When a case of bullying is brought to educators' attention, what are the first questions they usually ask? I posed this question to an experienced high school teacher and administrator, and he answered me with confidence: "I would probably start by asking what happened, exactly," he explained, "and I would also ask when and where it happened. The idea is to try to figure out if it's really bullying or maybe something else."
In a lot of ways, his approach makes sense. For most social problems that occur between children, the when, where, and the nature of the behavior—what actually happened—are critical elements in determining the severity of the incident. Did the aggressive child hit somebody, or did he just shrug a shoulder and turn away? Did it happen in front of a group of other children or another adult? Did all the children involved seem to be acting out aggressively toward each other, or was one child being targeted? Did it happen six months ago or just now?
Indeed, research from the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center (MARC), where I am executive director, suggests that most problems between children are minor, single-incident events. For the school-age subjects (aged 8–18) that we study in MARC, more than half of all conflicts are random or thoughtless comments that are never repeated, behaviors like careless, hurtful remarks ("What an ugly sweatshirt!") or transient anger ("I'm mad at you!") (Englander, 2011). A little boy once told me about a typical incident in which his friend, apparently feeling cross, stuck his tongue out at him while the students were lining up to go out to the playground. As is true for most such incidents, he regarded it as too minor to report, which indeed it probably was.
Because most incidents are of this nature—not sustained, not extremely hurtful, and without serious social consequences—the purpose of adult questioning is to weed out the few incidents that are definitely more serious. For example, imagine if the aggressor who stuck out his tongue had instead tripped the boy as he walked past. The adult response would likely be totally different because tripping could potentially cause a significant injury. Therefore, the goal of the questions we ask may be to assess the severity of what happened.
But how effective are the what/how/where/when questions in teasing apart the minor incidents from the more severe?
In the case of single-incident but still serious problems, the what/how/where/when questions can in fact be effective. If a child was tripped, understanding exactly what took place during the incident itself will reveal the true situation. But in cases of bullying and cyberbullying, which involve repeated incidents, focusing only on what took place during one incident instead of taking a broader look at what is taking place in general can be misleading. And sometimes bullying can be behind what appear to be single-incident conflicts.
How One Piece Relates to a Larger Picture
The concept of bullying was clarified and defined by Dan Olweus (1978), who began the process of steering adults beyond their reliance on the "what happened" questions to a better understanding of how social cruelty affects children. Olweus argued that the cruel act isn't always the critical issue. It is the context in which the behavior occurs that is of greatest importance. A tongue stuck out once might not affect a child, but how would her feelings about it change if she had been a continuous target of bullying and derision by her peers? If a contemptuous or aggressive act is part of a pattern of victimization, especially one in which the target of the aggression lacks the power to extricate herself, then the behavior itself may be of less importance than the fact that the behavior occurred repeatedly and intentionally.
A target who is the subject of intentional, repeated attacks from which she lacks the power to extricate herself—in other words, a child who is being bullied—is significantly more likely to experience outcomes such as depression, anxiety, trauma, social rejection, and poor academic functioning (Englander, 2019). It's not simply that hitting is more traumatic than being verbally taunted, it's that if the taunting or hitting occurs within the context of bullying, then it's likely to be more traumatic.
Context in Cyberbullying
If we take this concept of bullying and apply it to cyberbullying, things get a little more complicated. As with all cruel behaviors, cruel online acts must also be assessed for context. But when you apply the three main characteristics that define a bullying context (intention, repetition, and power) to a digital environment, they aren't always as easy to determine clearly (Englander et al., 2017). What do "intent" or "repetition" mean in that kind of environment? What does "power" mean in an online space?
Consider a case where I was asked about the impact of a derisive comment on a child's posting of a photo on social media. Was the commenter's intent to have everyone see her comment, or just have her target see it? If the target believed many others had seen it, does that "count" as repetition, even if the commenter only posted once? The comment itself was disdainful and upsetting, but was its impact the same as repeated comments at school? And even if a target had evidence that others had seen it, we do not have clinical evidence to suggest that the psychological impact of repeated viewings is the same as the psychological impact of repeated comments in person.
