School Personnel Conceptualiza

Running head: SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING
School Personnel Conceptualization of Cyberbullying:
Beliefs, Knowledge, and Implementation of Policies and Interventions in Schools
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF APPLIED AND PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
OF
RUTGERS,
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
BY
SARAH C. GREEN
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF
DOCTOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY JANUARY 2023
APPROVED: ___________________________
Elisa Shernoff, Ph.D
___________________________
Susan Forman, Ph.D.
DEAN: ___________________________
Arpana Inman, Ph.D.
! !
SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING ii
Abstract
Cyberbullying has long term negative impacts on individuals. Cyberbullying victimization is
significantly correlated with stress, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, loneliness, reduced life
satisfaction, conduct problems, somatic symptoms, emotional problems, reduced self-esteem,
substance abuse, and lower prosocial behavior (Kowalski et al., 2014). Additionally,
cyberbullying victims tend to receive lower grades in school and engage in risky behaviors
(Giumetti & Kowalski, 2016). Schools play an integral role in cyberbullying prevention and
intervention. The literature regarding the school’s perception on their level of responsibility and
capacity to intervene is limited in that most of the studies have looked at the role of teachers.
Therefore, this study was intended to fill the gap in research. The current study examined a
sample of school staff, including principals, vice principals, school psychologists, social workers,
and guidance counselors (N=57) working in both public and private schools in New York and
New Jersey, their perceived responsibility and capacity to address cyberbullying, perceived
barriers to intervention, and their knowledge regarding policy and core components to
cyberbullying prevention and intervention. The respondents completed anonymous surveys
online about their perceptions in the aforementioned areas. Surveys were gathered through
snowball sampling. Results of multiple regression analyses revealed that role in school was a
significant predictor for school staff responsibility to address cyberbullying (adj. R2 = 0.055;
F(1,55) = 4.27; p = .043). However, years of experience was not a predictor for school staff
responsibility to address cyberbullying, nor was role in school or years of experience a predictor
for capacity to intervene. Findings from the current study suggest that although most of the
participants agreed that they were responsible to address cyberbullying, fewer number of
participants felt they had the capacity to intervene. Additionally, there was a lack of school
SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING iii
policies regarding cyberbullying, which has implications for intervention. Future research can
expand the sample size and explore the relationships among the variables described above.
SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING iv
Acknowledgements
Upon reflecting on the journey of graduate school and particularly this dissertation project, there
are many people who I’d like to express my gratitude towards for all they have done to help me
accomplish this momentous milestone. Firstly, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr.
Elisa Shernoff. You have been encouraging me from the beginning, never giving up on me,
despite the time it took to complete this project. Your endless patience and devotion towards me,
and all your students, is greatly appreciated. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr.
Susan Forman. Your keen insights and comments throughout this process have helped me
develop my skills and progress me in this project.
My family has played a crucial role in this process, and they deserve a big thank you and
congratulations, as I know they are celebrating this milestone as if is their own. Firstly, I’d like to
thank my parents, Ema and Aba, who have always been my greatest cheerleaders. Thank you for
encouraging me to pursue my dreams and for supporting me in my journey through graduate
school. You have consistently been there for me, through the ups and the downs, and I appreciate
all you have done to help me achieve this goal. I love you both so much. I would also like to
thank my in-laws, Mom and Dad, for encouraging me in this journey through graduate school,
and for all that you give to our family. None of this could have ever been accomplished without
the constant support, encouragement, and an abundance of patience from my husband, Zach. I
know this has been a quite a journey, one that took longer than expected, and I hope you know
how much I appreciate your role in making this happen. I could not have done it without you. I
am grateful to my children Aryeh Leib and Mordechai for being the joys of my life and giving
me encouragement through your adorable smiles. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to
G-d for bringing me to this wonderful milestone.

SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 2
Definition of Cyberbullying............................................................................. 2
Cyberbullying Prevalence Rates and Characteristics ...................................... 3
Features of Cyberbullying that Make School Interventions Challenging ........ 5
School Personnel Perspectives on Role in Addressing Cyberbullying............ 10
School Policy ................................................................................................... 14
Prevention and Intervention of Cyberbullying in Schools ............................... 16
Summary and Research Questions................................................................... 29
II. METHODS.............................................................................................................. 30
Participants....................................................................................................... 30
Demographics .................................................................................................. 31
Procedures ........................................................................................................ 31
Instrument ........................................................................................................ 33
Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 36
III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 37

SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING vi
Perceptions on School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying ................... 37
Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying ........................................ 38
Parent Involvement in Cyberbullying .............................................................. 38
School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying ......................................................... 39
Core Components of Cyberbullying Intervention............................................ 40
Barriers of Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................ 41
Do Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Difference in capability
and responsibility? ........................................................................................... 42
IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 44
School Responsibility and Capacity in Cyberbullying Intervention................ 44
School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying ......................................................... 45
Core Components to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................ 46
Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................ 48
Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Perceived Responsibility or
Capability? ....................................................................................................... 51
Existing Cyberbullying Interventions .............................................................. 52
Additional training and Covid-Related Question ............................................ 54
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 55
Implications for Research and Practice............................................................ 56
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 58
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 67
SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page #
1. Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................... 76
2. School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying ............................................................. 78
3. School Capability to Address Cyberbullying .................................................................. 79
4. Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................................ 80
5. Regression Analyses for Role and Years of Experience as a Predictor for Staff
Responsibility ............................................................................................................. 81
6. Regression Analyses for Role and Years of Experience as a Predictor for Capability to
Address Cyberbullying ................................................................................................ 82
SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page #
1. Perceptions of School Responsibility for Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention ....... 38
2. Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying ............................................................ 39
3. Barriers to Cyberbullying Interventions in Schools............................................................. 42

SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING 1
School Personnel Conceptualization of Cyberbullying:
Beliefs, Knowledge, and Implementation of Policies and Interventions in Schools
Living in the digital age poses both advantages and disadvantages. While there is much
more access to information, medicine, and the ability to connect with people across the world,
there are also dangers that come along with the increased access. Cyberbullying, a relatively new
phenomenon, has become a public health issue worldwide. Children and adolescents now have
access to the digital world, allowing for bullying to occur not only on the playground, but
virtually everywhere. A meta-analysis of 131 studies revealed that cyberbullying was related to
several mental, physical, or social health problems (Kowalski et al., 2014). Cyberbullying
victimization was significantly correlated with stress, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety,
loneliness, reduced life satisfaction, conduct problems, somatic symptoms, emotional problems,
reduced self-esteem, substance abuse, and lower prosocial behavior (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Additionally, cyberbullying victims tend to receive lower grades in school and engage in risky
behaviors (Giumetti & Kowalski, 2016). Researchers have found that victims of cyberbullying
had worse outcomes than victims of traditional bullying for symptoms of depression, anxiety,
self-esteem issues, absenteeism, and physical health (Giumetti & Kowalski, 2016) and had a
stronger relationship with suicidal ideation (vanGeel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014).
Therefore, it is important to study cyberbullying as an independent issue, as there are
unique factors that set it apart from traditional bullying. This creates an urgent need for schools
to integrate policies and interventions that are unique to cyberbullying to address the pressing
need to intervene, and more importantly to prevent cyberbullying incidents from occurring in the
first place. The purpose of the current study is to examine conceptualization of school role in
cyberbullying incidents and intervention, in addition to school personnel levels of familiarity and
implementation of cyberbullying policies and interventions.
First, I will define cyberbullying because the policies and interventions depend on how
the construct is conceptualized. Then, I will discuss prevalence rates and characteristics of
cyberbullying perpetrators and victims. Then, I will address the features of cyberbullying that
make school interventions challenging and will explore the existing research on the perspective
of administrators and teachers on their role in cyberbullying intervention. Lastly, I will review
the existing cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs that have been developed.
Literature Review
Definition of Cyberbullying
The definition for traditional bullying according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC, 2015), is one that is vastly used and agreed upon by researchers in the field.
Bullying is defined as an unwanted, aggressive behavior (a) that inflicts harm or distress, (b) is
repeated or has a high likelihood to be repeated, and (c) occurs where there is an observed
imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim. Some researchers define
cyberbullying similar to the way they define traditional bullying. For example, Smith and Slonje
(2010) define cyberbullying as an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual,
using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily
defend him or herself. Hutson et al. (2018) define cyberbullying as willful and repeated harm
inflicted through aggressive actions using computers, cellphones, and other electronic devices.
There is a significant association between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, and therefore,
cyberbullying can be considered an extension of traditional bullying (Kowalski et al., 2012;
Modecki et al., 2014).

However, since there are unique characteristics of cyberbullying, other researchers point
to the differences between the traditional bullying and cyberbullying, and the need to
operationally define cyberbullying as its own entity (Tanrikulu, 2018). Since there is a lack of a
widely accepted operational definition and measurement of cyberbullying, results from several
studies are difficult to compare. (David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007). Therefore, prevalence rates for
traditional and cyber victimization vary, as they are dependent upon how victimization is defined
and measured (Fredrick & Demaray, 2018). Also, the repetitive aspect may not be as important
as in traditional bullying because one act of cyberbullying has the potential to be shared or
viewed multiple times by a wide audience (Selkie et al., 2016). Researchers respond to the lack
of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures for cyberbullying (Selkie et
al., 2016). If cyberbullying is distinct from bullying and has different measures to assess the
construct, interventions targeting cyberbullying may need to be unique as well. Therefore, this
study will explore school personnel conceptualization of their role in cyberbullying intervention,
as well as their familiarity and implementation of cyberbullying programs.
Cyberbullying Prevalence Rates and Characteristics
Given the lack of consensus regarding how to define cyberbullying, prevalence rates vary
widely among studies. Selkie et al. (2016) identified prevalence rates ranging from 1-41% for
cyberbullying perpetration and 3-72% for cybervictimization (i.e., reported being victims of
cyberbullying incidents). Cioppa et al. (2015) cited a similar range in prevalence rates for
cybervictimization, 10-75%. There are a few possible reasons for the wide range of prevalence
rates. Firstly, given that cyberbullying has been used as an all-encompassing term that is defined
differently among various instruments and samples, the actual construct being studied varies,
leading to different prevalence rates (Selkie et al., 2016). Additionally, there is variability in rates
of technology use among different countries and populations (Selkie et al., 2016). Moreover,
there are cross-cultural differences, age differences, and time of measurement differences among
the various studies, resulting in a wide range of prevalence rates (Selkie et al., 2016).
With regards to age and grade, cyberbullying incidents peak during middle school, as
bullying behaviors tend to increase during this period of schooling (Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Kowalski et al., 2014; Li, 2006; Tokunaga, 2010). With regards to gender, previous research on
traditional bullying has found consistent gender differences, with boys being at greater risk for
direct physical and verbal victimization, while girls tend to be equally or more likely to
experience indirect or relational forms of victimization (Ostrov & Kamper, 2015; Rueger &
Jenkins, 2014). Gender differences in cyberbullying victimization tend to be inconsistent. Some
studies report no gender di"erences in cyber victimization (Brown et al., 2014; Jackson &
Cohen, 2012; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wolak et al., 2007), while other studies have found a
higher proportion of females are victims of cyberbullying (Kowalski & Limber, 2007).
Some studies have examined geographical differences in rates of cyberbullying. For
example, Klein et al. (2012) found prevalence of cyberbullying victimization to be higher among
rural communities and smaller schools. In a sample of rural middle and high school students,
Isernhagen and Harris (2004) found that 50% of middle school students and 37% of high school
students reported being cyberbullied in the past year (Nansel et al., 2001). Other studies have
reported no differences in prevalence rates among rural and urban communities (Nansel et al.,
2001). The differences among communities are currently unclear. The lack of consistency in
prevalence rates may lead to varying perspectives on the issue of cyberbullying in schools and
role of intervention. Therefore, this study will examine the views of school personnel on their
role in cyberbullying intervention.

Features of Cyberbullying that Make School Interventions Challenging
There are specific features of cyberbullying that create complexity in school interventions
(i.e., parent responsibility, anonymity, location, wide audience). Each of these aspects will be
reviewed next.
Parent Responsibility
The first feature is the unique involvement and responsibility of parents in their children's
access and usage of technology. Research suggests that parental involvement in their children’s
digital usage impacts cyberbullying and cybervictimization (Elsaesser et al., 2017, Kowalski et
al., 2014). Research has shown that most cyberbullying incidents occur from within one’s home
(Dehue et al, 2008). Elsaesser et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of the family’s role in
preventing cyberbullying, as parents often have direct influence over adolescents' access to
electronic devices. In Kowalski et al.’s (2014) comprehensive meta-analysis of cyberbullying
research, they found that when there are weaker emotional bonds between parent and child, less
digital monitoring from parents, and more discipline in the home, there is an increased likelihood
that the children will engage in cyberbullying behaviors. They also found that the prospect of
punishment from parents is a deterrent to cyberbullying perpetration (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Several studies have examined the connection between the family and cyberbullying.
Elsaesser et al. (2017) conducted a study to fill the gap in research regarding the evidence of
family’s influence on cyberbullying by distinct parental qualities (e.g., warmth, control), as well
as how the influence of these factors may vary by sex and ethnicity. Even though Kowalski et
al.’s (2014) review provides a critical summary of parent’s role in cyberbullying, they did not
study distinct characteristics. Elsaesser et al. (2017) concluded that parental supervision on
children’s internet usage as well as parental warmth are factors that are negatively correlated
with involvement in cyberbullying. Similarly, difficult parent-child relationships, which may
indicate low parental supervision in digital usage, is associated with higher risk of involvement
in cyberbullying both as perpetrator and as a victim (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2014). Similarly, Kiriakidis and Kavoura (2010), in their review on the literature,
concluded that children are more likely to engage in cyberbullying when their parents are less
likely to monitor their online behavior.
Furthermore, Lenhart (2005) encourages parents to be alerted to what adolescents are
engaging with when using technology. In addition, parents who monitor their children while
using the internet, have the computer out in the open, and the use of effective filtering software
can all help reduce inappropriate online behaviors (Lenhart, 2005). In addition to the parental
impact on cyberbullying behavior, there is also research to suggest the impact on
cybervictimization. For example, authoritative parenting and high levels of self-control
moderated negative impact on victimization (Perren et al., 2012). In Kowalski et al. (2014)’s
review of the literature, the authors concluded that there is a negative relationship between
parental control of technology and cybervictimization. Additionally, parental discussions about
online behavior and knowledge of a child’s whereabouts are associated with less victimization
(Kowalski et al., 2014). For parental monitoring, strategies that are focused on parental control,
such as restricting the Internet, appear to be only weakly related to youth involvement in
cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. In contrast, strategies that are more collaborative
with in nature (e.g., evaluative mediation and co-use) are more closely connected to
cyberbullying victimization and perpetration, although evidence suggests that the effectiveness
of these practices varies by sex and ethnicity (Elsaesser et al., 2017).

