Successful and Emerging Cyberbullying Prevention Programs: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Sohni Siddiqui
,
Anja Schultze-Krumbholz

The advent of the internet has channeled more online-related tasks into our lives and they have become a pre-requisite. One of the concerns with high internet usage is the multiplication of cyber-associated risky behaviors such as cyber aggression and/or cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is an emerging issue that needs immediate attention from many stakeholders.

  • cyberbullying
  • anti-bullying programs
  • teacher professional development
  • individualized training

1. Introduction

The advent of the internet has channeled more online-related tasks into our lives and they have become a pre-requisite. One of the concerns with high internet usage is the multiplication of cyber-associated risky behaviors such as cyber aggression. The term “cyberbullying” is defined as the deliberate infliction of harm using electronic methods, targeting individuals or groups of people, regardless of their age, who perceive such actions as offensive, derogatory, harmful, or unwanted [1]. Despite efforts and interventions, cyberbullying and hate messaging is still on the rise worldwide [2][3]. Many interventions deal with traditional/face-to-face/offline school bullying and are modified for cyberbullying issues on the basis of the similarities shared by both types of bullying behavior, such as unjustified aggression, being based on a power imbalance, and persevering over time [4][5]. Despite similarities, there are also differences, as stated by Smith (2012), such as cyberbullying requiring technological expertise, the unidentified perpetrator does not usually see the victim’s reaction instantly, the roles of bystanders are more complex, and there are differences in intentions [6]. It is difficult to protect oneself against cyberbullying, as nasty messages or content can be sent to mobile phones, computers, or social media anytime and anywhere within seconds [7]. Berne et al. (2019) reported that experiencing cyberbullying as a victim results in negative emotions, including anger, anxiety, fear, and shame [8]. Furthermore, victims of cyberbullying tend to exhibit more somatic symptoms, such as headaches and stomachaches, than their peers who have not experienced cyberbullying. Cyber victims also tend to report lower satisfaction with their overall appearance, body image, and weight than non-cyber victims. Additionally, it was found that female victims of cyberbullying reported a more negative perception of their general appearance in comparison to male victims of cyberbullying [8]. Considering the global prevalence and detrimental consequences of cyberbullying, researchers have proposed preventive and interventional approaches to discourage children and adolescents from cyberbullying [9]. Additionally, strategies have been developed to help cyber victims manage adverse effects. These prevention methods also encompass school-based interventions, involving the training of teachers and staff members to enhance the overall school environment and foster a conducive learning atmosphere [9].
The meta-analysis conducted by Gaffney et al. (2019) indicated that cyberbullying intervention programs have proven effective in reducing both cyberbullying perpetration and victimization [10]. However, a recent systematic review by Torgal et al. (2023) demonstrated that the overall treatment effects of school-based cyberbullying intervention programs were not statistically significant [11]. These findings highlight the importance of conducting more comprehensive evaluations of cyberbullying intervention programs to identify the factors that contribute to the overall success rate of these programs.

2. Bullying Prevention by Training Individuals

Adolescent victims often hesitate to confide in adults about their problems. They highly value privacy and seek anonymous assistance through peer support [12][13]. There are reports suggesting that young individuals avoid involving adults in victimization matters due to a lack of trust and fear of being blamed [14]. Frequently, children choose not to disclose incidents of bullying because they feel ashamed of being a target [14]. Despite encouragement, many bullied students refrain from disclosing or seeking adult intervention in their difficulties [15] and typically reach out to their peers for assistance. Sulkowski et al. (2014) concluded that in most cases of reporting to adults (about 2 out of 3), the strategies offered were either unsuccessful/unhelpful or made the situation worse [16]. Based on this conclusion, the following interventions aim to practically empower individuals to cope with bullying. During individual training sessions, victims receive instruction on how to advocate for themselves and protect themselves against continued bullying without relying on teachers, peers, or parents. This empowers them to avoid shame and prevents labeling as victims. They do not need to disclose their personal struggles and secrets to their acquaintances, which maintains their self-identity and self-esteem. However, lack of adult supervision and loss of motivation over time lead to high dropout rates and call into question the effectiveness of such programs, which aim to train individuals to cope with bullying on their own.

