The Internet has firmly entered people’s daily lives, providing space for the continuation of almost all human activities. If some time ago it was possible to divide the environment into “virtual” and “real,” now this distinction does not seem appropriate. Smartphones, public information systems, online educational platforms, negotiations using voice and video Internet services, online stores, etc. allow combining online and offline activities in usual daily activities. The vast majority of teenagers use the Internet daily, spending more than 5 hours a day on social networks and various instant messengers, and a quarter of them check for updates every 30 minutes (Arehart-Treichel, 2013). Teens connect to the Internet using mobile devices to do their homework, stay in touch with friends, play games, read celebrity news, share their creativity, and more. A 24/7 online presence makes teens vulnerable to Internet victimization.
One of the most serious psychological online risks is facing cyberbullying, as targeted and repetitive harm is caused with the use of digital tools – computers, smartphones, and other similar devices. Typically, these are situations in which adolescents use modern technology to intimidate, harass, humiliate, or otherwise disturb peers (Mehari et al., 2014). Discussing the similarities between bullying and cyberbullying, one should note, first of all, the systematic and purposeful aggressive behavior described in empirical studies. In particular, inequality in the position of the persecutor and the victim is evident – the aggressor can be anonymous, and there can be many of them (Wigderson & Lynch, 2013). Moreover, the structural combination of “aggressor-victim-witnesses” is a distinctive feature of bullying (Cook et al., 2010). However, compared to “traditional” bullying, cyberbullying has several significant differences.
Although being illusory, anonymity increases the self-confidence of the aggressors and the helplessness of the ones who find themselves in the role of the victims, since, among other experiences, they are captured by the question of who is or their persecutor. Anonymity is associated with the phenomenon of disinhibition and moral detachment: anonymously people allow themselves to behave more aggressively than in situations where they know that they are identified. Face-to-face bullying has, as a rule, a line defined by its initiator – for example, “to bring to tears”. However, in the absence of knowledge about the opponent’s emotional state, such a line turns out to be inaccessible: it is more difficult for the aggressor to stop himself or herself when the one he or she is pursuing appears to be an abstraction, which contributes to increased violent behavior (Farrell et al., 2019). Unlike localized bullying, for example, in a schoolyard, “traditional” bullying, cyberbullying can be carried out around the clock and cannot be avoided by changing the route. The ability to re-read and repeatedly view derogatory or threatening material, as well as the spontaneous re-posting of old content by users, can contribute to retraumatizing the victim.
The main body of research on cyberbullying is devoted to assessing its prevalence, gender differences, compared with “traditional” bullying, and the consequences of online victimization. Due to the novelty of the phenomenon, the lack of its conventional understanding, and the variety of manifestations, various inconsistent definitions are used in studies, which leads to inconsistencies in the data. In addition, the study focuses mainly on the psychological consequences of cyberbullying for its victims, while the psychological and social motives of the aggressors are poorly understood. Meanwhile, it seems appropriate to consider the propensity and practice of cyberbullying as one of the manifestations of deviant behavior, with the aim of its preventive forecasting.
In particular, Alfred Adler’s psychodynamically oriented individual psychology is of interest. It is one of the most popular concepts explaining human deviant behavior at present (Hamby & McDonald, 2014). The research question is formulated as follows: what is the matrix of psychological characteristics inherent in high school students – participants in cyberbullying? What practical recommendations can be suggested for preventing the situation of cyberbullying and optimizing the relationship of adolescents in the digital environment? The hypothesis of the study is as follows: the role of adolescents in a cyberbullying situation is interconnected with their psychological characteristics.
References
Arehart-Treichel, J. (2013). Effects of bullying don’t end when school does.American Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), 12-17. Web.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65-83. Web.
Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T., Goncy, E., & Le, A. (2019). Assessment of adolescents’ victimization, aggression, and problem behaviors: Evaluation of the problem behavior frequency scale. Psychological Assessment, 28(6), 702-714. Web.
Hamby, S., & McDonald, R. (2014). Trends in violence research. Psychology of Violence, 4(1), 1-7. Web.
Mehari, K. R., Farrell, A. D., & Le, A. (2014). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 399-415. Web.
Wigderson, S., & Lynch, M. (2013). Cyber- and traditional peer victimization: Unique relationships with adolescent well-being. Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 297-309. Web.