In conclusion, parental involvement in their children's access and usage of technology
impacts cyberbullying, as well as cybervictimization. When parents monitor their children’s
digital use, set boundaries, and have closer bonds with their children, they are more likely to not
be involved in cyberbullying. Since there is a strong emphasis on parent involvement in
cyberbullying prevention and intervention, school role may be more complex, as they may not
view it as their role and responsibility.
Anonymity
The second feature that complicates school role is the aspect of anonymity. In
cyberbullying incidents, it is easier for perpetrators to hide their identity, which can lead to
complexities in intervention (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Kowalski et. al, 2014). Since one’s
identity can remain anonymous, it increases likelihood for people to engage in cyberbullying
(Notar et al., 2013). Kowalski et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis and utilized the general
aggression model (GAM) to help understand the personal and situational factors at play to
explain factors related to cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Their goal was to identify
correlates of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization and to study the strength of the
relationships among the variables. As part of their analyses, Kowalski et al. (2014) established
input factors in the general aggression model that were related to perpetration of cyberbullying.
One of the situational factors identified is the perceived anonymity in cyberbullying. Research
reveals that people will say and do things anonymously that they would not say or do in face-to-
face interactions. The factor of anonymity significantly allows for potentially more perpetrators
of cyberbullying, compared to traditional bullying. For example, individuals who cyberbully do
not have to worry whether their physical stature is greater than that of their victim (Kowalski et
al., 2014).
Kowalski and Limber (2007) observed that just under 50% of their middle school
respondents who had been victims of cyberbullying did not know the identity of the perpetrator.
Additionally, some studies have shown that since the cyberbullies are not bullying face-to-face,
there is less empathy and remorse than when one sees the effect on the victim (Kowalski et al.,
2014; Sourander et al., 2010). Similarly, in Kowalski et al. (2014) meta-analysis, one personal
characteristic that appeared to offer an individual protection from engaging in cyberbullying was
empathy. Individuals who reported higher levels of cognitive and affective empathy (or an ability
to share the emotions of other people) tended to engage in cyberbullying less frequently.
Wong-Lo (2009) conducted a study with a total of 137 participants (62 adolescents; 75
parents), in which 90% of adolescents reported having been a victim or bystander of
cyberbullying. Out of the adolescents who responded, 70% of them reported being victims of
cyberbullying one to two times within the past month, and 50% of these adolescents did not
know the identity of the perpetrator. Researchers argue that the safety and security of being
behind a computer screen frees individuals from the pressures of society, conscience, morality,
and ethics to behave in a normative manner (Notar et al., 2013). The impact of anonymity creates
complexity for the school role in intervention (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). When the school
does not know who the perpetrator is, it is difficult to know how to be involved, and therefore, it
is easier for schools to back off, claiming that the incident has nothing to do with them
(Campbell & Bauman, 2018).

Location of Cyberbullying
A third feature that contributes to the complexity of school role in intervention is the
location that cyberbullying occurs. While traditional bullying often occurs on school premises,
cyberbullying is more likely to occur outside of school (Notar et al., 2013). Whereas in
traditional bullying, it is often easier for victims to find safe spaces in which they feel protected
from the bullies, with cyberbullying, victims often feel unsafe in their own homes, as the
incidents are not limited to face-to-face, rather can occur at almost any time and place, even
while they are sleeping (Notar et al., 2013). Since cyberbullying is not limited to being with the
person face-to-face, and allows for easier access to the victim, victims can feel as though the
cyberbullying is inescapable, and feel a loss of control on how to manage it (Couvillon & Ilieva
2011; Perren et al., 2012). Being that cyberbullying occurs more frequently outside of school, it
poses questions as to who is responsible to intervene (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). The school
role is therefore complex, because there are legal, ethical, and practical issues regarding whether
they can and should intervene when an incident occurs outside of school. Additionally, due to
free speech rights, it is difficult to take down content from the internet, creating a permanency
that does not exist with traditional bullying (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Notar et al., 2013).
This aspect will be discussed further in the policy section below.
Wide Audience
While traditional bullying usually occurs in front of a limited amount of people,
cyberbullying often can reach a large audience within an instant (Berne et al., 2013; Couvillon &
Ilieva, 2011; Hutson et al., 2018; Kiriakidis & Kavoura 2010), which sometimes can lead to
feelings of limited escape (Perren et al., 2012). Additionally, the more people acknowledge the
bullying, the higher the severity of the consequences for the victim (Smith & Slonje, 2010).
Sticca and Perren (2013) studied the medium, publicity, and anonymity factors in bullying and
cyberbullying incidents. The authors concluded that public bullying was perceived as much
worse than private bullying (Sticca & Perren, 2013). In a cyberbullying incident, the publicity of
the act means that information spreads very quickly to many witnesses, increasing potential for
harm. Additionally, they found that due to the public audience, there is a perceived lack of
control, not knowing who will have access to the information. Lack of control over negative
events are associated with feelings of helplessness, which in turn is associated with feelings of
depression (Sticca & Perren, 2013). Since cyberbullying has the potential to reach wide and large
audiences, it may create more severe psychological harm to the victims (Sticca & Perren, 2013).
Being that cyberbullying incidents often reach a large audience creates another level of
complexity for schools and their role, as it affects how they intervene regarding education about
the impact of bullying and digital citizenship.
The characteristics outlined above (parent involvement, anonymity, location, and wide
audience) are factors that complicate the school role in cyberbullying intervention. Each one
presents its own complexities and questions as to when and how school personnel should and can
intervene in cyberbullying, which may in turn, affect how school personnel conceptualize their
role. Therefore, in the next section, I will review literature on conceptualization of school
personnel on their role in cyberbullying intervention.
School Personnel Perspectives on Role in Addressing Cyberbullying
Stauffer et al. (2012) examined 66 high school teachers’ perceptions regarding the effect
of cyberbullying on students, which intervening strategies teachers would use when dealing with
cyberbullying, and which prevention strategies would assist in preventing cyberbullying. All
participants in the study completed a questionnaire regarding conceptualization of their role in