2.1. Stand-Alone (Stop Bullies Online)

Stop Bullies Online/Stop Online Bullies is one of the applications in the Stand-Alone program and is designed for cyber victims (12–15 years) to empower themselves against bullying using an online, computer-tailored intervention [17]. The contents of the program were developed using multiple strategies, such as information gathered from a literature review, data collected through a Delphi study among experts, focus group interviews with the target group, and successful elements from a previously tested anti-bullying program [18]. The program is delivered through web-based counselling, with the first part changing participants’ behaviors through reflection and debate, replacing irrational thoughts with impartial and balanced reasoning [17]. The second part provides awareness of cyberbullying and its consequences, bystander roles, and information on effective coping strategies to resist bullying [17]. Finally, individuals are trained to avoid risky online behaviors and safely use the internet and mobile phones [17]. The distinctive feature of the program is that content delivery is based on intervention mapping in which every component of the advice is personalized to the participants’ personal characteristics (i.e., their self-efficacy, the way they cope with problems, and (ir)rational thoughts). This is considered a useful strategy for needs assessment and to find effective solutions [19]. Direct student involvement and lack of adult supervision can be ambiguous, as students tend to lose motivation or discipline and sometimes become disinterested or reluctant to be part of the program. Further research is recommended to confirm this program’s effectiveness.

2.2. Cyberbullying Sensitization Program

The Cyberbullying Sensitization Program was created, executed, and assessed in an Indian region with the premise that raising awareness and sensitization about bullying would be beneficial. The program focuses on equipping individuals with the necessary skills to protect themselves from cyberbullying and promote positive online behaviors [20]. This intervention aims to raise children’s awareness of cyberbullying as a coping strategy [20]. The program content creates awareness among youth and provides information about online bullying and its consequences, different types of bullying, threats, safety, and strategies to save oneself and others from unsafe risky online activities [20]. Targeted group discussions with adolescents about online bullying were the main methods used to develop this program, followed by an extensive literature review [21]. The intervention was developed by involving youth who were either perpetrators or victims of bullying and collecting their ideas, which can be considered a strength of the program [20]. The content validity of CBSP was determined by 14 experts in the fields of education, ICT, and law [20].
The intensive program consists of exercises designed to create awareness regarding the online world, activities, motivational reasons, strategies for dealing with cyberbullying, identifying bullying, the role and responsibility of bystanders, and recommendations for online safety [20]. Some of the common activities used to teach the content are role playing, case studies, video presentations, and creative writing [22]. The strategies and content are similar to most Western interventions. The qualitative study conducted on 14–15-year-old students yielded encouraging outcomes by enhancing students’ awareness of cyberbullying and fostering positive online behaviors [20]. This project provides a good start for under-resourced countries to take initiative against bullying.

2.3. Informational Motivational Behavioral Skills (IMB)

Information Motivational Behavioral Skills (IMB) is founded on a strong theoretical framework and based on the health behavior change framework proposed by Fisher and Fisher (1992) [23]. The framework is based on the enrichment of cognitive skills (information and motivation) and behavior (such as improvement in practical skills) [24]. The IMB model is not only focused on providing information about cyberbullying and its consequences, but also on motivating individuals to develop positive behaviors to prevent cyberbullying and develop practical skills that can help control online risk factors [24]. The unique feature of this intervention is that it is tailored to the individual’s current information, motivation, and behavioral skills. This makes it particularly relevant and effective for specific characteristics and contexts [25]. Discussions, card-making group activities, sharing experiences, reflecting on self-practices, and developing a problem-solving attitude are targeted activities in the intervention [24]. A follow-up questionnaire is also utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The components and goals of this intervention are similar to those of other interventions that focus on disseminating information, engaging in skill-building activities, recognizing bystander responsibility toward victims and perpetrators, and creating a positive classroom environment. The research findings on 13–16-year-old South African female students revealed that the intervention group exhibited a higher perception of online risks (p = 0.001, η2 = 0.07) [24]. This indicated the effectiveness of the intervention in enhancing online risk perception, which is a crucial factor in promoting positive behavioral change, with a small effect size [24]. Researchers have recommended that the program’s effectiveness can be improved by applying it in long-term studies.

