1. Funded by the National Science Foundation September 27 – 29, 2010 Sheri Bauman, Convener University of Arizona

2. DEFINITIONS Process and tentative conclusions from Working Groups

3. Is “bullying” a useful term? Bullying as a subset of aggression “Bullying” may be a defensible concept for traditional aggression, in terms of impact, consequences and intervention. This is clearer for victims, not so clear for perpetrators, and more empirical justification would be desirable. However most studies suggest a significant overlap between traditional and cyber bullying (especially, those involved online also often involved offline).. But confusion in much traditional and cyber bullying/aggression research about whether it is on “bullying” or “aggression”..

4. Bullying and criteria for bullying Although words for ‘bullying’ vary in different languages and do not have exactly same meanings (e.g. ijime focuses more on group processes, and position of victim) there is an argument that ‘bullying’ is something of a natural concept. (“Il bullismo” in Italian). Criteria for bullying have typically been Intent to harm, Imbalance of Power, and Repetition. Bullying is often of a group nature (cf. Japanese “ijime”), but this need not be in the definition. Bullying can vary in Severity, but this need not be in the definition. “Bullying is a relationship issue”, but this can be incorporated in saying ‘Intent to harm a specific target”.

5. More on criteria for bullying; and harassment Repetition is often invoked but not often as essential, e.g. Olweus “these actions are often repeated”. Imbalance of power appears to be a core criterion, and is multi-dimensional (e.g. physical strength, social network, marginalised group). If the victim (only) is in a “marginalised group” (as defined, contextually, by e.g. ethnicity, race, religion/faith, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc) then this is a strong indication of an imbalance of power. Harassment, if taken as aggression specifically targeted to someone in a marginalised group, be taken as one kind of bullying. Not all bullying is harassment, but all harassment is bullying.

6. Aggression and Intent Aggression implies an Intent to harm a person, and a person being hurt or harmed. How to decide on intent in actual situations? Indicative criteria are: that the victim did experience hurt or harm (but, a “victim” may be paranoid) that the perpetrator intended not only the behavior, but the harm that the perpetrator persists in the action even when informed of the harm, but ultimately on whether a “reasonable person” would judge that the action could be foreseen as likely to cause harm.

7. What about cyber-aggression or techno-aggression? (The term cyber-aggression preferred from now on). Intentional harmful behavior by electronic technology? How about mobile phones? Landline phones? Distinctions between Internet or online; Text; Phones; and ‘In person’. Suggested that ‘imbalance of power’ (IP) can be similar in traditional and cyber bullying – the victim cannot fight back or cope (effectively). BUT cases where victim does fight back, but still gets beaten up – so did not seem satisfactory to define IP in bullying just in terms of whether the victim fights back or retaliates. Encouraging victims to be assertive does not mean that it was not bullying.

8. Some tentative conclusions Cyberaggression should refer to: Intentional harmful behavior to another person using electronic technology (text; online). Cyberbullying should refer to cyber-aggression + Specific target + Imbalance of power Thus Intent and specific target and Imbalance of Power are core concepts. IP should not be inferred from the reaction of the Victim, but should be inferred from the ‘outside’ perspective as much as possible. Indicated criteria include: withholding of identity; OR if perpetrator is known: technological knowhow of perpetrator cf. victim; relationship to offline situation of victim cf. perpetrator, e.g. status, friends; race, disability, sexual orientation, generally - marginalised group position.

9. Issues around Repetition more difficult. Sometimes the repetition is clearly by the perpetrator – e.g. s/he hits or insults someone again and again. But sometimes the repetition is by others – an insulting comment is passed on and repeated by third parties. This is more common probably in cyber media (e.g. circulation of text messages, repeated visits to websites) but can happen offline too – e.g. an insulting message written on the school wall. Repetition can be very rapid – both online but also offline. Potential audience larger online – But these considerations do not affect definition.

10. Recommendations  That Cyberbullying is retained as a concept.  Of course, many researchers wish to research cyber-aggression, internet safety, etc; but Cyberbullying is another legitimate area.  That Cyberbullying has 3 Core Criteria: Intent (in common with Cyber-aggression), plus a Specific target, and Imbalance of Power as a defining characteristic of this subset of techno- aggression.  That Imbalance of power is defined in terms of indicated criteria  [→ Measurement Group]  That Repetition, and Impact, may be used as Subsidiary criteria for Cyberbullying but are not core criteria.  Concepts are fuzzy so subsidiary criteria may be helpful.  Studies on Intent to harm which do not include ST and IP are on Cyber-aggression, not on Cyberbullying.

11. DEFINITION Cyber-aggression refers to intentional harmful behavior carried out by modern communication technology, e.g. online (internet) or by text (cell phone). (Intent ultimately as would be assessed by a “reasonable person”). Cyber-bullying is cyber-aggression directed towards a specific target, where there is an imbalance of power. An imbalance of power can be indicated by (a)the perpetrator being anonymous/ withholding their identity (b) the perpetrator-victim relationship offline (e.g. physical strength, friendships, social status), or (c)the victim is in a marginalised social group (in that context).