prevention and intervention. Results indicated that majority of teachers (58%) were either unsure
or against implementing a formal cyberbullying prevention program in school. There was a lack
of buy-in possibly due to the lack of understanding the impact of cyberbullying, the severity of
the issue, or lack of responsibility to intervene (Stauffer et al., 2012). The teachers reported being
less likely to intervene when the cyberbullying occurs outside of school compared to when
cyberbullying occurs in school. Additionally, when given an open-ended prompt regarding what
they think are effective intervention strategies, 7.5% of the teachers indicated that an increase in
parental involvement would be effective in reducing cyberbullying, 22% said to limit access to
electronics, and 30% provided a response about educating students (Stauffer et al., 2012). This
study sheds light into some of the factors that contribute to conceptualization of school role, as
well as perceptions of core components to intervention. The current study will include school
personnel such as administrators, school psychologists, and social workers perspectives of their
role in addressing cyberbullying, as there is limited research in that area.
Desmet et al. (2015) analyzed surveys of 451 school educators (middle and high schools).
They assessed school educator practices, their perceptions, and context factors for cyberbullying.
Four clusters of educator responses and perceptions to cyberbullying were identified. Cluster one
consisted of “referrers” (65%) mostly giving supportive advice and referring students to proper
resources to deal with cyberbullying. Cluster two included respondents who were “disengaged”
(14%). This cluster was comprised mostly of teachers who did not perceive cyberbullying as a
problem and did not view it as their responsibility to intervene. Additionally, the educators’ self-
efficacy in handling cyberbullying in these clusters was low. These two clusters include 91% of
the teachers who were surveyed. Cluster three and four were the “concerned educators” (12%)
and the “use all means educators” (9%) who were mostly in administrative positions and were
more equipped to handle cyberbullying, viewed it as problematic, and their responsibility to
intervene. Although their self-efficacy was greater in handling cyberbullying, some of their
approaches included non-recommended practices (DeSmet et al., 2015). One implication from
this study is that teachers or counselors with administrative responsibilities were better trained to
handle bullying and cyberbullying than regular teachers (DeSmet et al., 2015). These schools had
more firm school policy, which provides groundwork for intervention (DeSmet et al., 2015).
Vandebosch et al. (2014) conducted a study in which they sent an online survey to staff
members of 309 primary and secondary schools in Flanders, Belgium. One staff member from
each of the 309 schools responded to the survey. In most cases (72.2%), the standardized
questionnaire was completed by the school principal. Other respondents included teachers
(10%), IT coordinators (4.9%), psychosocial personnel (8.7%), and other (4.2%) staff members.
The questionnaire measured the schools’ experiences with cyberbullying and their perceived
responsibility and efficacy in dealing with this issue as well as their concrete actions taken to
prevent and intervene with cyberbullying. The results indicated that, although most schools are
aware of relatively few cases of cyberbullying, 55% of respondents consider cyberbullying to be
a problem in their school. Most of the respondents (92%) considered it the school’s duty to
inform students about cyberbullying and to help find solutions to cyberbullying incidents
involving students, even if they take place off-school ground or outside of school hours.
Additionally, although majority of schools had action plans for how to prevent and intervene
with cyberbullying, 25% reported not knowing the most effective way to intervene and were
looking to know more about evidence-based intervention programs (Vandebosch et al., 2014).
Further, Macaulay et al. (2018) conducted a review of articles that included 20 studies on
teachers’ perceptions on cyberbullying. Some of the themes gleaned from these studies were that
although teachers recognized cyberbullying as a problem in school, their perspectives on
effective prevention strategies were inconsistent. The teachers were also not confident in their
ability to identify and manage cyberbullying incidents. In addition, teachers expressed a desire
for additional training on cyberbullying, to increase their awareness and knowledge to manage
cyberbullying. Implications of this review suggest that schools should ensure that their training
and guidelines on cyberbullying o"er consistent recommendations on the appropriate
management of the issue in the school environment (Macaulay et al., 2018).
Many of the studies conducted on perspective of school role examined teacher
perceptions and not administrator perspectives. In the DeSmet et al. (2015) article, the authors
included both, however, most of the respondents ended up being teachers. Since administrators
are responsible for setting the standards in their schools and providing training to all the staff
members, including teachers, it is important to further study their conceptualization of their role
in creating policy, and implementation of interventions. Therefore, the goal of the current study
is to explore school personnel’s conceptualization of their role and function in prevention and
intervention of cyberbullying.
One such qualitative study that explored administrators' perspectives strengthens the
argument that they perceive their role in cyberbullying intervention as unclear. Young, Tully,
and Ramirez (2017) conducted in-depth interviews with school administrators in Iowa about
bullying. There were three main themes that emerged regarding cyberbullying. The first theme is
that principals felt that cyberbullying is one of their biggest challenges. The second theme is the
facilitators and barriers to preventive action. Administrators expressed that technology use is a
barrier, especially certain features of social media. Additionally, their perception of parents' lack
of awareness with their children's online behavior, and even their encouragement sometimes of
initiating online aggression served as a barrier. The third theme that emerged was their
prevention efforts, in that they felt a lack of clarity as to their role in intervening for incidents
that occur outside of school. One parent stated “if you don’t address those night issues, then you
get knocked for not addressing them. If you do address them, you get hauled into court because it
happened at night and that is not your jurisdiction” (Young et al., 2017, p. 479). Further, the
administrators stated their prevention efforts included limiting technology in school, educating
students about cyberbullying and digital citizenship, and utilizing technology to report
cyberbullying incidents as well as track student behaviors (Young et al., 2017).
Administrators were aware of the state law to intervene if the incident impeded learning,
but how to determine whether this line was crossed was a confusing gray area (Young et al.,
2017). Knowing how to intervene with incidents that occur outside of school, which is most
cyberbullying, was their biggest challenge in the bullying realm. Additionally, administrators felt
that legislators and parents place all the responsibility on the school which seemed unreasonable,
whereas they felt the need for collaboration and a multi-system approach, which would include
educating parents and including them in prevention efforts (Young et al., 2017). One of the
purposes of the study is to further explore this topic through specifically surveying school
personnel and gather data as to how they perceive their role, and their familiarity and
implementation of policy and intervention.
School Policy
An incident that illustrates the complexity of the school role in intervention of a
cyberbullying incident off-school grounds occurred in 2011 (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Alex
Boston, from Georgia, was the victim of a cyberbullying incident which occurred through
Facebook, when her classmates created a phony Facebook page under her name and derided her
through pictures and statements. When the family approached the school to intervene, the school
administrators stated that since the cyberbullying occurred off-school grounds, they could not
take steps to intervene. This incident led to a dispute about the school role. On the one hand,
school administrators felt that they cannot be responsible for their students’ behavior outside of
school. On the other hand, school administrators felt that not taking responsibility to intervene
can give a message to students and their parents that cyberbullying behavior will be tolerated by
the school. Additionally, if the school does not intervene, the victim may feel unsafe in school
Since the time of this incident, laws have been mandating that schools must be
responsible to intervene in cyberbullying incidents that occur off-ground when the harassment,
intimidation, or bullying substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the
school or the rights of other students (Campbell & Bauman, 2018; Hinduja and Patchin, 2019).
Forty-eight states include cyberbullying or electronic harassment in their state bullying laws.
However, there are only 17 states that must take responsibility to intervene when the
cyberbullying occurs off ground and disrupts the school environment or rights of other student(s)
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2019). The states of New Jersey and New York are included in the 17 states,
which is important because this study will be collecting data from school personnel who work in
these states.
Opponents of the law expressed concern because the law criminalizes speech that occurs
off campus; therefore, it infringes on the students’ First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech
(Nash, 2012). Overall, U.S. courts are oriented toward supporting First Amendment rights of free
expression of students. Certain expressions, however, are not protected and allow intervention
and discipline, including those that: substantially or materially disrupts learning; interfere with
the educational process or school discipline; utilize school-owned technology to harass; or
threaten other students or infringe on their civil rights (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015).
Even though many school personnel are hesitant to become involved in cases of
cyberbullying that occur off-campus, they have a responsibility to stop anything that has the
potential to deny a student a safe learning experience (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). Therefore, it is
important that schools implement effective school policies. Vandebosch et al. (2014) conducted a
study about whose role it is to create school policies. In most schools, the principal is responsible
for developing a policy against cyberbullying (71%) and traditional bullying (4/5 of all schools),
often supported by other members of the school team, including school psychologists, teachers,
and (specifically for cyberbullying) those responsible for information technology. Nevertheless,
only 18.4% of the schools reported having anti-cyberbullying policies that had been formalized
in written documents (Vandebosch et al., 2014). The research implicates a possible gap in school
implementation of policy. There are no known current studies that assess school personnel
knowledge of cyberbullying policies and responsibilities of implementing the policies within the
school. Therefore, one of the goals of the study is to explore school personnel knowledge of
policies and steps taken to implement the policies in order to guide us in how to combat the issue
more effectively in schools.
Prevention and Intervention of Cyberbullying in Schools
In this section, I will review the critical components of cyberbullying prevention and
intervention, followed by literature on a few examples of existing evidence-based interventions.
By delving into the literature on prevention and intervention programs, I will establish the
prevention efforts that exist, what is evidence-based and shown to be effective. Then, through
my study, I will explore school personnel knowledge and implementation of prevention
programs.
Core Components of Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention
Although cyberbullying research is scarce compared to bullying research, there is
literature that reveals core components to effective cyberbullying prevention in schools, some of
which are modeled after traditional bullying prevention methods (Hutson et al., 2018). The
critical components include whole school and multisystemic approaches, implementation of
policies, education on digital citizenship, inclusion of peer leaders, fostering a positive school
climate, and sustainability of programs (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Hutson et al., 2018; Perren et
al., 2012). Each core component is outlined below.
Whole-School Approach. The first core component to cyberbullying prevention and
intervention is having a whole-school approach. This core component for cyberbullying
prevention is modeled after traditional bullying programs with high efficacy (Cioppa et al.,
2015). Whole-school approaches engage all stakeholders in prevention such as school
administration, teachers, parents, community leaders, law enforcement, and healthcare
professionals (Hinduja & Patchin, 2019; Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Since cyberbullying is a
systemic problem, interventions target wider systemic factors such as the family and the
neighborhood (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Engaging all stakeholders facilitates changes in beliefs
and behaviors toward greater support, trust, and cohesion (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010).
Additionally, maintaining a whole-school approach requires targeting multiple systems,
at the individual, group, and classroom levels (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Bronfrenbrenner
(1995)’s systemic socioecological approach is important to consider within this context of
cyberbullying, as there are many factors that influence students’ vulnerability to cyberbullying at
multiple levels. The systemic ecological framework was extended as per Johnson (2010) to
include online environments in students’ social ecology, which interact with other levels such as
their family, school, and community to influence their development.
Mason (2008) wrote about the various systemic levels required for prevention and
intervention. On a community level, leaders can be involved in developing prevention and
intervention methods and disseminating the information (Mason, 2008). On a classroom level,
leaders need to implement anti-bullying programs, teach about conflict management, digital
citizenship, safety, as well as empathy training (Mason, 2008). Then, on an individual level, the
leaders need to be able to intervene properly after a cyberbullying incident occurs (Mason,
2008). Additionally, providing education in social skills to all students and especially to those
involved in cyberbullying behaviors is an important intervention at the individual level
(Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). The content of this education could focus on cooperation,
decision making, problem solving, compromise, asking for help, participating in the group, and
anger management (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). On a greater system-wide level, it will be
important to closely monitor specific policies and guidelines, as research evolves and develops
(Mason, 2008). On a teacher and administrator level, Sharrif (2008) stressed the importance of
informative professional development among teachers and administrators. School personnel
often have limited experiences with different forms of digital communication and need sustained
professional development opportunities (Sharrif, 2008). In Hutson et al.’s (2018) review of
cyberbullying prevention programs, less than half of the programs studied had included
education for parents, but the ones that did were more effective in preventing cyberbullying.
Since it is clear from the research that parent involvement is critical in working with the school
to collaborate in this issue, part of the current study will be to gather information from school
administrators on their components of cyberbullying intervention.
Digital Citizenship Training. Another core component is digital citizenship training,
which includes teaching students how to appropriately use the internet and the dangers of
misusing it (Mason, 2008). Schools should teach and model practices of digital citizenship and
appropriate social behavior, emphasizing that they are even more important when one engages in
electronic communication in anonymity (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Mason, 2008). Not only is it
important to teach digital citizenship to students, but a review of the literature revealed that
providing an education to parents about digital citizenship and how to monitor their children's
use of technology and the internet, led to interventions being most successful (Hutson et al.,
2018). The most effective prevention for cyberbullying is when parents and schools are on the
same page regarding digital use, monitoring, and policy implementation (Kiriakidis & Kavoura,
2010; Notar et al., 2013). Parental involvement in their children's access and usage to
technology, and adherence to cyberbullying policies are critical components in preventing
cyberbullying. Furthermore, schools should provide training activities for school personnel,
educating them on the digital life of teens, promoting awareness and enforcement of procedures
and responses, and teaching them how to model the rules (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011).
Furthermore, included in digital citizenship for students is to provide education on
cyberbullying and engage students in discussions regarding cyberbullying, as well as
encouraging incident reporting (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Consequences from and effects of
cyberbullying should be clearly communicated as no one is immune to becoming a target (Bhat,
2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Shariff, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). The issue should not be
covered in secrecy or set aside for when the need to address it (i.e., a specific cyberbullying
event) occurs (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Understanding that cyberbullying is hurtful and
unethical in multiple ways will play a role in cutting down the negative effects of possible
cyberbullying (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Understanding which messages, even those that
concern others, are attempts for cyberbullying, and that not taking part in spreading these
messages further is an appropriate step, should also be part of the prevention plan (Couvillon &
Ilieva, 2011). In conclusion, since youth are not confined to using technology outside of school,
it is crucial that prevention efforts focus on teaching digital citizenship so that they can target the
issue at the root (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Hutson et al, 2018; Mason,
2008).
Policies. An important component to effective prevention is establishing policies within
schools that are enforced. By having policies in place, expectations are clearly communicated to
students and parents regarding cyberbullying interventions (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010).
Included in this, is to communicate the school’s definition of cyberbullying and what it entails
(Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Additionally, establishing and enforcing strict school/district
policies, such as limiting phone usage in school or limited internet access in school are important
components to prevention (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Additionally, Kiriakidis and Kavoura
(2010) recommend school phone policies be enforced with consistent consequences.
Promoting School Values. Couvillon and Illieva (2011) emphasized the importance in
promoting school values such as acceptance, respect and decency among students and staff, as a
critical component for prevention. Also, it is important to look for ways to enhance the students’
positive association and sense of belonging in school (Snakenborg et al., 2011). Hinduja and
Patchin (2019) found that students who experienced cyberbullying (both those who were targets
and those who admitted to cyberbullying others) perceived a poorer climate at their school than
those who had not experienced cyberbullying. Youth were asked whether they enjoy going to
school, feel safe at school, feel that teachers at their school really try to help them succeed, and
feel that teachers at their school care about them. Those who cyberbullied others or who were the
target of cyberbullying were less likely to agree with those statements. Creating a school climate
that is marked by shared feelings of connectedness, belongingness, peer respect, morale, safety,
and school spirit are factors in helping students feel safe. In schools with healthy climates,
students know what is appropriate and what is not (Hinduja & Patchin, 2019). Furthermore,
programs that included peer leaders as a crucial role in implementation had more significant
outcomes (Hutson et al., 2018; Perren et al., 2012). Student leadership is an integral part of the
prevention program because when students serve as mentors for their peers and share firsthand
experiences, they are acting as role models for positive behavior (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011).
Due to the anonymity aspect of cyberbullying, there is often less empathy and remorse
when perpetrating a victim, because one does not see the immediate effect on the victim
(Kowalski et al., 2014; Sourander et al., 2010). Therefore, teaching skills on how to build
empathy and perspective taking are important components to cyberbullying prevention (Hutson
et al., 2018). Understanding the various core components and steps for cyberbullying prevention
allows for schools to take recommendations to develop their own prevention efforts. Being that
the literature on the conceptualization of school role revealed that staff members often feel
uncertain about their role in intervention, the goal of the study is to explore their level of
knowledge and their efforts in implementing the recommended strategies in cyberbullying
prevention.
Cyberbullying Programs
Although cyberbullying research is relatively new, there are some prevention and
intervention programs that have been developed over time. Interestingly, of 72 articles sampled
between 2006 and 2013 about cyberbullying, most were on the nature and dynamics of
cyberbullying, but none were about prevention and intervention (Campbell & Bauman, 2018).
However, over time, there have been evidence-based prevention programs developed throughout
the world. Researchers fail to operate under a common definition and there is also limited
evidence-based criteria for developing an intervention (Cioppa et al., 2015). Although it is
limited, there are several programs that have been successful in prevention. Some of the
programs are adapted from traditional bullying prevention programs, and some have been
developed specifically for cyberbullying prevention. In this section of the literature review, I will
review some of the programs that have been developed in order to identify the prevention
programs that are available for schools to utilize. The programs I chose to review have strong
evidence. There are more programs that exist as well. This relates to the dissertation study, as it
explores school personnel knowledge and implementation of prevention programs.
Tanrikulu (2018) stated that cyberbullying has a unique relation to negative outcomes
even after controlling for traditional bullying victimization. Therefore, programs should target
the cyberbullying construct on its own, and that schools should not think that using an existing
anti-bullying program will target the issue (Tanrikulu, 2018). Furthermore, programs targeting
cyberbullying need to consider anonymity, social dissemination, lack of supervision and
increased accessibility (Cioppa et al., 2015). Cyberbullying has different implications than
traditional bullying when it comes to interventions. Consequently, the remainder of the literature
review that is focused on interventions will zone in on specific programs related to cyberbullying
as its own construct. This relates to the current study because I will be gathering information on
school personnel implementation of cyberbullying programs within their schools.
NoTrap! Program. The NoTrap! program is an evidence-based prevention program
developed in Italy (Palladino et al., 2016). It was targeted for students in 7th-10th grade and it
takes an ecological approach. Many of the interventions emphasize the ecological approach
which targets multiple contexts that impact school community (Campbell & Bauman, 2018;
Pozzoli & Gini, 2013; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Although it was first developed to target
cyberbullying only, the second and third editions were revised to target and address the issue of
traditional bullying as well to provide a more wholesome program (Palladino et al., 2016). The
NoTrap! Program includes teacher and staff training, lessons for students and teachers. In each
phase, they emphasize understanding the emotions of victims of cyberbullying. The randomized
control study revealed significant results (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Utilizing this intervention
significantly reduced bullying by 20%, victimization 17% and cyberbullying by 28%. Results
remained stable six months later. They utilized a peer education model, which ended up being a
significant factor in making it effective. This component of peer leadership in interventions is
core to many of the prevention programs (Hutson et al., 2018; Perren et al., 2012), possibly
because it empowers students to make a difference and to positively impact their peers
Media Heroes. Another school-based prevention program is Media Heroes (Schultze-
Krumbholz et al., 2012), which was developed in Germany and then adapted to the United States
and translated to English (Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2018). It is geared to students in grades 7-
10. Similar to the NoTrap! Program, the peer leadership component is crucial since adolescents
often turn to peers for support over adults. They utilize a train-the-trainer model for
implementation. Since empathy is negatively related to cyberbullying perpetration, their
theoretical model is to develop empathy and perspective taking role in cyberbullying, similar to
the program cited above. Additionally, they based the program on social learning theory, CBT,
and theory of planned behavior. Included in the core components are psychoeducation about
cyberbullying, interactive activities such as role plays, discussions, as well as skills training
regarding media literacy media literacy, help and self-help, legal possibilities, moral dilemma
discussions, and student to parent tutoring (students impart their insights on communication
technologies and cyberbullying to their parents). They also give out reflection sheets and
homework assignments. This program targets individual level, classroom level, and family level.
It has been evaluated empirically and results demonstrate that perpetration of cyberbullying
increased over time for the control group, remained the same for the short version of the
intervention, and decreased for the long version. Cyberbullying victimization had no significant
effects, possibly due to people being victimized by non-classmates. However, it is possible that
after the intervention, the victims gained skills on how to cope with these situations. When the
duration of the program increased, there were more significant effects.
Cyberfriendly Schools (CFS). The Cyberfriendly Schools (Cross et al., 2016) program
takes a whole-school approach, which is considered most effective in reducing cyberbullying
(Campbell & Bauman, 2018). It was developed in Australia and involves students, school staff
and parents. They conducted a randomized control trial, and had significant outcomes, with low
effect size, probably due to poor teacher implementation as they struggled with finding time to
implement the program. In the randomized control trial, the percentage of students involved in
cyberbullying victimization and perpetration decreased from Grade 8 to 9 for all participating
schools (Cross et al., 2016). However, the CFS program was associated with small but
significantly greater declines than those in the control schools. This finding extends the limited
literature related to school-based cyberbullying intervention research projects, by demonstrating
the possible longitudinal impact of a whole-school cyberbullying prevention program (Cross et
al., 2016).
ConRed. ConRed is designed to combat the unique factors of cyberbullying through
teaching students, teachers, and parents about appropriate internet usage and how to report
cyberbullying incidents (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2012). The program also focuses on implementing
procedures and policies within schools on how to address cyberbullying, helping teachers create
safe spaces for students, and educating parents on how to monitor their child’s internet use and
access. The intervention is comprised of eight sessions that are conducted over a three-month
period that focus on the importance of privacy and control on shared online content, negative
consequences of failing to establish safety measures, and addressing problems of irresponsible
usage. The researchers facilitate each training session and begin by exploring the students’
preconceived ideas about the issues involved through using a picture, video, news item, or case
description to generate a debate or discussion. Each session ends with an exercise on internet and
social network use which draws together what the students had learned about internet practice.
Additionally, there is a shortened version of the program with teachers and parents to ensure that
all stakeholders are involved in creating change. The concepts are further reinforced through an
awareness-raising campaign where the student body creates posters, bookmarks, and
advertisements that reflect the messages of the program. An experimental study was conducted,
which resulted in significant results regarding reduction in cyberbullying (Ortega-Ruiz et al.,
2012).
Most of the interventions cited above were developed in countries outside the United
States. For example, Media Heroes was developed in Germany and the NoTrap! Program was
developed in Italy (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Countries outside the United States are
developing school-based cyberbullying prevention programs more rapidly than the United States.
There is a gap in the research about the implementation of these interventions in schools in the
United States. Cioppa et al. (2015) states that despite the major concerns about cyberbullying,
there is a large gap in prevention programs that are evidence-based, and therefore more
evaluation and implementation in this area is needed. One of the goals in this study is to explore
school personnel knowledge and implementation of cyberbullying interventions.
Intervening After a Cyberbullying Incident
Cyberbully victims experience psychological effects that impact their school participation
and performance. Students often become distracted, leading to a decline in their academic
performance. Therefore, it is crucial that schools intervene effectively after cyberbullying
incidents (Couvillon & Illieva, 2011). In a study conducted by DeSmet et al. (2015), they found
that despite schools having high problem awareness for cyberbullying, few school educators
acted in response to cyberbullying, and most were unsure how to intervene. Many of the methods
for intervening with cyberbullying have been based on recommended practices for traditional
bullying interventions. Recommended practices include talking with pupils, involving parents,
and consulting with professionals for support. Discipling the bully and ignoring were not
recommended. Victims perceived ignoring the incident and confronting the bully as not helpful.
Family involvement was only perceived as beneficial if the family members react in supportive
ways (DeSmet et al., 2015).