2.4. Prev@cib Anti-Bullying Program

Prev@cib is based on three theoretical frameworks: the ecological model, Empowerment Theory, and the personal and social responsibility model [26]. The ecological model is the most studied theory used in cyberbullying interventions to combat bullying by involving not only the individual, but everyone in the environment who can contribute to the intervention [27]. Empowerment Theory focuses on the empowerment of individuals and their resources to enable youth to take control of their lives in both virtual and school settings [28]. The personal and social responsibility model, as the name indicates, encourages shared responsibility in problem-solving to achieve greater involvement of adolescents in creating a bullying-free culture [29]. Prev@cib consists of three modules that start with raising awareness regarding cyberbullying and its consequences, with a special focus on sexting and cyber grooming [26]. In the second phase of the program, sensitization, empathy towards victims, and understanding social responsibility are highlighted through different activities [26]. The Prev@cib program is essentially designed to educate students, but teachers’ opinions are also sought for successful implementation [26]. The study findings by Ortega-Barón et al. (2019) on secondary students (mean age= 13.58 years) revealed noteworthy reductions in bullying, victimization, cyberbullying, and cybervictimization within the experimental group, as opposed to the control group [26]. The findings revealed that in the control group, cyberbullying exhibited a consistent level, whereas in the experimental group, it demonstrated a reduction (p < 0.01) with a modest effect size of η2 = 0.05. As for cybervictimization, a minor increase was noted in the control group, whereas the experimental group experienced a decrease (p < 0.001) with a slight effect size of η2 = 0.04 [26].
These results demonstrated the effectiveness of the Prev@cib program in reducing bullying and cyberbullying [26]. The program has produced successful results in Spain; however, more research-based studies are needed in the national and international context to further elaborate on the outcomes of this program.

3. The Whole-School Approach

The whole-school approach is based on the belief that bullying is a systemic problem and that interventions need to focus on the whole-school context, rather than individual bullies and victims [30][31]. Interventions based on the whole-school approach seek to effectively prevent bullying and promote safe, supportive, responsible, engaged, and thriving school communities through ongoing school climate development and reform [32]. However, there are certain limitations associated with a whole-school approach, such as high cost, time commitment, and the need for a high level of support from schools as well as full parental cooperation [33].

3.1. KiVa Anti-Bullying Program

One of the most successful school-based, teacher-led interventions aims to raise awareness of bystander responsibility in promoting bullying, increase sensitivity to victims, and help individuals use strategies to support themselves and victims against bullying [34]. These goals are achieved by engaging children and adolescents, with the help of teachers, in activities such as discussions, presentations, illustrations in the forms of pictures, figures and characters to depict different aspects of cyberbullying, short films, assignments with various learning-by-doing exercises, and a computer game in which students practice new skills against bullying in a virtual environment, with the goal of improving students’ understanding and knowledge of cyberbullying [34].
When bullying incidents are reported, KiVa-trained school members engage the individuals and groups involved in bullying in conversations to counsel them and correct their behaviors [34]. KiVa also provides materials for teachers and other staff and arranges meetings with them to provide step-by-step guidance and instruction for curriculum lessons to ensure the consistency of teachers’ behavior and maintain program quality [34]. Teachers have the opportunity to design their lessons using the program’s manual [34]. A guide for parents is designed to provide information about the different forms of bullying and recommendations for prevention when the problem is reported. It also encourages parents to work with the school and teachers to create an effective anti-bullying culture [35]. Visible symbols, logos, imprints on teachers’ vests or shirts, and posters are used to make it clear that the school is a KiVa school and bullying incidents will not be tolerated [34].

3.2. Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)

Based on the idea that bullying should not be part of a child’s natural environment, OBPP is one of the most studied and successful anti-bullying efforts in the world [30][36]. The program was originally designed for school children to control violence in schools, but later evolved and expanded to control youth aggression in online settings as well [37]. Like other successful interventions, baseline information is collected to target the program and tailor the interventions for the individual as per needs assessment [38].
The OBPP begins by changing the behaviors of adults in the school to show affection and interest in students’ lives, promote rules and regulations against violent behavior, and present themselves as positive role models [39]. In addition, school staff are trained and held accountable for monitoring “hot spots” in order to intervene immediately in bullying behaviors [37]. Identifying bullying incidents and counseling perpetrators, victims, and their parents through serious talks are also part of the staff training [30]. Group discussions and school staff meetings become regular practice after the implementation of OBPP to reflect on bullying and related prevention efforts at the school [30]. For children and youth training, teachers are encouraged to hold regular class meetings to express and remind goals and ground rules through activities such as role playing, small and large group activities, and discussions [30]. The meeting topics are decided by staff members and serve as an awareness program to illustrate types and subtypes of bullying and promote awareness about respecting others, coping with stress, problem-solving, and using consistent positive and negative consequences [30]. A Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (constituting 8 to 15 members from a school) is responsible for all staff training, organizing awareness events, improving school supervision plans, and endorsing school anti-bullying rules [30]. Family nights and after-school leadership programs for adolescents are also designed to involve the community in awareness and prevention programs [30]. The extensive longitudinal investigation conducted by Olweus et al. (2019) involved over 30,000 students in grades 3–11 across 95 schools in central and western Pennsylvania spanning a 3-year period. The study utilized a quasi-experimental extended age-cohort design to examine self-reported instances of bullying behaviors. The outcomes demonstrated that OBPP yielded favorable results in decreasing all forms of bullying, whether experiencing it or perpetrating it (p < 0.05) [37]. Similarly, Bowland’s short-term study (2011) exhibited a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of bullying (p = 0.022) and instances of peer exclusion (p = 0.009) among 7th grade female students. However, there was variability in the statistical outcomes for 8th grade females, and no significant findings emerged for males [40]. OBPP has been most successful in long-term studies. However, a shorter version of the program was found to be less effective.

