Myers & Cowie, 2017). In a study conducted by Pörhölä (2016), 50% of undergraduate cyberbullies reported being a cyberbully while in Grades K-12. Studies also show that the amount of time students spend online can increase the incidents of cyberbullying and cyber-victimization (Kowalski et al., 2014; J. Y. Lee et al., 2017). Snyder, Li, O’Brien, and Howard (2015) found that some college students spend in excess of 25 hours a week on social media sites. Finally, Kowalski et al. (2019) suggest that risk factors include family, peer interaction, year in school, and an individual’s personal characteristics, in varying degrees, depending on the age of the victim/offender.

Social and moral influences. Students are influenced by peers in social settings, both inperson and online. Beyazit et al. (2017) found that peer pressure and peer acceptance are two social influences that directly influence cyberbullying victimization. Students seek approval in different ways; however, when using online applications, the tendency is to join in the perpetration of a victim without full realization of the consequences. Allison and Bussey (2017) indicate the moral influences from family, friends, and peer groups also directly affect peer victimization. Menesini, Nocentini, and Camodeca (2013) found the absence of moral aspects, such as disobedience, lack of guilt, untrustworthiness, and meanness, in both traditional and cyberbullies. Understanding the social and moral influences that motivate the perpetrator can assist stakeholders in preparing prevention programs for specific age groups.

Religiosity

Religion can play a significant role in an individual’s life, and both health and mental well-being is often affected (Quinn & Lewin, 2019). A college student’s level of religiosity can have an impact on his or her formation and experience (Thomson & Davignon, 2017). According to scripture, Evangelical Christians believe that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the only way one can enter the kingdom of heaven (John 14:6). To determine a person’s level of religiosity, it is important to inquire about his or her scriptural knowledge and understanding; moreover, it is imperative to know how that knowledge shapes the individual’s life choices and behaviors (Koenig et al., 1997). For many postsecondary students attending a faith-based university, religion plays a significant role in their choice to attend a private school where faith and learning are integrated; however, this does not mean each student has the same level of religiosity. Faith is personal, and although students on Christian college campuses generally have a testimony of faith, Scripture indicates that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

Quinn and Lewin (2019) found that high family religiosity transferred to high student religiosity; furthermore, college students who grew up in an environment where they were taught religious values and attended religious activities had a higher appreciation for, or sense of obligation to, behaviors in line with those religious beliefs. Consistent church attendance and participation in religious practices typically influences the personal value an individual places on religion (Graafland, 2017). Moreover, according to Parboteeah, Cullen, and Lim (2004) one of the best indicators of religiosity in an individual is behavioral measures; however, religious behavior and religious affiliation are only a part of what must be included in understanding religiosity. According to Thomson and Davignon (2017), students who participate in religious activities tend to participate less often in at-risk behaviors. In contrast, Pitel et al. (2012) found that among adolescents ages 13–18, there was not a significant difference between nonChristians and Christians when examining the willingness to engage in risky online behavior.

Morality and education. Lagemann and Lewis (2012) defined morality as “the capacity to make and explain value judgments about concepts such as fairness, social justice, freedom, and equality, conceived as both democratic ideals and lived commitments” (p. 43). During a student’s college career, moral development is significant; furthermore, many emerging adults understand the meaning of living a moral or ethical life (Hudson & Díaz Pearson, 2018). As part of a private, Christian university curriculum, students are required to take courses to aid in their integration of faith and learning. Evangelical Christians believe that moral behaviors should be in concert with the principals and foundational truths of scripture. Galatians 5:16 states that believers should walk by the Spirit and not gratify the desires of the flesh. Paul warns believers that

the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

Some college students view respect, doing the right thing, justice, faith, having guidelines, being a good example, and altruism as potential indicators of living a moral/ethical life; however, of the 84% of respondents studied who attend a faith-based institution, only 14% indicated that faith played a role in their understanding of morality (Hudson & Díaz Pearson, 2018).

Faith-based institutions. Cyberbullying research among college and university students attending faith-based institutions is scarce (Webber & Ovedovitz, 2018). Zacchilli and Valerio (2011) conducted research on cyberbullying among college students at a small, Catholic liberal arts college where findings showed that 1% of college freshmen reported being cyberbullied, and 5% indicated that they had been a cyberbully. Webber and Ovedovitz (2018) studied students ages 18–21, attending a large, Catholic university in the Northeast, and of the students surveyed, 53.5% were Roman Catholic, 15% identified as Protestant, and 10.7% reported no religious affiliation; furthermore, the cyberbullying prevalence rates were very low compared to the study conducted by Zacchilli and Valerio (2011).

An exploratory study by Slovak et al. (2015) at a small, Christian university found there was a cyberbullying victimization rate of 20% among students surveyed. Slovak et al. (2015) did examine religious faith as a mitigating factor to the construct of cyberbullying; however, because it was only an exploratory study, and the researchers did not use a valid and reliable instrument, the results are not generalizable (Slovak et al., 2015). The researchers did indicate that approaching cyberbullying and online aggression from a multidimensional perspective that includes faith as a factor could assist faith-based universities in establishing policies and programs to help create a campus culture of nonviolence (Slovak et al., 2015).