Perren et al. (2012) explored responses to cyberbullying incidents through conducting a
literature review. They cited studies that indicated that as a reaction to cybervictimization, some
students reach out to their parents for help and support, but some students report feeling fearful
of that. Additionally, many students reported that telling a teacher or principal is ineffective.
17% of participants responded that they reported a cyberbullying incident to a teacher, and that
70% of the time, the school did not react (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). Asking for help from peers
was the most utilized approach. The students were most likely to tell a friend (52%) or parent
(42%) (Livingstone et al., 2011).
Similarly, Agatston et al. (2007) conducted a qualitative study of 150 youth between 12
and 17 years who participated in focus groups, reported that most of the students did not perceive
the school personnel as helpful resources for dealing with cyberbullying. This points to the fact
that school administrators should take several steps in trying to reduce or eliminate
cyberbullying. School administrators must ensure that students exist in a safe environment,
promoting their psychological development, and a step in that direction would be the education
of teachers. Based on this research, student perceptions of school responses to cybervictimization
are weak. Therefore, one of the goals of this study is to explore the current responses of the
school administration to explore if they are utilizing effective intervention methods.
Vandebosch et al. (2014) found that only 43% of the schools indicated having a system
for reporting cyberbullying (as compared to 61% for traditional bullying). In more than half of
the schools (57%), cyberbullying incidents were solved with the assistance of teachers or the
principal (e.g., through discussion with perpetrators and/or victims). For traditional bullying, this
type of approach is taken in almost all schools (97%). The lower percentage for cyberbullying
could be because cyberbullying appears to be less prevalent (and less visible to the school staff).
Additionally, it is possible that the school staff feel more equipped to take a proper approach to
traditional bullying than they are to address cyberbullying (Vandebosch et al., 2014).
There are some interventions that were developed such as Best of Coping (Frydenberg &
Brandon, 2002) in helping manage after an incident of cyberbullying. However, there is little
evidence concerning the success of these interventions, and further research is required to study
the outcomes (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Most existing interventions have not been
empirically tested and only a minority has shown positive effects, of at best moderate size (Tfoti
& Farrington, 2011). Additionally, there is a program Stronger than Bullying (Ouellet-Morin &
Robitaille, 2018) that was designed for youth ages 12-16 who are victims of bullying, and they
can reach out for help anonymously through a mobile application (Campbell & Bauman, 2018).
Since technology is used in cyberbullying incidents, it can be effective to utilize it as a way of
helping someone cope with the issues, especially for youth who feel embarrassed or ashamed to
speak up to someone. The app is designed to help victims reduce their experiences and foster
resilience, and it is free of charge, and therefore accessible to many youths. It can also be used by
teachers or health care professionals to facilitate disclosure. Although there is some evidence to
suggest that there is a moderate effect size, the results of the study need to be interpreted with
caution until an experimental study is conducted with randomization, larger sample size, multiple
informants and follow up data. Also, because of the low incidence rates of cyberbullying
reported on the app, it is difficult to indicate the usefulness of the app for specific cyberbullying
cases. Furthermore, the English version of the app is still in design and is therefore difficult for
schools in the U.S. to utilize at this moment in time. However, schools can create a system where
online counseling can be offered anonymously, which has been an effective response for many
cyberbullying victims (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011).

Summary and Research Questions
Research within the field of cyberbullying has identified the importance of the school
role in cyberbullying intervention. Although still a newer phenomenon, cyberbullying research
demonstrates that victims of cyberbullying experience many psychological impacts such as
higher rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and lower self-esteem (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Although cyberbullying is like traditional bullying in many ways (Kowalski et al., 2012;
Modecki et al., 2014), there are some specific barriers in cyberbullying intervention that create
complexity for school role, such as the aspect of anonymity (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010;
Kowalski et. al, 2014), wide audience (Berne et al., 2013; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011), emphasis
on parent role (Elsaesser et al., 2017, Kowalski et al., 2014), and that often cyberbullying occurs
outside of school (Notar et al., 2013). The way in which school personnel view their role and
view these as barriers may impact the way they intervene in cyberbullying incidents, as well as
the emphasis they place on cyberbullying prevention. Furthermore, the research in this field has
identified core components to cyberbullying intervention programs, such as having a whole
school approach targeting multiple systems, digital citizenship training, promoting school values,
and implementing policies. In conclusion, cyberbullying is an urgent concern in society, and
having schools play a role in prevention and intervention will likely bring positive changes to the
school system as well as the individual students, families, and community at large. With these
issues in mind, the current exploratory study was designed to examine the following research
questions:
Research Question 1. To what degree do school staff feel that it is the school's responsibility to
address cyberbullying (prevention and intervention)?

Research Question 2. To what degree do school staff feel they are capable of dealing with
cyberbullying prevention and intervention?
Research Question 3. To what degree do school staff feel that parents and the community are
supportive of cyberbullying prevention and intervention?
Research Question 4. What is the degree of school staff knowledge of school policies and
procedures on cyberbullying?
Research Question 5. Which of the core components of cyberbullying programs are
implemented in the schools?
Research Question 6. What are the barriers to implementing cyberbullying interventions in
schools (anonymity, wide reach, parent role, location, and other)?
Research Question 7. Do respondent demographics such as role in school and years of
experience predict differences in school staff perceived responsibility and their capacity to
address cyberbullying?
Method
This study was exploratory and was designed to collect preliminary data on school
personnel knowledge and implementation of school policies and interventions of cyberbullying
in middle and high schools. A sample of school personnel involved in cyberbullying (i.e.,
principal, vice principal, anti-bullying specialist, school psychologist, social worker, guidance
counselor) was included in this study. Quantitative data was collected from the sample using a
survey approach.
Participants
Study participants included all school administrators and school staff involved in
cyberbullying procedures and interventions in schools. Inclusion criteria consisted of the

following: (1) principals, vice principals, school psychologists, social workers, guidance
counselors, and anti-bullying specialists, (2) currently employed in an elementary, middle, or
high school, 1st-12th grade, (3) in New Jersey or New York. Exclusion criteria consisted of the
following: (1) general education and special education teachers, (2) and staff employed outside
of New York and New Jersey. Much of the prior research in this area surveyed teachers within
the school, but there is not as much research regarding administrators and other school personnel.
Therefore, this study excluded teachers.
Demographics
The sample was comprised of 57 participants (N = 57). The sample was 68% female and
32% male. Thirty-eight percent of respondents were employed in public schools and 62% in
private schools. Participants had a mean age of 41 years old, (SD = 10.29; Range = 25 – 66).
Thirty-two percent of respondents were doctorate level psychologists, 14% masters level school
psychologists, and 29% other support staff (i.e., social workers, anti-bullying specialists,
guidance counselors and other). Twenty-five percent of the sample were principals in schools.
Fifty-two percent were employed in New Jersey and 48% in New. York. Almost one half of the
sample (48%) had 1-5 years employed in their current position. The school level in which
respondents were employed varied, with 42% in elementary, 23% in middle, and 35% in high
school. Table 1 summarizes the demographic information for school staff who completed the
survey. An apriori power analysis was conducted using GPower Version 3.1, which determined
that 77 participants were a sufficient sample size to detect medium effects in a multiple
regression with up to three predictor variables. The goal was to recruit 77 participants. However,
the total number of participants was 57 at the end of the study. This was considered a limitation
of the study.
Procedures
Prior to data collection, IRB approval was obtained from The Institutional Review Board
at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Participants accessed the survey via a link to
Qualtrics (Smith et al., 2002), an online web-based survey program. The participants for this
study were selected through opportunity and snowball sampling which is a non-probabilistic
form of sampling where individuals are recruited and used as informants to locate additional
eligible participants (Baltar & Brunet, 2012; Given, 2008;). Snowball sampling secures
participants in a “ripple effect” with one contact leading to multiple contacts which increases the
participant pool (Charmaz, 2000). This technique helps access a greater number of administrators
who were employed in the schools within New Jersey and New York.
An electronic link was sent to N = 20 school personnel who were part of the author’s
personal network. These school personnel were then asked to forward to other school personnel
whom they know, to increase the pool of participants. All recipients were sent a cover letter
describing the purpose of the survey, as well as the link to the online site. The email included the
study rationale, how results would be utilized and review of informed consent, confidentiality,
and instructions for completing the survey. School personnel in the author’s personal network
who received the initial email were sent two follow up emails, at one-week intervals. Both
emails contained a link to the survey and a request to complete the survey. Additionally,
respondents were asked to forward the link via email to other school personnel in their network
who fit the inclusion criteria for the study. The online survey was designed for anonymous
responding, meaning no identifying information was collected and thus respondents cannot be
identified based on their responses.

As an incentive to complete the survey and to increase sample size, the respondents were
given the opportunity to be entered into a drawing for a $25 electronic Amazon gift card if they
chose to provide their email addresses at the end of the survey. Email addresses were not linked
to any survey responses to maintain participants’ anonymity. Responses were kept anonymous
by redirecting survey completers to a second anonymous Qualtrics survey, in which they entered
only their email addresses. Email addresses only indicated that those participants completed the
survey; it was purposefully not possible to link email addresses to specific responses. The gift
card winner was randomly selected using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28 and was sent
electronically to respondents’ email addresses directly through Amazon.
Instrumentation
The survey for the current study is comprised of seven sections, developed by the author.
The survey is designed to gather data regarding school role in cyberbullying intervention,
knowledge of policies and core components of cyberbullying interventions, in addition to
barriers to implementation.
School Role in Cyberbullying
The first section of the survey was intended to gather information from school staff about
their role in cyberbullying intervention, as well as their views on the school’s responsibility to
intervene. The scale consists of seven items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The participants were asked, “How strongly do you agree with
the following statements?” for the first six items in this section. The statements included “It is
the school’s responsibility to address cyberbullying in regard to developing and implementing a
preventative program in school,” “It is the school’s responsibility to address cyberbullying in
regard to intervening after an incident occurs within school,” “It is the school’s responsibility to
address cyberbullying in regard to intervening after an incident occurs outside of school,” “I feel
capable of implementing cyberbullying prevention programs,” and “I feel capable of intervening
after a cyberbullying incident occurs, and I feel that parents and the community are supportive of
cyberbullying prevention and intervention in the school.” The seventh question is “What
percentage of all cyberbullying incidents taking place for students (in or outside school) do you
intervene (through discipline, counseling, notifying parents etc.)?” Participants were asked to
select one of five response options ranging from 0% to 100%.
Knowledge of Policy
The second section of the survey consisted of one item and is intended to gather
information on school personnel’s knowledge of cyberbullying policies in their schools. The
item was “what is your degree of knowledge about school policies and procedures regarding
cyberbullying?” The response options included “I have no knowledge of this, I know there is a
policy against it but I don’t know the details, I am fully aware of the details of the policies and
procedures, and I am fully aware of the details of the policies and procedures and have
implemented them.”
Core Components of Cyberbullying Interventions
The third section of the survey consisted of one item and is intended to gather
information regarding implementation of the core components of cyberbullying programs. The
item was “Which of the following core components of effective prevention and intervention
programs does your school implement?” Following this question is a list of each of the core
components described in the literature review. For each core component, respondents will choose
from one of the following response options: I have not heard of this, I have heard of my school
implementing this, but I do not know the details, I have heard of my school implementing this
and I know the details, I have heard of this, I know the details, and am involved in
implementation.
Existing Cyberbullying Programs
The fourth section of the survey included two items developed by the author to gather
data on implementation of specific cyberbullying programs. The first item is “Please answer if
your school has implemented the following cyberbullying programs” and is then followed by a
list of eight existing evidence-based programs. Response options include Yes or No. The second
item in this section was “Does your school implement a cyberbullying program not listed
above?” If the respondents answer yes, they will be prompted to write which program.
Barriers in Cyberbullying Intervention
The fifth section of the survey was intended to gather data on school personnel views of
barriers that interfere with involving themselves in cyberbullying prevention, in addition to
intervening when a cyberbullying incident occurs. This section was developed by the author and
consists of four Likert-type items to assess the degree in which school personnel view specific
factors as barriers to cyberbullying interventions. There are five items in this section. The first
four items list each barrier: anonymity, wide reach, parent role, and location, with a brief
description for each one. For each barrier listed, school personnel chose from one of four
response options on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not a Barrier) to 4 (Extreme Barrier).
Item five asks “Do you experience other barriers that are unique to cyberbullying intervention?”
Respondents were given the option to click yes or no. If they clicked yes, they were prompted
with an open-ended response to type in the barrier, and then provided the rating of the barrier on
a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not a Barrier) to 4 (Extreme Barrier).