3.3. MARC Anti-Bullying Program

The Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center (MARC) has developed a school-wide anti-bullying program to raise awareness and provide solutions to children’s social problems, with a focus on bullying and cyberbullying, and to create an overall nurturing school environment [41]. The MARC intervention begins with basic information to customize the program and continues to evolve and improve through ongoing research [42]. The elements of the program are complementary to Olweus’ interventions, developing opportunities for teachers to increase awareness, knowledge, concepts, and practical interventions to address bullying and cyberbullying [42]. In addition, MARC includes training a lead trainer in the staff training component and students who are considered authority figures and high-level peers, and these continue to train colleagues and other staff and help younger students in accordance with the program content of MARC [42]. To raise awareness among parents and the community, presentations are developed that provide practical and concrete knowledge about how to eradicate the problem and useful strategies to help adults talk to their children about the phenomenon, ask schools for help, and assist school administrators in successfully resolving bullying situations [42]. In addition, presentations and campaigns led by trained older students continue to reinforce awareness raising for younger children. Program elements for students are accompanied by guides for teachers and parents to reiterate key points and encourage classroom discussions [42]. MARC also holds annual quizzes and contests where students present posters, write poems, create public service announcements, etc. to encourage and recognize positive student behaviors [42]. In addition, MARC curricula are available free of charge to students internationally, which has led to many success stories of the MARC anti-bullying program [42]. The study by McCoy et al. (2018) involving 6th and 7th graders from a middle school in Massachusetts revealed that the qualitative program under investigation received primarily favorable feedback. The students acquired fresh knowledge and became effectively motivated. Students resonated most with the comprehensive insight they gained into digital behaviors and cyberbullying. The practical and straightforward advice presented was highlighted as one of the most beneficial components of the program [42].
However, because cultural differences may make it difficult to implement the positive elements of the program, it is recommended that extensive preparation be undertaken to implement the program in other cultures [43].

3.4. ConRed Program

The Knowing, Building, and Living Together on the Internet Program [Conocer, Construir y Convivir en la Red, ConRed] was primarily designed to cope with cyberbullying and its consequences, incorporating psycho-educational research into key intervention strategies for dealing with bullying behaviors [44][45]. Although the ConRed program is based on a holistic school-based approach, the most important target group is students who are technically trained, along with improving their communication and social skills in the online world [46]. The design of the program was based on the assumption that strategies to tackle traditional bullying can be effectively utilized in preventing cyberbullying. The program adopts the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (TNSB), which has proven successful in behavior modification [47], explaining that social behaviors are particularly inferred from peer group intimidation and are heavily influenced by perceived social conventions regarding online behaviors, which are expressed in the form of frequent uploading of personal information and images and constant connection to the virtual world [48].
The three main components of the ConRed program are working on internet addiction, bullying, and empathy [46]. ConRed intervention experts also work with each school’s climate planning team for three months to improve perceived control over information available on the Internet, reduce time spent on digital devices, and prevent cyberbullying [46]. The program also involves the implementation of clear policies to combat risks associated with the internet and online social networking, with a special focus on fostering empathy [49]. The main themes of topics covered in the training session include awareness of the internet and social networks, their advantages and risks, and strategies to address online bullying [46]. The program is also based on reflection sessions with quizzes to stimulate consolidation of the acquired knowledge. Like other successful interventions, this program starts with preconceived notions of teachers, parents, and students and ends with a reflection quiz to obtain feedback [46]. Up until now, the program has yielded favorable outcomes and holds promise for application in multicultural environments [46][48]. In a secondary school setting (average age = 13.8 years), Ortega-Ruiz et al. (2012) conducted a study in Spain which disclosed that there was a notable reduction in internet addiction (p < 0.05) as well as cyberbullying levels (p < 0.01) among male participants. Both boys and girls experienced a decrease in victimization (p < 0.05) [46]. In a separate investigation by Del Rey et al. (2016) involving secondary school students aged between 11 and 19 years, it was determined that the ConRed program effectively lessened cyber aggression among male students (p = 0.04), although its effectiveness was comparatively lower for female students. In terms of cyber victimization, the experimental group exhibited a decrease, particularly noticeable among boys, while an increase was observed among boys in the control group (p = 0.003) [48]. These results were attributed to the intervention’s feature of recognizing pre-existing notions held by teachers, parents, and students and adapting them to suit the unique requirements of each institutional setting.