Webber and Ovedovitz (2018) and Zacchilli and Valerio (2011) both recommended that further research be conducted among students attending faith-based institutions; moreover, the researchers all indicated that such research should investigate the possible connection between religiosity and cyberbullying victimization and online aggression. While the study by Webber and Ovedovitz (2018) did ask about religious affiliation, the researchers did not measure the strength or depth of the student’s religious beliefs; therefore, a gap in the literature exists in relation to cyberbullying and level of religiosity based on current research. Investigating cyberbullying based on level of religiosity and gender at two faith-based, evangelical Christian universities will add to the body of knowledge on this important topic.

Summary

In reviewing the literature, it was found that cyberbullying is a growing problem across the United States and around the world. Behaviors related to cyberbullying are increasing each year (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). This research is grounded in two complimentary theories, the TRA and the TPB. The TRA provides the framework for targeting attitudes of cyberbullying, prevention, and normative functions. The TPB asserts that one’s behavior determines intention and control (Ajzen, 1991). Both of the theories assert that cyberbullying is a controllable behavior and are appropriate as a conceptual framework. Doane et al. (2016) successfully used a TRA-based video with statistically significant success; therefore, the theory has been tested and proven useful as a theoretical basis for the construct.

Traditional bullying has been a public health concern for generations; however, it is only since the emergence of the Internet and the use of ICT for personal and educational purposes that cyberbullying has become a widespread concern. The lack of a concrete, universal definition has caused much of the research surrounding cyberbullying to be inconsistent and lacking; furthermore, the understanding that cyberbullying behaviors continued into adulthood has only emerged in the past 10 years (Englander, 2012). Research has increased over the past 10–12 years among populations in Grades K-12; however, there is still a limited amount of evidencebased research at institutions of higher learning. Recent studies show that cyberbullying continues into adulthood and that universities have not kept pace with policies and prevention strategies to mitigate aggressive online behaviors occurring through digital platforms (Alqahtani et al., 2018). Therefore, there is a need for further research to provide evidence-based prevalence rates to help university administration and faculty determine the scope of the issue and design prevention programs to ensure the safety of the students. Prevalence rates vary from study to study based on age, gender, ethnicity, and other mitigating factors.

New types of cyberbullying continue to surface as updated, cutting-edge digital platforms and applications emerge and become part of everyday life. Sexual cyberbullying has grown significantly over the past five years, and research in this area is in its infancy (Ehman & Gross, 2019). Social media use also continues to increase across the world among children, adolescents, and adults; moreover, with this increased use of social media platforms, cyberbullies have more opportunity to find and attack new victims (White & Carmody, 2018).

Legal implications, international research, and risk factors contribute to the understanding of the overall issue of cyberbullying and online aggression. Universities across the nation have students who are exhibiting at-risk behaviors, and in some cases, students have taken their own lives because of the direct impact of cyberbullying. Research on prevalence of cyberbullying experiences among traditional undergraduate students, ages 18–25, has been limited (Khine et al., 2020; J. Lee et al., 2017); furthermore, many of the studies conducted took place at public universities and do not account for the student’s gender and level of religiosity as indicators, leaving a gap in the literature. Research needs to keep pace with the growing problem, and further investigation into mitigating factors to ensure the digital safety of all students is necessary. Prevention strategies and policies for use with traditional undergraduate students attending faith-based universities are severely lacking; moreover, there is a need to examine the construct, prevalence, student safety concerns, and occurrences among this demographic (Slovak et al., 2015; Webber & Ovedovitz, 2018).

The mission of faith-based institutions of higher learning is to integrate faith and learning. Students who attend private, Christian universities typically have a religious background and share their personal testimony of faith as part of the application process. Studies vary on whether or not religiosity is a strong predictor of a student’s choice to participate in atrisk behaviors (Pitel et al., 2012; Thomson & Davignon, 2017). Morality is also a factor in a student’s decision-making process regarding behavioral choices; however, students who are religious do not necessary equate religiosity with morality (Hudson & Díaz Pearson, 2018). Cyberbullying research at Christian universities is scarce; therefore, examining cyberbullying in terms of level of religiosity will allow administrators, faculty, and students to understand the construct as it relates to personal faith and participation in religious activities.

As presented in the first two chapters, data related to university students and cyberbullying, although increasing, is still limited in scope. Furthermore, a gap in the literature exists in relation to cyberbullying based on biological gender and level of religiosity among students who chose to attend faith-based universities. This study aims to examine the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences (victimization and offending) when looking at biological gender and level of religiosity at two faith-based universities in the southern part of the United States. The goal of the research is to provide relevant, up-to-date, statistical data to administrators, faculty, students, and stakeholders to assist in facilitating a reflective review of present policies and procedures, and for potential updated policies and procedures to reflect the current student needs. Digital safety among university students, who are transitioning to adulthood, is important to the overall conversation regarding keeping students safe on campus. With cyberbullying research lagging at the university level, this study adds to the growing body of empirical literature that is presently available. Chapter Three includes the methods, design, participants, and setting for the research. Validity and reliability information, as well as a full description, are included for both instruments that were utilized. The researcher outlines the procedural details for the study, discusses the process of data collection, and presents the appropriate statistical methods that were used to examine the data and report the findings.