Additional Training
The sixth part of the survey consisted of two items, “what additional training and/or
support is needed for school staff to be effective in dealing with cyberbullying?” This item was
an open-ended response. The second item was “How much, if at all, has incidents of
cyberbullying in your school changed since the onset of the covid-19 pandemic?” This item
consisted of response options on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (It has decreased) to 4
(Increased a lot).
School Personnel Demographics
The seventh section of the survey consisted of six demographic questions which were
included at the end of the survey, and included age, gender, role in school, years of experience,
school level, and location of school.
Data Analysis
Analysis for Research Questions 1-6
Descriptive statistics were performed on sections one through four on the survey to
examine school personnel views on the school role in cyberbullying intervention, knowledge of
school policies and procedures regarding cyberbullying intervention, gather data on
implementation of core components to effective cyberbullying programs, and gather data on
barriers related to cyberbullying prevention and intervention.
Analysis for Research Question 7
Multiple regression analyses examined whether demographic variables predict differences in
school staff responsibility and capabilities in cyberbullying intervention. Predictor variables
included role in school (i.e., school psychologist, social worker, guidance counselor, anti-
bullying specialist, vice principal, principal) and years of experience. The criterion variables
were school staff responsibility and school staff capabilities to address cyberbullying. These
variables are continuous due to computing the mean of the items from the respective scales.
Missing Values Analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28. The number of survey
responses initially recorded in Qualtrics was 62. A missing value analysis revealed that missing
data ranged from 0% to 5.6% depending on the variable. There were three incomplete entries,
defined as entries for which no response was provided past consent to take part in the study.
Listwise whole case deletion was conducted prior to conducting analysis to avoid any
misinterpretations that missing data may have caused. A missing value analysis was once again
conducted and an additional two entries were excluded, due to missing data. Following the
deletion of all unusable cases, the final sample size was 57. Little’s MCAR test was conducted,
and results were not significant (p = 0.73) (Little, 1998). This suggests data were likely missing
at random. Data were then screened for outlier values and invalid scores, with no outliers, or
invalid scores found within the dataset.
Results
Perceptions on School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying
Participants were asked to rate their perceptions of their role regarding school
responsibility to prevent and intervene with cyberbullying incidents (see Table 2). Most of the
respondents (n = 54) agreed that it is the school’s responsibility to develop and implement a
preventative cyberbullying program. Eighty six percent of respondents strongly agreed (n = 49),
and 14% agreed (n = 8) that it is the school’s responsibility to intervene after a cyberbullying
incident occurred. However, fewer participants agreed 66% (n = 38) that schools should
intervene for an incident that occurs outside of school.

Perceptions of School Responsibility for Cyberbullying

Prevention and Intervention
100
86
90
80
70
Percentage
60
46 49 47
50
40
30 19
20 14 14 18
10 4 2 2
0 0 0 0
0
It is the school’s It is the school’s It is the school’s
responsibility to address responsibility to address responsibility to address
cyberbullying in regard to cyberbullying in regard to cyberbullying in regard to
developing and intervening after an incident intervening after an incident
implementing a occurs within the school occurs outside of the
preventative program in school
school
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 1. Results illustrate the percentage of respondents’ perspectives on school responsibility in cyberbullying
prevention and intervention
Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying
Participants were asked two questions regarding their capacity to address cyberbullying
(see Table 3). Sixty-four percent of respondents agreed (n = 36), 21% neither agreed nor
disagreed (n = 12), while 16% disagreed (n = 9) that they felt capable of implementing a
cyberbullying prevention program in their school. A greater number of participants agreed with
the second statement regarding their capacity to intervene after a cyberbullying incident occurs.
Eighty-seven percent (n = 49), 11% neither agreed nor disagreed (n = 6), and 3% disagreed (n =
1) that they felt capable for intervening after a cyberbullying incident occurs.
Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying

100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
60
50
50
40
27
30
21
20 14 14
10
10 2 3
0
0
I feel capable in implementing cyberbullying I feel capable of intervening after a
prevention programs cyberbullying incident occurs
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Figure 2. Percentage of participants’ reporting their capacity to address cyberbullying.
Parent Involvement in Cyberbullying
Participants were asked to rate how strongly they agree with the statement of “I feel that
parents and the community are supportive of cyberbullying prevention and intervention in the
school.” Most respondents (77%) agreed (n = 43) that parents and the community are supportive
of schools implementing cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs. However, 19%
neither agreed nor disagreed (n = 11) and 4% disagreed (n = 2) that parents and the community
are supportive of schools implementing cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs.
School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying
Participants rated their degree of knowledge of school policies and procedures regarding
cyberbullying. Five percent of respondents (n = 3) reported “I have no knowledge of this”
(cyberbullying school policies and procedures), 40% reported (n = 23) “I know there is a policy
against it but I don’t know the details,” 19% (n = 11) reported “I am fully aware of the details of
the policies and procedures” and 35% (n = 20) reported “I am fully aware of the policies and
procedures and have implemented them.”
Core Components of Cyberbullying Intervention
Participants rated their knowledge and implementation of core cyberbullying prevention
and intervention strategies. The author rephrased the response options for better clarity in writing
(“I have not heard of this”= no knowledge, “I have heard of my school implementing this but I
do not know the details”= slight knowledge, “I have heard of my school implementing this and I
know the details”= moderate knowledge, and “I have heard of this, I know the details and am
involved in implementation”= strong knowledge and implementation). A greater percentage of
respondents (42%) reported strong knowledge and implementation of classroom-based curricula
or programs, as well as promoting of school values such as acceptance and respect (54%), while
fewer respondents were involved in implementing use of peer leaders (4%) and community
leaders (5%), in addition to other stakeholders (i.e., law enforcement, health care professionals).
Thirty percent of respondents reported strong knowledge and implementation in staff
training/professional development, 28% reported moderate knowledge in staff
training/professional development, 32% reported slight knowledge, and 11% (n = 6) reported no
knowledge of staff training/professional development regarding cyberbullying. Nine percent of
respondents reported no knowledge on establishing and enforcing policies about cyberbullying
as a core component, while 42% of respondents reported strong knowledge and implementation.
A greater percentage of respondents reported strong knowledge and implementation of
digital citizenship education than no knowledge of it. Although some respondents reported
strong knowledge and implementation (39% digital citizenship education for students, 33%
digital citizenship education for parents), 20% of respondents reported no knowledge about
digital citizenship training for students and 32% responded no knowledge about digital
citizenship for parents. Forty percent of respondents reported strong knowledge and
implementation on limited phone use and internet access as a component to cyberbullying
prevention.
Barriers of Cyberbullying Intervention
Participants rated perceived barriers to intervening in response to cyberbullying (see
Table 4). Forty-seven percent of respondents reported that anonymity is a barrier to intervening
around cyberbullying in schools (13% endorsed “extreme barrier”, 34% endorsed “moderate
barrier”). While 29% of respondents endorsed that wide reach was an “extreme barrier,” 18%
endorsed this as “not a barrier.” Wide reach as a barrier is referring to the fact that cyberbullying
incidents can reach a much wider audience than traditional bullying.
Only 4% of respondents endorsed that parents are “not a barrier” to intervening in
cyberbullying in schools, while majority of respondents reported that the role of parents is a
barrier (23% endorsed “extreme barrier,” 43% endorsed “moderate barrier,” 30% endorsed
“somewhat of a barrier.”) Lastly, location was rated as the most difficult barrier, as 36% of
respondents endorsed “extreme barrier.”
Twenty percent (n = 11) of respondents answered “yes” to experiencing other barriers to
intervening in response to cyberbullying incidents and provided open-ended responses.
Responses were categorized into patterns, which included school personnel limited knowledge,
students limited understanding of cyberbullying and its consequences, tampering of
screenshots/avoiding detection, physical resources such as money and time, and parents fear of
problem getting worse if the school intervenes.