3.5. TABBY Anti-Bullying Program

The Threat Assessment of Bullying Behaviors Among Youngsters (TABBY) Internet program is based on Ecological Systems Theory and is one of the interventions in which instruction is provided through online media to reduce cyberbullying and increase awareness of cyber risks [50][51]. Teachers are provided information about cyberbullying in comparison to traditional school bullying, the risks associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization, and skills to identify, prevent, and address cyberbullying and cybervictimization [51][52]. Legal issues related to cyberbullying are also discussed in the training module for teachers [51]. The TABBY toolbox is provided as an additional resource that includes a checklist, brochure, and videos, and its use is also explained in detail [51]. Parent seminars are also organized to raise parents’ awareness of the issue and provide them with strategies for intervening and preventing risky behaviors [51]. The sessions with the students are based on group brainstorming sessions in which the differences and similarities between jokes, cyberbullying, and aggression are shared and understood by the students [51]. The video sessions are used as stimuli for discussions about students’ roles in the virtual world, which is expected to lead to the development of rules and strategies for safe online behaviors [51]. Eventually, the new rules and strategies are shared with the entire school and become part of the school’s cyberbullying policy [51]. The outcomes of the TABBY intervention among students aged 13–14 years in Greek secondary schools indicated a decrease in risky behaviors related to cyber activities in the post-intervention results. However, there was no statistically significant difference observed in the post-intervention data between the control and experimental groups (p = 1.99) [53]. While Tabby is already a comprehensive program, incorporating a baseline survey can further enhance its effectiveness in implementing interventions within cross-cultural and social contexts. By incorporating the feature of recognizing pre-existing notions held by teachers, parents, and students, and then adapting the program accordingly to meet the specific needs of each institutional setting, it will become better equipped to address cross-cultural differences and tailor interventions accordingly. This additional step can greatly contribute to its suitability in diverse cultural settings.

3.6. Cyber Friendly Schools

Cyber Friendly Schools is based on Social Ecological Theory, and its components are developed by incorporating young people’s opinions and suggestions to address technological needs and their consequences [54]. To create a positive school environment and combat a bullying culture, strategies are used that equip schools with knowledge about cyberbullying and tactics to support students’ emotional and social development [55]. In addition, strategies are developed to strengthen links between schools, homes, communities, and sanctions for cyberbullying practices [55]. Further, student “cyber leaders” are recruited and trained to support staff and other students against bullying and victimization, based on the assumption that teens have a greater awareness of technology and online behaviors than adults [55]. School project teams are provided with resources, including a brochure and student activity booklet, to gather and consolidate basic information about cyberbullying, consequences, legal action, common student online activities, and bystander impact. The booklet also details strategies for school staff to deal with cyberbullying situations [55]. Finally, newsletters discuss in detail updating social media friends lists, students’ digital reputation, cybersecurity, and legal issues, which is one of the unique features of this intervention [55].
Teaching and learning resources with different types of activities and online quizzes are provided to receive and provide information to increase their understanding and skills to address bullying [55]. The evaluation of the intervention applied to students aged between 13 and 15 years yielded mixed results in terms of effectiveness, as teachers implemented it poorly due to lack of time and additional time spent on regular school activities [56]. Cyber victimization decreased from years 1 to 2 (p  =  0.034), but stability was maintained between years 2 and 3 (p = 0.193). Conversely, perpetration declined from years 1 to 2 and then to 3. However, the significant negative trend was only statistically significant during the period between the second and third data collection points (p  = 0.006) [56].