Further, even if the concept of "repetition" has some psychological significance or predictive capacity online, how is "power" defined? Many have pointed to anonymity online as an important source of power, but by high school age, most digital incidents are not actually conducted anonymously (Englander, 2011).
If the three characteristics of bullying can't be applied easily to social media or other social interactions online, then is it possible for educators or other caretakers to assess cyberbullying at all? I believe it is, but we must go back to the idea of looking at incidents in context.
In a recent paper in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, I reviewed results from a 2018 survey of 408 teens in Massachusetts and Colorado (Englander, 2019). The data support the idea that it is the context of mean online behavior that matters more than the objective severity of a cruel act. Subjects were asked about the impact of different digital behaviors they had experienced as targets. Some acts were "severe" (that is, they were presumed to be likely to cause significant distress; an example would be the unauthorized distribution of a nude photo). Other acts were "not severe" (that is, they were acts that might be slightly embarrassing, but were judged unlikely to be deliberate attempts at cruelty). Subjects were asked the nature of the digital behavior (so we could classify it as "severe" or not), if it was repeated, and if they were also being targeted in school.
When digital incidents of social cruelty happened only once, most subjects reported they were not impacted by them, regardless of whether the attack was minor or severe. Obviously, severe attacks online were rated as most hurtful, but still only 13 percent of these subjects rated these attacks as very impactful. If a severe problem happened more than once, the proportion of targets who rated it as impactful rose to 22 percent. What made the biggest difference, though, was if the cyber-target was also being bullied in school. In those cases, 33 percent rated the online behavior as very impactful. In fact, being bullied in school as well as online truly magnified the effect of any online cruelty: Even if the incident was very minor in nature, 24 percent of those also being bullied in school rated it as impactful.
What all this research means, on a practical level, is that we as educators can still ask the what/how/where/when questions, even for incidents of cyberbullying that might not take place during the school day, but we also need to assess the larger context in which the problem is occurring. So, in the case of a child who reports that a peer wrote a mean comment on social media, a teacher should ask questions that not only help her understand what happened in the moment, but also what has happened before and after this particular incident. Relevant questions might include:
Tell me exactly what he wrote. Did he write anything else?What social media platform did this happen on?Has anyone else seen the comment?Is this the first time he has been mean to you? Has he said or done other things to make you feel bad? What about here at school?How upset are you feeling? Is this a big upset or a little upset?Are there other kids who make you feel badly here at school, or online? Tell me about that.
These questions will tell the teacher both about the seriousness of the current incident and the context in which it is happening—and that, in turn, will allow her to formulate an appropriate response to cyberbullying incidents.
Taking the Right Next Steps
Sometimes responding to social problems between children can seem so complex that it is tempting to simply let it go, but again, context can help you decide your actions. Don't overfocus on whether or not social cruelty meets certain criteria to be designated as "bullying." Instead, focus on concrete solutions and next steps.
Because one complicating factor in typical student conflicts is the presence of online cruelty, if you ask a child about the context of an incident, be sure to ask specifically if any problems are also occurring through messaging, gaming, or social media. If the answer is yes, two approaches can be helpful. First, ensure that parents know what is happening. Parents can be offered information and help on how to have a conversation with their child about these issues. (The Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center has free resources for parents at www.marccenter.org). Second, review basics about cybersafety and cyberbullying prevention with students.
As an educator, you may or may not have the jurisdiction to deal with a social problem that is only happening off school property (online), but many problems happen both in school and online. Therefore, an educator's response can often focus on in-school problems in addition to addressing problems happening through digital technology. Ultimately, the most important approach is to maintain a positive, supportive environment for a child who's being targeted. To do that, address gateway behaviors (such as teasing, eye-rolling, or excluding former friends) proactively and emphasize the positive, protective role that school adults and peers can play in both preventing social problems and minimizing their impact (Englander, 2013).
Putting Cruelty in Context
The importance of context suggests that all of us—children and adults—need to develop sensitivity to its influence. Dismissing a tongue-sticking-out event, or an online joke, as "no big deal" can be misleading. At the other end of the spectrum, believing that every unkind digital behavior is extremely hurtful also appears unwarranted. Instead, we as caregivers need to focus on the context of social cruelty as it's experienced by the target, and it's that context that will likely reveal to us the true extent of the harm.