Barriers to Cyberbullying Interventions in Schools

60
50
43
41
40
36
34
32
29 29 30
30
25
22 23
20
20 18
13
10
4 4
0
Anonymity Wide Reach Parent Role Location
Not a Barrier Somewhat of a Barrier Moderate Barrier Extreme Barrier
Figure 3. Percentage of participants’ response rate to barriers of cyberbullying interventions.
Do Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Difference in capability and
responsibility?
Multiple regressions explored whether respondent demographics predict differences in
school staff responsibility or capacity to address cyberbullying. Four multiple regression
analyses were conducted to assess these relationships (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). In
the first multiple regression analysis, the independent variable was role in school (i.e., school
psychologist and other school personnel) and the dependent variable was the mean ratings of
school staff responsibility in cyberbullying interventions. In the second analysis, years of
experience was the predictor (i.e., 1-5 years and 6+ years), and the dependent variable was the
mean ratings of school staff responsibility in intervening in cyberbullying interventions. In the
third analysis, the independent variable was role in school (i.e., school psychologist and other
school personnel) and the dependent variable was the mean ratings of school staff capacity to
address cyberbullying. In the fourth analysis, years of experience was the predictor (i.e., 1-5
years and 6+ years), and the dependent variable was the mean ratings of school staff capacity to
address cyberbullying.
Role in schools was a categorical variable and was re-coded into a dichotomous variable
before regression analyses were conducted. School psychologists was used as the constant.
Therefore, all respondents in the study were comparisons between school psychologists and all
other staff personnel (i.e., principals, social workers, guidance counselors). Years of experience
was a categorical variable and was re-coded into a dichotomous variable before regression
analyses were conducted. Respondents with years of experience ranging from one to five years
were used as the constant, compared to all other respondents (6+ years of experience). The
dependent variables of school staff responsibility and school staff capacity to address
cyberbullying were continuous variables, due to computing the mean of the ratings from the
items in the scale.
Regression analyses indicated years of experience was not a significant predictor for the
school personnel responsibility to address cyberbullying. However, role in school was a
significant predictor for school personnel responsibility to address cyberbullying (adj. R2 =
0.055; F(1,55) = 4.27; p = .043), accounting for 5.5% of the unique variance measured by the
semi-partial r squared (see Table 5). In the third and fourth multiple regression analyses, role in
school and years of experience were not a significant predictor for capacity to address
cyberbullying intervention. Table 6 includes the results on the capacity to address cyberbullying
intervention.
Discussion
Research highlights the negative impact cyberbullying has on children and adolescent
emotional well-being. Schools play an important role in cyberbullying prevention and
intervention. Currently, there is limited knowledge regarding the role of principals and other
school personnel (i.e., school psychologists, guidance counselors, social workers) in
cyberbullying. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine school staff role in
cyberbullying policies, prevention, and intervention to help bridge the gap in the literature. The
study also examined the barriers to cyberbullying intervention and the respondents’ knowledge
on core components of cyberbullying prevention programs.
School Responsibility and Capacity in Cyberbullying Intervention
Results from the present study indicated that 95% of respondents agreed that it is the
school’s responsibility to develop and implement cyberbullying prevention and intervention
programs. Similarly, 100% of the respondents agreed that their role included intervening after a
cyberbullying incident occurs in school. However, when asked about their role in intervening
when a cyberbullying incident occurs outside of school, almost one half of the respondents did
not agree that it is the school’s responsibility to intervene in these cases.
These results diverge from some research which highlights a smaller percentage of school
staff perceiving it as their responsibility to implement cyberbullying programs. For example, in a
study conducted by Stauffer et al. (2012), 58% of teachers reported being unsure or against
implementing a prevention program in school. This may be due to the difference in population as
Stauffer et al. studied teachers’ perceptions and the current study examined principals and other
administrators. However, there are points of similarities between the study by Stauffer et al. to
the present study in that teachers reported being less likely to intervene when cyberbullying
occurred outside of school (Stauffer et al., 2012). The range of responses in the current study
regarding school’s role to intervene in incidents that occur outside of school is important to note
because schools have a responsibility to stop anything that has the potential to deny a student a
safe learning experience (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015).
In the current study, although 95% of respondents agreed that it is the school’s
responsibility to develop and implement cyberbullying programs, 64% of respondents agreed
that they felt capable of implementing a cyberbullying prevention program and 77% agreed that
they felt capable of intervening after an incident occurs. These findings indicate that although
majority of respondents (95%) believe that it is the school’s responsibility, not all of them felt
capable of preventing and intervening with cyberbullying. Similarly, in a study conducted by
Vandebosch et al. (2014), most of the respondents (92%) considered it the school’s duty to
inform students about cyberbullying and to help find solutions to cyberbullying incidents
involving students. Additionally, although majority of schools had action plans for how to
prevent and intervene with cyberbullying, 25% of respondents reported not knowing the most
effective way to intervene and were looking to know more about evidence-based intervention
programs (Vandebosch et al., 2014). Although the respondents in the study by Vandebosch et al.
valued implementing prevention programs, they did not all feel capable in implementation,
which is like the present study.
School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying
In the current study, 54% of respondents reported being fully aware of the details of the
policies, 40% reported not knowing the details of the policy, and 5% had no knowledge of a
policy regarding cyberbullying. Typically, school principals, guidance counselors, social workers
and school psychologists are responsible for developing policies regarding bullying and
cyberbullying (Vandebosch et al., 2014). Being that the current study examined this specific
population, the results indicate that there is a lack of awareness regarding details of the policy
and implementation of it. When searching for patterns on specific roles and their degree of
knowledge regarding policies, the results in the current study varied. Some principals reported
being fully aware and implementing policies, while some reported not knowing the details. There
were similar findings for school psychologists and social workers. In a study by Vandebosch et
al. (2014), only 18.4% of schools reported having anti-cyberbullying policies that had been
formalized in written documents which highlights a gap in cyberbullying policies being instituted
within schools (Vandebosch et al., 2014). Prior research on bullying found that antibullying
policies reduce the likelihood that bullying will be ignored and increase the chances that
educators who observe an incident will intervene (Bauman et al., 2008). Additionally, educators
in schools with antibullying policies in place are more likely to feel confident addressing
bullying situations (Kennedy et al., 2012). For bullying prevention efforts to succeed, it is
essential for educators and administrators to work together to establish clear rules and guidelines
for the entire school and to include all stakeholders in the planning, implementing, and
maintaining of the program (Astor et al., 2005; Langdon & Preble, 2008).
Core Components to Cyberbullying Intervention
In the current study, the author gathered information about the knowledge and
implementation of these core components to cyberbullying prevention programs. The top five
core components that participants responded in “I know the details and am involved in
implementation” are promoting school values (55%), establishing policies about cyberbullying
(42%), limited phone use and internet access in school (40%), classroom-based curricula and
programs (42%), and digital citizenship education for students (39%). The results indicated that
many of the core components are being implemented by the school staff who participated in the
study.
The core components with the least knowledge were peer leaders, involvement with
community leaders, law enforcement, and health care professionals. Research suggests whole-
school approaches engage all stakeholders in prevention such as school administration, teachers,
parents, community leaders, law enforcement, and healthcare professionals (Hinduja & Patchin,
2019; Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Since cyberbullying is a systemic problem, effective
interventions target wider systemic factors such as the family and the neighborhood (Ttofi &
Farrington, 2011). Engaging all stakeholders facilitates changes in beliefs and behaviors toward
greater support, trust, and cohesion (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Therefore, the core
components that include engaging community leaders, law enforcement and healthcare
professionals are important pieces to cyberbullying prevention, which the current study were
ranked as having the least knowledge.
The research on digital citizenship training for students and parents indicates the
importance of this component in cyberbullying prevention and intervention (Hinduja & Patchin,
2008; Mason, 2008). Studies have documented that the most effective prevention for
cyberbullying is when parents and schools agree regarding the students’ digital use, monitoring,
and policy implementation (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Notar et al., 2013). In the current
study, 20% of the respondents reported no knowledge of digital citizenship training for students,
and 32% reported no knowledge of digital citizenship training for parents. Hutson et al. (2018)
conducted a review of literature and found that providing an education to parents about digital
citizenship and how to monitor their children's use of technology and the internet led to
interventions being most successful. Although the results in the current study indicate that
majority of respondents reported having knowledge around digital citizenship training, the
percentage of respondents who reported no knowledge is unexpected due to the significance of
this core component. Providing education on how to use the internet safely for both students and
their parents is in an important training to have in every school and community.
Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention
Since cyberbullying occurs on an online platform, there are features that differ from
traditional bullying. The author studied four factors to cyberbullying which present unique
challenges to program implementation: anonymity, wide reach, parent role, and location.
Anonymity
Due to the nature of cyberbullying, often the perpetrators are anonymous. When the
school does not know who the perpetrator is, it is difficult to know how to be involved, and
therefore, it is easier for schools to dismiss their responsibilities to intervene (Campbell &
Bauman, 2018). In the current study, there was a wide range of responses related to the degree in
which anonymity was a perceived barrier. While 25% of respondents reported that anonymity
was not a barrier, 29% reported that it was somewhat of a barrier, 34% reported that it was a
moderate barrier, and 13% reported that it was an extreme. This highlights the various
perspectives. While some perceive the anonymity to be an extreme barrier, not all do.
Wide Reach
A unique aspect of cyberbullying is that it reaches a wider audience than traditional
bullying. Being that information spreads quickly to many witnesses, it increases the potential for
harm (Sticca & Perren, 2013). Additionally, there is a perceived lack of control, not knowing
who will have access to the information. Lack of control over negative events are associated with
feelings of helplessness, which in turn is associated with feelings of depression (Sticca & Perren,
2013). In the current study, there were varied responses as to the degree that school personnel
view wide reach as a barrier to cyberbullying intervention, reflecting the various
experiences/perspectives of the school staff in perceived barriers. Some respondents stated that it
is “not a barrier” (18%), while others responded that it is “somewhat” (22%), “moderate” (32%),
or an “extreme barrier (29%). The range of perceptions on barriers in this study converges with
prior data on teacher and school personnel varying perspectives on the challenges to intervention
(DeSmet et al., 2015). Depending on the personal experience, school resources, and degree of
knowledge, school personnel will have different perspectives on what they view as a barrier.
Interestingly, a pattern in this finding is that only 61% reported wide reach to be either a
moderate or extreme barrier.
Parent Role
Research suggests that parental involvement in their children’s digital usage impacts
cyberbullying and cybervictimization (Elsaesser et al., 2017, Kowalski et al., 2014). Research
has shown that most cyberbullying incidents occur from within one’s home (Dehue et al, 2008).
Elsaesser et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of the family’s role in preventing
cyberbullying, as parents often have a strong influence over adolescents' access to electronic
devices. Due to the role that parents play in their children’s digital world, school role becomes
complex as to when they step in and when it is their responsibility to become involved. While
there is some research on the role of parents, there is a gap in the literature on school
perspectives of parent involvement and the perceived barriers to address cyberbullying in
schools. In the current study, only 4% of respondents indicated that this is not a barrier for
effectively intervening with cyberbullying. The remaining participants either responded that it is
somewhat of a barrier (30%), a moderate barrier (43%) or extreme barrier, (23%) which
highlights that school staff view the parent role in their children’s digital life as a barrier to
intervention. Prior research has illustrated that the most effective prevention for cyberbullying is
when parents and schools agree regarding the students’ digital use, monitoring, and policy
implementation (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010; Notar et al., 2013). Therefore, when there is a
strong home-school partnership, it can be associated with lower rates of cyberbullying and
stronger intervention strategies. Starting this partnership from the time students are young will be
an important piece in setting the foundation, as when children move into adolescence, it becomes
harder for parents and schools to play a direct role in children’s’ technology use, and schools do
not involve parents as much during the adolescent/high school stage. Proactively teaming with
parents to discuss the various roles and developing solutions to the complexities will be
important to address this barrier.
Location
Being that cyberbullying occurs more frequently outside of school, it poses questions as
to who is responsible to intervene (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). In the current study, most
participants responded that location was a moderate-extreme barrier (77%) in cyberbullying
prevention and intervention. The school role is complex, because there are legal, ethical, and
practical issues regarding whether they can and should intervene when an incident occurs outside
of school. Laws have been mandating that schools must be responsible to intervene in
cyberbullying incidents that occur off-ground when the harassment, intimidation, or bullying
substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other
students (Campbell & Bauman, 2018; Hinduja and Patchin, 2019).
The open-ended response to additional barriers highlights some barriers which are unique
to cyberbullying and others related to resource and time constraints. One of the patterns in
responses was the lack of knowledge from staff, which emphasizes the need to educate and
inform staff on the issue of cyberbullying. The responses about lack of student knowledge and
understanding of cyberbullying and consequences can be addressed through digital citizenship
training (i.e., how to use the internet safely, how to look out for cyberbullying incidents, and how
to report). Other participants reported that students who tamper with screenshots/avoid detection
is a barrier to addressing cyberbullying, which sounds like the anonymity factor because when
one bullies behind a screen, it is easier to hide the identity of the perpetrator. Lastly, another
pattern in response to this question was the parents fear of the problem becoming worse if
schools intervene. When parents are involved as stakeholders, they can be education on policies
and interventions, which hopefully can increase their trust in the school and how they will
manage these incidents.
Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Perceived Responsibility or Capacity to
Address Cyberbullying?
Results from the current study suggest that while years of experience was not a
significant predictor for school personnel responsibility to address cyberbullying, role in school
was a significant predictor for school personnel responsibility to address cyberbullying. Prior
research indicates that years of experience is positively correlated with age (Shernoff et al.,
2022). One may expect that years of experience would predict responsibility to address
cyberbullying. In a study conducted by Vandebosch et al., years of experience were associated
with higher degree of responsibility to intervene with bullying incidents (Vandebosch et al.,
2014). However, it is possible that some staff members who are older and have more years of
experience may not be as comfortable or familiar with technology and cyberbullying and
therefore, may not view cyberbullying interventions as much of their responsibility.

Previous research indicated school personnel whose roles include principals and school
counselors/psychologists was associated with increased responsibility to address and intervene
with cyberbullying prevention and intervention (DeSmet et al., 2015). The result from the current
study regarding role in school predicting degree of responsibility makes sense because those who
are responsible to set policies and procedures and are responsible for keeping schools safe,
would also hold more of a responsibility to intervene when problems in the school arise, such as
cyberbullying.
Additionally, in the current study, role in school and years of experience were not
significant predictors for capacity to address cyberbullying. In a study conducted by DeSmet et
al. (2015), educators who were in administrative positions had higher levels of self-efficacy in
handling cyberbullying. One may expect that role would predict capacity to intervene due to
levels of training and that administrators are held responsible for intervention. It is possible
though, that some administrators in schools are lacking the knowledge on how to intervene and
therefore may vary in their capacity to intervene. Although they may hold themselves
responsible, perhaps their role does not predict the capacity due to lack of knowledge. In a study
conducted by Vandebosch et al. (2014), 25% of his participants reported not knowing the most
effective way to intervene and wanted to know more about evidence-based interventions.
Additionally, Young et al. (2017) found that administrators reported that their biggest challenge
with cyberbullying was knowing how to intervene when incidents occur outside of school.
Existing Cyberbullying Interventions
Majority of cyberbullying studies conducted between 2006 and 2013 were about the
nature and dynamics of cyberbullying itself, but none were about prevention and intervention
(Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Therefore, one of the questions in the survey was to gather
information about school implementation of existing cyberbullying programs. The author listed
evidence-based programs for cyberbullying, in which participants answered if their school
implemented these programs or have not implemented them. Majority of the responses indicated
that they were not implementing the evidence-based programs that exist for cyberbullying
prevention. For Media Heroes (Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2012), ConRed (Ortega-Ruiz et al.,
2012), Sticks and Stones: Cyberbullying (Wilson, 2009), and No Trap! Program (Palladino et al.,
2016), all respondents had not implemented these programs. Cyberfriendly Schools (Cross et al.,
2016), two participants responded yes, while 52 responded no. Similarly, for Cyberbullying: A
Prevention Curriculum (Kowalski & Agatston, 2008, 2009), two participants responded yes and
52 answered no.
For the iSafe Internet Safety Program (i-SAFEInc., 1998) four participants responded yes
and 50 answered no. For the program Let’s Fight it Together (ChildNet International, 2007), four
participants said yes, and 50 said no. When asked if their school implements a program not listed
above, 14 people responded yes. Six participants wrote that their schools designed their own
program. When schools design their own program, not enough research on effectiveness, fidelity,
sustainability, and effects of the program. Other programs they wrote were Second Step SEL
Program, The Digital Citizenship Program by Eli Shapiro, JFS of Passaic, Project Sarah-
Cyberbullying Program, and The Digital Citizenship Project.
Most of the interventions cited above were developed in countries outside the United
States. For example, Media Heroes was developed in Germany and the NoTrap! Program was
developed in Italy (Campbell & Bauman, 2018). Countries outside the United States are
developing school-based cyberbullying prevention programs more rapidly than the United States.
There is a gap in the research about the implementation of these interventions in schools in the
United States. Therefore, it would be important to figure out how the evidence-based
interventions can reach a wider audience and be more accessible in the U.S. Cioppa et al. (2015)
states that despite the major concerns about cyberbullying, there is a large gap in prevention
programs that are evidence-based, and therefore more evaluation and implementation in this area
is needed. Like Cioppa et al. (2015), the responses to the question in the current study highlights
the lack of implementation of evidence-based cyberbullying programs.
Additional Training and Covid-Related Question
In the current study, there was an open-ended question asking about additional training
and/or support that is needed for school staff to be effective in dealing with cyberbullying. Some
of the responses included raising more awareness of cyberbullying, increase training for staff and
parents on understanding technology, and more training for staff on evidence-based interventions
for cyberbullying. Additionally, some participants expressed wanting to gain more clarity about
the school role and responsibility in cyberbullying. Other responses included increased funding
for evidence-based interventions, training/supervision follow-up on implementation of
cyberbullying programs, in addition to having a system of a yearly review and monthly check-
ins.
Another question the author was interested in gathering information about was if the
incidents of cyberbullying changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Twelve percent
of respondents answered that “it has decreased,” 38% responded that “it stayed the same,” while
19% reported that it “increased a little,” and four percent reported that it “increased a lot.”
Twenty-seven percent of participants responded, “I don’t know.” Cyberbullying may have
decreased in some schools due to decreased social interactions during Covid-19. Perhaps,
students were not in touch with each other as much. On the other hand, perhaps students were on
their devices more since they were not in school which may have led to an increase in
cyberbullying in some areas. Being that 27% of respondents did not know if cyberbullying
increased, stayed the same, or decreased could be due to them not being as involved when
classes were not being held in-person. This gives us some preliminary data exploring how
Covid-19 impacts interactions with peers and if it led to any significant changes in cyberbullying
intensity and frequency.
Limitations
One limitation of the current study was the use of snowball sampling. Snowball sampling
methodology is limited in that it is difficult to know the true distribution of the sample and
increases the risk of sampling bias. School staff from within the researchers’ private network
were contacted and asked to forward the survey which allowed for a larger range of participants
to be contacted. Future studies within this area should understand the limitation of snowball
sampling and recognize if there is a more comprehensive method to collect information.
Another limitation of the current study is the selected method of self-report scales that
was used to collect data. There was no social-desirability scale and therefore it was difficult to
assess accuracy of staff response. It is possible that staff members may feel pressured to present
positively which may not accurately portray their actual perceptions. To mitigate this effect,
surveys were completed anonymously, however, future studies should consider using a social-
desirability scale. In addition, the current study employed the use of a mono-method and mono-
informant to collect data. The use of focus groups or individual interviews would potentially add
more valuable information and further insight into teachers’ perceptions and views on student
mental health needs. Furthermore, the survey was developed by the researcher and therefore,
there were limited information regarding the reliability and validity scales of the survey. Future
surveys should focus on using measures with reliable psychometrics to ensure more accurate
reporting.
An additional limitation of the current study was the small sample size. This sample size
does not provide adequate power to detect smaller significant results. Future studies within this
area should include a larger pool of participants to increase the likelihood of detecting
conclusively significant results (Cohen & Cohen, 1992).
Implications for Research and Practice
The results of this study add to the growing body of literature on school staff perceptions
towards cyberbullying prevention and intervention in schools. The findings in this study indicate
that majority of the school staff recognize their responsibility to intervene, lesser amount of the
participants felt they had the capacity to address the cyberbullying. This is an important finding
for school psychologists to help support staff members build up their abilities to intervene by
teaching them the policies, program details, and step-by-step guide for what to do after a
cyberbullying incident. The current study found that more staff members felt capable of
intervening after an incident occurred within the school. However, when an incident occurred
outside of school grounds, a lesser number of participants felt responsibility intervene in these
cases. Therefore, a recommendation for practice would be to increase staff awareness as to when
it would be their responsibility to intervene when an incident occurs outside of school. It would
be incumbent upon the school psychologists to help educate on the laws of schools holding
responsibility to address these incidents, perhaps through professional development days and
continuing to post the most recent policies of the schools specific to cyberbullying so that all
school staff understand the protocols and take responsibility to intervene.