3.7. Learning Together

Learning Together is a U.K school-based intervention aimed at improving young people’s health and wellbeing, using an innovative whole-school corrective approach that aims to prevent or resolve conflicts between students and staff and prevent bullying to minimize the harm associated with such problems [57][58]. It also provides an opportunity for victims to report and share their feeling with teachers and obtain guidance. Learning Together consists of staff training in restorative practice, convening and facilitating a school action group, and a social and emotional skills curriculum for students. Learning Together applied to secondary school students for three years had small but significant effects on bullying (control group, mean bullying = 0.34, SE = 0.02 versus experimental group, mean bullying = 0.29, SE = 0.02), which could be important for public health, but it had no effect on aggression (SE > 0.05) [55]. This is an emerging curriculum and needs evidence-based research trials to validate the outcomes. Moreover, the addition of components to handle cyberbullying issues, using baseline survey information, adopting a theory-based approach, and involving teachers and youth in developing or modifying the curriculum are also recommended.

3.8. No Trap

No trap is a web-based, online, peer-led approach based on Ecological Systems Theory [59]. The program is delivered in the form of teacher and peer group manuals that serve as resources for their training, in addition to web-based and Facebook information pages [59]. Teachers first receive basic training to raise awareness and intervene [59]. Teachers then actively participate in classroom activities conducted by peer groups and assist their peers in implementing the program with each group of students [59]. During student training, psychologists address these issues by conducting awareness sessions to promote empathy and sensitivity, the role of bystanders, and practical skills through video, discussion, and role playing [59]. Peer leaders receive in-depth training to improve their listening skills and learn how to respond to victims when approached by their peers for help [59]. The final part is equipping leaders with problem-solving and coping strategies to problems [59]. This program has been successfully tested and yielded robust results in a study wherein peer leaders (mean age = 14 years) were volunteers (victimization: B = 0.025; SE = 0.005; p  <  0.001; bullying: B  = 0.017; SE  = 0.004; p  < 0 .001), but undesirable results when the peer leader was appointed by classmates (victimization: B = −0.000; SE = 0.006; p = 0.958; bullying: B =  0.005; SE = 0.005; p = 0.250) [60]. It is advisable to delve deeper into the factors contributing to the lack of success in peer interventions when students are responsible for appointing their peers. This method, which allows students to exercise autonomy and the right to vote, is widely favored and considered an effective means of selecting student representatives, aligning with democratic principles. Therefore, a thorough exploration of the reasons behind its failure would be beneficial.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/soc13090212

References

  1. Grigg, D.W. Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Aust. J. Guid. Couns. 2010, 20, 143–156.
  2. Cyberbullying Facts and Statistics for 2018–2021. Available online: https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/cyberbullying-statistics/ (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  3. Cyberbullying on the Rise During the Pandemic. Available online: https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/cyberbullying-on-the-rise (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  4. Dehue, F. Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative methodologies. introduction to the special issue. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 23, 1–6.
  5. Slonje, R.; Smith, P.K.; Frisén, A. The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 26–32.
  6. Smith, P.K. Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In Handbook of School Violence and School Safety, 2nd ed.; Shane., R.J., Amanda, B.N., Matthew, J.M., Furlong, M.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 111–121.
  7. Van Geel, M.; Vedder, P.; Tanilon, J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2014, 168, 435–442.
  8. Berne, S.; Frisén, A.; Berne, J. Cyberbullying in Childhood and Adolescence: Assessment, Negative Consequences and Prevention Strategies. In Policing Schools: School Violence and the Juridification of Youth. Young People and Learning Processes in School and Everyday Life; Lunneblad, J., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 2, pp. 141–152.
  9. Tanrikulu, I. Cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools: A systematic review. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2018, 39, 74–91.
  10. Gaffney, H.; Farrington, D.P.; Espelage, D.L.; Ttofi, M.M. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019, 45, 134–153.
  11. Torgal, C.; Espelage, D.L.; Polanin, J.R.; Ingram, K.M.; Robinson, L.E.; El Sheikh, A.J.; Valido, A. A meta-analysis of school-based cyberbullying prevention programs’ impact on cyber-bystander behavior. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2023, 52, 95–109.
  12. Jacobs, N.C.L.; Dehue, F.; Völlink, T.; Lechner, L. Online Pestkoppenstoppen : The systematic development of a web-based tailored intervention for adolescent cyberbully victims to prevent cyberbullying. In Cyberbullying: From Theory to Intervention; Völlink, T., Dehue, F., McGuckin, C., Eds.; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 110–155.
  13. Matuschka, L.K.; Scott, J.G.; Campbell, M.A.; Lawrence, D.; Zubrick, S.R.; Bartlett, J.; Thomas, H.J. Correlates of help-seeking behaviour in adolescents who experience bullying victimisation. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2022, 4, 99–114.
  14. Bjereld, Y. The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. J. Health Psychol. 2018, 23, 1110–1118.
  15. Black, S.; Weinles, D.; Washington, E. Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2010, 8, 138–147.
  16. Sulkowski, M.L.; Bauman, S.A.; Dinner, S.; Nixon, C.; Davis, S. An investigation into how students respond to being victimized by peer aggression. J. Sch. Violence 2014, 13, 339–358.
  17. Dehue, F.; Völlink, T.; Gunther, N.; Jacobs, N. Stop Online Bullies: The advantages and disadvantages of a standalone intervention. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 175–188.
  18. Jacobs, N.C.; Völlink, T.; Dehue, F.; Lechner, L. Online Pestkoppenstoppen: Systematic and theory-based development of a web-based tailored intervention for adolescent cyberbully victims to combat and prevent cyberbullying. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1–16.
  19. Bartholomew, L.K.; Parcel, G.S.; Kok, G.; Gottlieb, N.H.; Schaalma, H.C.; Markham Tyrrell, S.; Shegog, R.; Fernández, M.; Mullen, P.D.; Gonzales, A.; et al. Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006.
  20. Negi, S.; Magre, S. Effectiveness of CBSP—A thematic analysis. Engl.-Marathi Q. 2018, 7, 66–76.
  21. Negi, S.; Magre, S. Effectiveness of cyber bullying sensitization program (CBSP) to reduce cyber bullying behavior among middle school children. Int. J. Cyber Res. Educ. (IJCRE) 2019, 1, 43–51.
  22. Negi, S. Perception of secondary school students about cyber bullying. Indian J. Educ. Stud. Interdiscip. J. 2016, 3, 55–60.
  23. Fisher, J.D.; Fisher, W.A. Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 111, 455.
  24. Popovac, M.; Fine, P. An intervention using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model: Tackling cyberaggression and cyberbullying in South African adolescents. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 225–244.
  25. DiClemente, R.J.; Crosby, R.; Kegler, M.C. (Eds.) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
  26. Ortega-Barón, J.; Buelga, S.; Ayllón, E.; Martínez-Ferrer, B.; Cava, M.J. Effects of intervention program Prev@ cib on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 527.
  27. Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am. Psychol. 1977, 32, 513–531.
  28. Rappaport, J.; Seidman, E. (Eds.) Handbook of Community Psychology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2000.
  29. Hellison, D. Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility through Physical Activity; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2010.
  30. Olweus, D.; Limber, S.P. Bullying in School: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2010, 80, 124–134.
  31. Smith, J.D.; Schneider, B.H.; Smith, P.K.; Ananiadou, K. The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 33, 547–560.
  32. Cohen, J.; Espelage, D.L.; Twemlow, S.W.; Berkowitz, M.W.; Comer, J.P. Rethinking effective bully and violence prevention efforts: Promoting healthy school climates, positive youth development, and preventing bully-victim-bystander behavior. Int. J. Violence Sch. 2015, 15, 2–40.