Close to one half of respondents in the current study (45%) reported not knowing the
details or having no knowledge of the policy regarding cyberbullying. This can have major
implications for cyberbullying intervention because if staff members are unclear about the
policies and what the policies entail, then that can directly impact their level of responsibility and
capacity to intervene (Bauman et al., 2008). Additionally, a lack of knowledge regarding policies
will impact victims and their parents when trying to look for guidance and help after an incident.
It will likely leave them feeling angry about how the school will manage the cyberbullying
effectively. These findings highlight the importance in the formation of clear policies regarding
cyberbullying, and wide dissemination to all school staff. Increasing awareness and knowledge
of policies will hopefully increase the implementation of the policies. In fact, the Office for Civil
Rights issued a letter imploring schools to review school policies and practices regarding
bullying to ensure that mandated federal civil rights laws are followed (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). This research supports reevaluating the policies and practices currently used to
address bullying and cyberbullying, in that schools should have well-publicized policies that
both prohibit bullying and provide procedures for reporting, investigating, and resolving bullying
incidents.
In the current study, there was a wide range of opinions on the factor of anonymity being
a barrier to cyberbullying intervention. A recommended area for future research would be to
study the relationship between those who view this as a barrier and their responsibility to
intervene, since maybe if one has a higher level of responsibility, then perhaps they would view
the anonymity factor as more of a barrier. Future research should examine the gap between
evidence-based interventions having been developed and their lack of use in the United States.
Recommendation for practice is to also increase awareness of evidence-based programs, work on
developing more access to them, and plan for proper implementation.
Conclusion
Overall, staff members reported that they agree they have a responsibility to address
cyberbullying prevention and intervention in schools. However, there were fewer participants
who agreed that they have the capacity to address cyberbullying. Additionally, there was a lack
of knowledge regarding cyberbullying school policies among the participants of the study, all of
whom are usually the ones guiding the formation of the policies themselves (Vandebosch et al.,
2014). Additionally, understanding more of the core components of cyberbullying prevention, as
well as increasing awareness of existing cyberbullying programs can help increase school staff
capabilities to address cyberbullying. These results are important to guide future practice as
school staff members play a significant role in preventing and intervening with cyberbullying.
School personnel who have the necessary training can help reduce this gap in schools.
!
References
Agatston, P.W., Kowalski R., Limber S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health. 41:59–60.
Astor, R., Meyer, H., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety
interventions: Best practices and programs. Children & Schools, 27(1), 17–32.
Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using
Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), 57-74.
Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counselors’ strategies for
handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856.
Berne, S., Frisen, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Kaltzer,
C., Erentaite, R., & Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A
systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 320–334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.022.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future
perspective. In Moen P., Elder G. H. & Luscher K. (Eds.), Examining lives in context:
Perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Campbell, M. & Bauman S. (2018). Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools: International Evidence-
Based Practices. Elsevier Inc.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

Couvillon, M., & Ilieva, V. (2011). Recommended Practices: A Review of Schoolwide
Preventative Programs and Strategies on Cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(2), 96–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.539461
Cioppa, D. V., O’Neil, A., & Craig, W. (2015). Learning from traditional bullying interventions:
A review of research on cyberbullying and best practice. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.009
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, October, 2-31). National Bullying
Prevention Awareness Month.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6439a9.htm?s_cid=mm6439a9_w
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hadwen, K., Cardoso, P., Slee, P., Roberts, C., & Barnes, A. (2016).
Longitudinal impact of the Cyber Friendly Schools program on adolescents’
cyberbullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 166–180. doi:10.1002/ab.21609
David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz M.F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An
emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41,1–5.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences and
parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217–223. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.
DeSmet, A., Aelterman, N., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch,
H., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuji, I. (2015). Secondary school educators’ perceptions
and practices in handling cyberbullying among adolescents: A cluster analysis.
Computers & Education, 88, 192-201. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2015.05.006
Divecha, D & Brackett, M. (2019). Rethinking School-Based Bullying Prevention Through the
Lens of Social and Emotional Learning: a Bioecological Perspective. International
Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2, 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00019-5
Elsaesser, C., Russell, B., Ohannessian, C., & Patton, D. (2017). Parenting in a digital age: A
review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1941388522/.
Fredrick, S., & Demaray, M. (2018). Peer victimization and suicidal ideation: The role of gender
and depression in a school-based sample. Journal of School Psychology, 67. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2055208387
Frydenberg, E., & Brandon, C. (2002). The Best of Coping: Instructors manual. Melbourne: OZ
Child.
Giumetti, G., & Kowalski, R. (2016). Cyberbullying matters: Examining the incremental impact
of cyberbullying on outcomes over and above traditional bullying in North America. In
R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larranaga (Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender,
family, and mental health (pp. 117–130). New York: Springer.
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Goodman, L. A. (1961) Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148-170.
Hoff, Dianne L., and Sidney N. Mitchell. 2009. Cyberbullying: Causes, Effects, and Remedies.
SO – Journal of Educational Administration ,47, 652–65.
Hutson, E., Kelly, S., & Militello, L. (2018). Systematic Review of Cyberbullying Interventions
for Youth and Parents With Implications for Evidence#Based Practice. Worldviews on
Evidence#Based Nursing, 15(1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12257

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of
Factors Related to Offending and Victimization. Deviant Behavior ,29:129–56.
doi:10.1080/01639620701457816.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J.W. (2015) Cyberbullying Research Center www.cyberbullying.org
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2019). Cyberbullying Identification, Prevention, and Response.
Cyberbullying Research Center (cyberbullying.org)
Johnson, G. M. (2010). Internet use and child development: The technomicrosystem. Australian
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 32.
Kennedy, Tom D., Russom, Ashley G., Kevorkian, Meline M. (2012). Teacher and
Administrator Perceptions of Bullying In Schools. International Journal of Education
Policy and Leadership 7(5). Retrieved from www.ijepl.org.
Kiriakidis, S. P., & Kavoura, A. (2010). Cyberbullying A Review of the Literature on
Harassment through the Internet and Other Electronic Means. Fam Community Health,
33(2), 83-93. c
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6, Suppl.), S22 S30.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
Kowalski, R., Giumetti, G., Schroeder, A., & Lattanner, M. (2014). Bullying in the Digital Age:
A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Cyberbullying Research Among Youth.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
Kowalski, R. M., Morgan, C. A., & Limber, S. E. (2012). Traditional bullying as a potential
warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 33, 505–519.
doi:10.1177/0143034312445244
Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, D. (2012). Relationships Between Bullying, School Climate,
and Student Risk Behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 154–169.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029350
Langdon, S., & Preble, W. (2008). The relationship between levels of perceived respect and
bullying in 5th through 12th graders. Adolescence, 43(171), 485–503.
Lenhart, A. (2005). Protecting teens online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP Filters Report.pd
Little, R.J.A. (1988) A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with
Missing Values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. & Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and Safety on the
Internet: The Perspective of European Children: Full Findings and Policy Implications
from the EU Kids Online Survey of 9–16 Year Olds and Their Parents in 25 Countries.
London: LSE.
Macaulay, P.J., Betts, L.R., Stiller, J., Kellezi, B. (2018). Perceptions and responses towards
cyberbullying: A systematic review of teachers in the education system. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 43, 1-12.
Mason, K. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology
in the School, 45, 323–348.
Modecki, K., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A., Guerra, N., & Runions, K. (2014). Bullying Prevalence
Across Contexts: A Meta-analysis Measuring Cyber and Traditional Bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and associations with psychosocial
adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Notar, C. E., Padgett, S., & Roden, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1–9.
Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J. A. (2012). Knowing, building and living together on
Internet and social networks: The ConRed Cyberbullying Prevention Program.
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6, 302–312.
Ouellet-Morin, Isabelle & Robitaille, Marie-Pier. (2018). Stronger than Bullying, a mobile
application for victims of bullying: Development and initial steps toward validation.
10.1016/B978-0-12-811423-0.00012-2.
Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2016). Evidence-Based Intervention Against
Bullying and Cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! Program in Two Independent
Trials. Aggressive Behavior, 42 (194-206).
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of research. In J.
W. Patchin, & S. Hinduja (Eds.). Cyberbullying prevention and response (pp. 13–35).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D., Mc Guckin, C., Sevcikova, A.,
Tsatsou, P., & Völlink, T. (2012). Tackling Cyberbullying: Review of Empirical
Evidence Regarding Successful Responses by Students, Parents, and Schools.
International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.244
Salmivalli, C., Poskiparta, E., Ahtola, A., & Haataja, A. (2013). The Implementation and
Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program in Finland. European
Psychologist, 18(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000140
Selkie, E., Fales, J., & Moreno, M. (2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and
high school-aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 58, 125-133.
Smith, P. K., & Slonje, R. (2010). Cyberbullying: the nature and extent of a new kind of
bullying, in and out of school. In S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds.), The
international handbook of school bullying (pp. 249–262). New York: Routledge.
Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen,
M., Ristkari, T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with
cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based Study. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79
Stauffer, S., Heath M.A., Coyne, S.M., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4),
353-367. DOI: 10.1002/pits.21603
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the
differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of
bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739–750.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
Tanrikulu, I. (2018). Cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools: A
systematic review. School Psychology International, 39(1), 74 -91.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317745721
Tfoti, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7(1), 27-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.
Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., & Deboutte, G. (2014). Schools and cyberbullying: Problem
perception, current action, and future needs. International Journal of Cyber
Society and Education, 7, 29-48. doi:10.7903/ijcse.1149.
vanGeel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the
American Medical Association Pediatrics, 168(5), 435–442.
Wong-Lo, M. (2009). Cyberbullying: Responses of adolescents and parents toward digital
aggression. ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Texas. (ED515345)
Young, R., Tully, M., & Ramirez, M. (2017). School administrator perceptions of
cyberbullying facilitators and barriers to preventive action: A Qualitative Study. Health
Education & Behavior, 44(3), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116673814
!
APPENDIX A: SURVEY
Section 1: School Role

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?
1. It is the school’s responsibility to address cyberbullying in regard to developing and
implementing a preventative program in school.
1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Disagree 5 = Strongly
Disagree
2. It is the school’s responsibility to address cyberbullying in regard to intervening after an

incident occurs within school.
Disagree
3. It is the school’s responsibility to address cyberbullying in regard to intervening after an

incident occurs outside of school.
Disagree
4. I feel capable of implementing cyberbullying prevention programs.

Disagree
5. I feel capable of intervening after a cyberbullying incident occurs.

Disagree
6. I feel that parents and the community are supportive of cyberbullying prevention and
intervention in the school.
Disagree
7. In what percentage of student cyberbullying incidents (inside or outside of school) do you

intervene?
1. 0%
2. 1% - 25%
3. 26% - 50%
4. 51% - 75%
5. 76% - 99%
6. 100%
Section 2: Knowledge of Policy
8. What is your degree of knowledge about school policies and procedures regarding
cyberbullying?
a. I have no knowledge of this
b. I know there is a policy against it but I don’t know the details
c. I am fully aware of the details of the policies and procedures
d. I am fully aware of the details of the policies and procedures and have implemented them
Section 3: Implementation of Core Components of Cyberbullying Interventions

9. Please rate your knowledge and use of the following cyberbullying prevention and
intervention strategies:
Item
Peer leaders I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
not my school of my school this, I know the
heard of implementing implementing details, and am
this this but I do not this and I involved in
know the details know the implementation
details
Involvement of Community I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of

Leaders not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Involvement of law I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of

enforcement not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Involvement of healthcare I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of

professionals not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Teacher and staff I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
training/professional not my school of my school this, I know the
development heard of implementing implementing details, and am
details
Classroom-based curricula or. I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
Programs (e.g. in class not my school of my school this, I know the
lessons on skills to build heard of implementing implementing details, and am
empathy, perspective taking, this this but I do not this and I involved in
conflict resolution) know the details know the implementation
details
Promoting school values such I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
as acceptance and respect not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Establishing and enforcing I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
policies about cyberbullying not my school of my school this, I know the
implementing implementing details, and am
heard of this but I do not this and I involved in

this know the details know the implementation
details
Digital citizenship education I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
and training for students not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Digital citizenship education I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
and training for parents not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Limited phone use and I have I have heard of I have heard I have heard of
internet access in school not my school of my school this, I know the
details
Section 4: Implementation of Existing Cyberbullying Programs:

10. Please answer if your school has implemented the following cyberbullying programs:
a. Media Heroes (Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2012)
i. Yes
ii. No
b. NoTrap! Program (Palladino, Nocentini, & Menesini, 2016)
i. Yes
ii. No
c. ConRed (Ortega-Ruiz, Del Rey, & Casas, 2012).

i. Yes
ii. No
d. Cyberfriendly Schools (Cross, Hadwen, Cardoso, Slee, Roberts, & Barnes,
2016)
i. Yes
ii. No
e. iSAFE Internet Safety Program (i-SAFEInc.,1998),
i. Yes
ii. No
f. CyberBullying: A Prevention Curriculum (Kowalski & Agatston, 2008, 2009)
i. Yes
ii. No
g. Sticks and Stones: Cyberbullying (Chase Wilson, 2009)
i. Yes
ii. No
h. Let’s Fight It Together: What We All Can Do to Prevent Cyberbullying
(Childnet International, 2007)
i. Yes
ii. No
k. Does your school implement a cyberbullying program not listed above?

Yes
Which program? ______
No
Section 5: Barriers in Cyberbullying Intervention
11. Please rate the degree to which these factors serve as a barrier to effectively intervening
around cyberbullying in your school
Item
Anonymity (The identity Not a Barrier Somewhat of Moderate Extreme

of the cyberbullying A Barrier Barrier Barrier
perpetrator is often
hidden)
Wide Reach (Bullying Not a Barrier Somewhat of Moderate Extreme
through an electronic A Barrier Barrier Barrier
means reaches wide
audience in an instant)
Parent Role (Parents play Not a Barrier Somewhat of Moderate Extreme
a crucial role in their A Barrier Barrier Barrier
child’s technology access
and use)
Location (Cyberbullying Not a Barrier Somewhat of Moderate Extreme
incidents often take place A Barrier Barrier Barrier
outside of school)
Do you experience other Yes No
barriers that are unique to
cyberbullying
intervention?
If yes, please tell us the Not a Barrier Somewhat of Moderate Extreme
barrier, and rate it A Barrier Barrier Barrier
Section 6: Additional Training

12. What additional training and/or support is needed for school staff to be effective in dealing
with cyberbullying? (open-ended)
13. How much, if at all, has incidents of cyberbullying in your school changed since the onset of
the covid-19 pandemic?
a. It has decreased
b. Stayed the same
c. Increased a little
d. Increased a lot
Section 7: Demographics:
14. Age- (provide a number)
15. Gender
▫ Male
▫ Female
▫ Transgender
▫ Other
▫ Prefer not to answer
16. Role in School:
▫ School Psychologist
$ Masters Level
$ Psy.D/Ph.D
▫ Social worker
▫ Guidance counselor
▫ Anti-bullying specialist
▫ Vice principal
▫ Principal
▫ Other
$ _____
17. Years of experience in current position (number)
▫ 1-5
▫ 6-10
▫ 11-15
▫ 16-20
▫ 21+
18. School Level
▫ Elementary
▫ Middle
▫ High
▫ Other ___
19. State
▫ New Jersey
▫ New York
▫ Other ___
APPENDIX B: EMAIL
Hello,
I’m currently working on my dissertation, titled, “School Personnel Conceptualization of

Cyberbullying: Beliefs, Knowledge, and Implementation of Policies and Interventions in
Schools” as a student at the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers
University under the supervision of Elisa Shernoff, Ph.D. The purpose of the study is to examine
school personnel's role in cyberbullying intervention, in addition to your knowledge and
implementation of policies, in addition to various components of prevention and intervention
programs.
The intended participants in this study include: (1) principals, vice principals, school
psychologists, social workers, guidance counselors, and anti-bullying specialists, (2) that are
currently employed in an elementary, middle or high school, 1st-12th grade, (3) and employed in
New Jersey or New York. We anticipate recruiting 85 school personnel to participate in this
study. A link is provided here for you to access a survey that will take about 10 minutes.
Follow this link to the survey: https://rutgers.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0voN53kefZUEaeq
As a gesture of appreciation for your time to complete this survey, you may click a separate link
to enter your email address to be entered into a drawing for a $25 electronic Amazon gift card.
Your responses will be submitted to a confidential, encrypted online database, and your email
address will not in any way be associated with your responses or any of the findings. All
information received will be incorporated into group data.
If possible, please submit your responses within 7 days of receiving this email. If you have any
questions or would like a summary of the results of this research at no cost, please feel free to
contact me, Sarah Green. I can be reached at scl118@gsapp.rutgers.edu. You can also contact
my faculty advisor, Dr. Elisa Shernoff, at ess91@gsapp.rutgers.edu or at 848-445-3902. If you
choose not to participate, you may disregard this email. Participation in this study is completely
voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time without penalty.
Please forward the survey link to any school personnel you know who meet the study
requirements and who may be interested in completing the survey. NOTE: If you do not meet the
eligibility criteria, please forward this link to those you know who do meet the criteria.
I greatly appreciate your time and cooperation and look forward to receiving your response.
All the best,

Sarah Green
APPENDIX C: FOLLOW-UP EMAIL
Hello,
This is a follow-up email regarding my dissertation school personnel beliefs, knowledge and
implementation regarding cyberbullying role and intervention in schools that I am conducting at
the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers University under the
supervision of Elisa Shernoff, Ph.D. If you have completed the survey already, thank you so
much! You may either forward this email to other school personnel who you think may be
interested in completing the survey or disregard it. The gift card winner will be notified by email
after all responses have been recorded, in approximately 4-6 weeks. If you have not completed
the survey yet and would like to do so, you can use the link below or copy and paste the URL
below to be directed to the survey. The intended participants in this study include: (1) principals,
vice principals, school psychologists, social workers, guidance counselors, and anti-bullying
specialists, (2) that you are currently employed in an elementary, middle or high school, 1st-12th
grade, (3) and employed in New Jersey or New York. We anticipate recruiting 85 school
personnel to participate in this study. A link is provided here for you to access a survey that will
take about 10 minutes.
If you have any questions or would like a summary of the results of this research at no cost,
please feel free to contact me, Sarah Green. I can be reached at scl118@gsapp.rutgers.edu. You
can also contact my faculty advisor, Dr. Elisa Shernoff, at ess91@gsapp.rutgers.edu or at 848-
445-3902. If you choose not to participate, you may disregard this email. Participation in this
study is completely voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time without penalty.
Follow this link to the survey: https://rutgers.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0voN53kefZUEaeq
Thank you for your time and cooperation!
All the best,

Sarah Green
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics
Variables N % of
sample
Gender
Male 18 32
Female 38 68
Age of Individuals Completing the Survey
20 – 25 1 3
26 – 30 7 15
31 – 35 9 16
36 – 40 8 16
41-45 5 10
46-50 10 18
51-55 6 12
56 or more 5 10
Type of School
Public 21 38
Private 35 62
Role in School
School Psychologist
Masters Level 8 14
Psy.D/Ph.D 18 32
Social worker 10 18
Guidance counselor 4 7
Anti-bullying specialist 1 2
Principal 8 14
Vice Principal 6 11
Other 1 2
Years of experience in current position

1-5 34 48
6-10 22 31
11-15 2 3
16-20 1 1
21+ 12 17
School Level
Elementary 23 42
Middle 12 23
High 20 35
State
New York 27 48
New Jersey 29 52
Table 2
School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying
Variable SA (%) A (%) N(%) D(%) SD(%)
It is the school’s responsibility to address 26 28 2 (4) 1 (2) 0
cyberbullying in regard to developing and (46) (49) (0)
implementing a preventative program in school
It is the school’s responsibility to address 49 8 0(0) 0(0) 0 (0)

cyberbullying in regard to intervening after an (86) (14)
incident occurs within the school
It is the school’s responsibility to address 11 27 8 10 1

cyberbullying in regard to intervening after an (19) (47) (14) (18) (2)
incident occurs outside of the school
Note: SA: Strongly Agree; A: Agree; N: Neither Agree nor Disagree; D: Disagree; SD: Strongly
Disagree
Table 3
School Capability to Address Cyberbullying
Variable SA (%) A (%) N(%) D(%) SD(%)
I feel capable in implementing cyberbullying 8 28 12 8 1
prevention programs (14) (50) (21) (14) (2)
I feel capable of intervening after a cyberbullying 15 34 6 1 0 (0)

incident occurs (26) (61) (11) (2)
Note: SA: Strongly Agree; A: Agree; N: Neither Agree nor Disagree; D: Disagree; SD: Strongly
Disagree
Table 4
Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention
Variable NB(%). SB(%). MB(%). EB(%)
Anonymity 14 (25) 16 (29) 19 (34) 7(13)
Wide Reach 10(18) 12(22) 18(32) 16(29)
Parent Role 2(4) 17(30) 24(43) 13(23)
Location 2(4) 11(20) 23(41) 20(36)
Note: NB: Not a Barrier; SB: Somewhat of a Barrier; MB: Moderate Barrier; EB: Extreme
Barrier
Table 5
Regression Analyses for Role and Years of Experience as Predictors for Staff Responsibility
Variable B SE B β t F Df p Adj.R2
Role .289 .140 .269 2.068 4.278 1,55 .043 .055
Years of -.282 .145 -.254 -1.944 3.779 1,55 .057 .047
experience
Note: N = 56
Table 6
Regression Analyses for Role and Years of Experience as Predictors for Capability to Address
Cyberbullying
Variable B SE B β t F Df p Adj.R2
Role -.011 .184 -.008 -.057 .003 1, 55 .955 -.018
Years of .268. .187 .190 1.435 2.058 1,55 .157 .019
experience
Note: N = 56
ProQuest Number: 30243931
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.
Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.
Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA

School Personnel Conceptualiza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Personnel Conceptualiza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: SCHOOL CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CYBERBULLYING

School Personnel Conceptualization of Cyberbullying:

Beliefs, Knowledge, and Implementation of Policies and Interventions in Schools

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF APPLIED AND PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY JANUARY 2023

Cyberbullying has long term negative impacts on individuals. Cyberbullying victimization is

satisfaction, conduct problems, somatic symptoms, emotional problems, reduced self-esteem,

cyberbullying prevention and intervention. The respondents completed anonymous surveys

develop my skills and progress me in this project.

encouraging me to pursue my dreams and for supporting me in my journey through graduate

G-d for bringing me to this wonderful milestone.

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 2

Cyberbullying Prevalence Rates and Characteristics ...................................... 3

Features of Cyberbullying that Make School Interventions Challenging ........ 5

School Personnel Perspectives on Role in Addressing Cyberbullying............ 10

School Policy ................................................................................................... 14

Prevention and Intervention of Cyberbullying in Schools ............................... 16

Summary and Research Questions................................................................... 29

Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 36

III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 37

Perceptions on School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying ................... 37

Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying ........................................ 38

Parent Involvement in Cyberbullying .............................................................. 38

School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying ......................................................... 39

Core Components of Cyberbullying Intervention............................................ 40

Barriers of Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................ 41

Do Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Difference in capability

and responsibility? ........................................................................................... 42

IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 44

School Responsibility and Capacity in Cyberbullying Intervention................ 44

School Policy Regarding Cyberbullying ......................................................... 45

Core Components to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................ 46

Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................ 48

Role in School and Years of Experience Predict Perceived Responsibility or

Existing Cyberbullying Interventions .............................................................. 52

Additional training and Covid-Related Question ............................................ 54

Implications for Research and Practice............................................................ 56

1. Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................... 76

2. School Responsibility to Address Cyberbullying ............................................................. 78

3. School Capability to Address Cyberbullying .................................................................. 79

4. Barriers to Cyberbullying Intervention ............................................................................ 80

1. Perceptions of School Responsibility for Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention ....... 38

2. Perceptions on Capacity to Address Cyberbullying ............................................................ 39

3. Barriers to Cyberbullying Interventions in Schools............................................................. 42

School Personnel Conceptualization of Cyberbullying:

Beliefs, Knowledge, and Implementation of Policies and Interventions in Schools

Therefore, it is important to study cyberbullying as an independent issue, as there are

implementation of cyberbullying policies and interventions.

cyberbullying can be considered an extension of traditional bullying (Kowalski et al., 2012;

Modecki et al., 2014).

as well as their familiarity and implementation of cyberbullying programs.

Cyberbullying Prevalence Rates and Characteristics

Jenkins, 2014). Gender differences in cyberbullying victimization tend to be inconsistent. Some

Some studies have examined geographical differences in rates of cyberbullying. For

role in cyberbullying intervention.

Features of Cyberbullying that Make School Interventions Challenging