  33. Cunningham, C.E.; Rimas, H.; Mielko, S.; Mapp, C.; Cunningham, L.; Buchanan, D.; Vaillancourt, T.; Chen, Y.; Deal, K.; Marcus, M. What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of teachers. J. Sch. Violence 2016, 15, 460–482.
  34. Herkama, S.; Salmivalli, C. KiVa antibullying program. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 125–134.
  35. Williford, A.; Elledge, L.C.; Boulton, A.J.; DePaolis, K.J.; Little, T.D.; Salmivalli, C. Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on cyberbullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2013, 42, 820–833.
  36. Evers, K.E.; Prochaska, J.O.; Van Marter, D.F.; Johnson, J.L.; Prochaska, J.M. Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Educ. Res. 2007, 49, 397–414.
  37. Olweus, D.; Limber, S.P.; Breivik, K. Addressing specific forms of bullying: A large-scale evaluation of the Olweus bullying prevention program. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2019, 1, 70–84.
  38. Sullivan, T.N.; Farrell, A.D.; Sutherland, K.S.; Behrhorst, K.L.; Garthe, R.C.; Greene, A. Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in US urban middle schools using a multiple baseline experimental design. Prev. Sci. 2021, 22, 1134–1146.
  39. Olweus, D. Olweus Bullying Questionnaire: Scannable Paper Version; Hazelden: Center City, MN, USA, 2007.
  40. Bowllan, N.M. Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. J. Sch. Health 2011, 81, 167–173.
  41. Englander, E. Bullying and Cyberbullying: What Every Educator Needs to Know; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013.
  42. McCoy, M.K.; Englander, E.K.; Parti, K. A model for providing bullying prevention programs to K-12 education while training future educators. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 109–124.
  43. Englander, E.; Parti, K.; McCoy, M. Evaluation of a university-based bullying and cyberbullying prevention program. J. Mod. Educ. Rev. 2015, 5, 937–950.
  44. Del Rey, R.; Casas, J.A.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. The ConRed program, an evidence-based practice. Comunicar 2012, 20, 129–138.
  45. Levine, E.; Tamburrino, M. Bullying among young children: Strategies for prevention. Early Child. Educ. J. 2014, 42, 271–278.
  46. Ortega Ruiz, R.; Rey Alamillo, R.D.; Casas Bolaños, J.A. Knowing, building and living together on internet and social networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program. Int. J. Confl. Violence 2012, 6, 302–312.
  47. Reynolds-Tylus, T.; Lukacena, K.M.; Quick, B.L. An application of the theory of normative social behavior to bystander intervention for sexual assault. J. Am. Coll. Health 2019, 67, 551–559.
  48. Del Rey, R.; Casas, J.A.; Ortega, R. Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbullying roles. Aggress. Behav. 2016, 42, 123–135.
  49. Roland, E. Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggress. Behav. 2000, 26, 135–143.
  50. Baldry, A.C.; Farrington, D.P.; Blaya, C.; Sorrentino, A. The TABBY Online Project: The threat assessment of bullying behaviours online approach. In International Perspectives on Cyberbullying; Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity; Baldry, A., Blaya, C., Farrington, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 26–36.
  51. Sorrentino, A.; Baldry, A.C.; Farrington, D.P. The efficacy of the Tabby improved prevention and intervention program in reducing cyberbullying and cybervictimization among students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2536.
  52. Touloupis, T.; Athanasiades, C. Evaluation of a cyberbullying prevention program in elementary schools: The role of self-esteem enhancement. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 980091.
  53. Athanasiades, C.; Kamariotis, H.; Psalti, A.; Baldry, A.C.; Sorrentino, A. Internet use and cyberbullying among adolescent students in Greece: The “Tabby” project. Hell. J. Psychol. 2015, 12, 14–39.
  54. Cross, D.; Runions, K.C.; Shaw, T.; Wong, J.W.; Campbell, M.; Pearce, N.; Burns, S.; Lester, L.; Barnes, A.; Resnicow, K. Friendly Schools universal bullying prevention intervention: Effectiveness with secondary school students. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2019, 1, 45–57.
  55. Cross, D.; Barnes, A.; Cardoso, P.; Hadwen, K.; Shaw, T.; Campbell, M.; Slee, P.T. Cyber-friendly schools. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 95–108.
  56. Cross, D.; Shaw, T.; Hadwen, K.; Cardoso, P.; Slee, P.; Roberts, C.; Thomas, L.; Barnes, A. Longitudinal impact of the Cyber Friendly Schools program on adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior. Aggress. Behav. 2016, 42, 166–180.
  57. Bonell, C.; Allen, E.; Warren, E.; McGowan, J.; Bevilacqua, L.; Jamal, F.; Legood, R.; Wiggins, M.; Opondo, C.; Mathiot, A.; et al. Effects of the Learning Together intervention on bullying and aggression in English secondary schools (INCLUSIVE): A cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2018, 392, 2452–2464.
  58. Elliott, E.; Gordon, R. (Eds.) New Directions in Restorative Justice; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
  59. Menesini, E.; Zambuto, V.; Palladino, B.E. Online and school-based programs to prevent cyberbullying among Italian adolescents: What works, why, and under which circumstances. In Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools; Marilyn, C., Sheri, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Brookline, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 135–143.
  60. Zambuto, V.; Palladino, B.E.; Nocentini, A.; Menesini, E. Voluntary vs nominated peer educators: A randomized trial within the NoTrap! Anti-Bullying Program. Prev. Sci. 2020, 21, 639–649.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback