Research Paper on Cyberbullying and suicide among adolescents

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 1 of 14about:blank

Cyberbullying: what's the problem? Ryan Deschamps and Kathleen McNutt Canadian Public Administration. 59.1 (Mar. 2016): p45. Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Institute of Public Administration of Canada http://www.ipac.ca/CPAJ Abstract:

Cyberbullying has been a difficult problem for policy makers and observers to define. For some, cyberbullying is understood as a public health problem, while others view it largely as an education issue, and still others see it as a justice problem. In Canada, while the definition of cyberbullying continues to evolve, a nascent approach assumes that it is similar to traditional face-to-face bullying with computer-mediated communication as a new element. This definition is at odds with recent research on cyberbullying, which may have significant implications for policy makers seeking to design effective interventions.

La cyberintimidation est un probleme difficile a definir tant pour les decideurs de politiques que pour les observateurs. Certains interpretent la cyberintimidation comme un probleme de sante publique, pour d'autres, il s'agit principalement d'une question d'education, tandis que d'autres encore y voient un probleme de justice. Au Canada, alors que la definition de la cyberintimidation continue d'evoluer, une nouvelle approche considere qu'elle est semblable a l'intimidation traditionnelle en face a face, mais comporte un nouvel element de communication electronique. Cette definition contredit la recherche recente sur la cyberintimidation, ce qui pourrait avoir des repercussions importantes pour les responsables politiques qui cherchent a concevoir des interventions efficaces.

Full Text:

Introduction

The risk of teen suicide through cyberbullying has emerged as a major policy issue in Canada. The Federal Justice Minister has committed to "holistic" legislation that will produce a national anti-bullying strategy using both education and criminal law as the principal policy instruments. Canadian provinces have responded with a patchwork of legislation ranging from the creation of a cyberbullying investigative unit in Nova Scotia, to preventative programming introduced through the British Columbia Ministry of Education. In addition, several municipalities implemented cyberbullying bylaws, providing local police with the ability to ticket bullies.

As every student of public policy knows, the policy cycle begins with problem definition, which is a political activity, not a rational one (Rochefort and Cobb 1993). How a policy problem is defined limits the alternatives considered and imposes specific accounts of the appropriate instruments to be implemented. As Janet Weiss (1989) explains, problem definition is "not merely a label for a set of facts and perceptions. It is a package of ideas that includes at least implicitly an account of the causes and consequences of some circumstances that are deemed undesirable, and a theory about how a problem may be alleviated" (p. 97). Problem abstractions vary with competing analytical frames producing differing proposed policy interventions (Paterson 2010).

Cyberbullying in Canada is still in the problem definition stage with debate swirling around what constitutes cyberbullying. Issues of measurement around prevalence, predictors and outcomes remain stumbling blocks to developing a comprehensive definition (Dredge, Gleeson and de la Piedad Garcia 2014; Kowalski et al. 2014; Thomas, Connor and Scott 2014). While some consensus exists around the main elements of cyberbullying (intent, power differential and repetition) other factors specific to the online context need to be incorporated into the problem definition. For instance, Dooley, Pyzalski and Cross (2009) and Pieschl, Kuhlmann and Porsch (2014) suggest that publicity (public incidents of cyberbullying on social media sites as opposed to private incidents via email or text) may be a key element of online bullying. Thus despite a great deal of research on possible effects and interventions, researchers are still discerning the cyber specific aspects of the behaviour leaving policy makers asking a number of critical questions. Is cyberbullying different from traditional face-to-face bullying? How can governments address the problem? What instruments should be used--criminal law, provincial legislation, public awareness campaigns, youth and parental education or something else?

Experts focus on different aspects of the phenomenon depending on their frame of reference. For some cyberbullying is understood as a public health problem with solutions associated with prevention through public awareness and victim services (David-Ferdon and Feldman Hertz 2007). For others it is largely an education problem with schools, teachers and other educational officials being the main sources of intervention (Willard 2007). Then there are those who view it as a justice problem concerned with criminal law, policing and public awareness (Cesaroni, Downing and Alvi 2012). The justice perspective typically frames the problem in respect to the bully, the public health perspective defines the problem in terms of the victim and associated youth mental illness and suicide, while the educational lens, views awareness and adult intervention as the appropriate responses.

Evidence on the prevalence and nature of cyberbullying in Canada is varied (Cassidy, Jackson and Brown 2009; Li 2007). Prevalence rates have been captured through convenience samples and range anywhere from as low as four per cent to as high as seventy-two per cent depending on how the questions have been asked (Bauman 2013). These discrepancies are often a result of the lack of standardization definition and measurement instruments (Cross et al. 2011). However, these variations may also be partially explained by youth's tendency to hide cyberbullying from adults. For example, Li's (2010) survey of Canadian students from grade seven to twelve found that over forty per cent had been bullied but would not tell anyone, while only one in ten would inform an adult. In another recent survey of prevalence rates in Ontario, Paglia-Boak and colleagues (2012) found that one in five students responded that they had been bullied over the Internet over the past twelve months, with females twice as likely to report being victims. Ipsos Reid (2012) found that eighteen per cent of Canadian parents have children who have been cyberbullied and thirty-one per cent are aware of young people in their community who have been cyberbullied. Another Ipsos Reid poll (2013) found that twenty per cent of teens have witnessed someone being cyberbullied, with the prevalence increasing as mobile technology becomes more popular.

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 2 of 14about:blank

In this paper we examine cyberbullying in Canada considering how the problem is defined and what policy instruments are used to intervene. We begin with a discussion of the problem definition process and the challenges associated with a contextualized public policy definition of cyberbullying. The following section discusses current research in the area to demonstrate the complex nature of the problem. We then turn to how cyberbullying is being defined by governments in Canada and the interventions begin implemented to address the problem. Next a nascent Canadian problem definition of cyberbullying is considered in the context of what the research shows and what it does not. We conclude with some general comments on the implication of these disconnects.

Defining the problem

Since 2005, a great deal of scholarly work on the effects of cyberbullying and the implications for public policy has accumulated (Brown, Jackson and Cassidy 2006; Li 2007). However it was not until 2012 that cyberbullying was driven high onto the policy agenda following the suicides of three Canadian youth. The events attracted extensive media attention. The first highly published case was the suicide of Amanda Todd who documented her horrific experiences of being bullied and sexually harassed on a widely viewed YouTube video. The following year, Rehtaeh Parsons of Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia hung herself after a video was released of her allegedly being sexually assaulted. In 2013 after prolonged bullying, Todd Loik of North Battleford, Saskatchewan took his own life two weeks before his 16th birthday. These highly publicized cases of cyberbullying, and the risk of teen suicide in response, have propelled the issue to the top of government agendas. However, it should be noted that these cases are only the tip of the iceberg. Courtney Brown, Jenna Bowers-Bryanton and Marjorie Raymond have also taken their own lives after experiencing cyberbullying.

As Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson (2013) highlight "[w]hile suicides purportedly resulting from cyberbullying have garnered much media attention in recent times, suicide is neither the most likely, nor the most prevalent type of impact on victims" (p. 581). Other common outcomes include mental health issues, impacts on academic performance, feelings of well-being at school and home, maladaptive behaviours (aggression, smoking, drinking, shop-lifting) and absenteeism (Schenk and Fremouw 2012). Thus while media attention has heightened public awareness of cyberbullying and subsequent calls for legislation, the focus is on extreme cases often involving criminal investigations. Indeed, there are many forms of cyberbullying that require attention including flaming (electronic transmission of hostile messages), harassment, denigration, cyberstalking (threats of harm or intimidation), masquerading (impersonation for the purpose of harm) and outing (rumors, private information) (Schenk and Fremouw 2012: 22).

Governments' responses to the problem involve various definitions of the problem leading to a mix of policy instrument applications. While some jurisdictions use legal instruments (changes to the criminal code or civil code); others advocate education and prevention campaigns; alternatively some rely on administrative instruments where responses to online abuse involve the use of electronic filters or to restrict access to the tools on school grounds. One of the challenges is that scholarly definitions of cyberbullying can be quite vague. For example Smith et al. (2008) 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" (p. 376). Similarly, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) define cyberbullying as "willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices" (p. 5). While these definitions serve to define cyberbullying the act, they do not define cyberbullying the problem.

For policy makers the "problem" of cyberbullying is multidimensional, irreducible, and political. Without an accepted measure of the construct, competing views among experts will continue to confound policy responses. Currently, many proposed solutions rely on traditional definitions of schoolyard bullying; however, there is a large body of research that suggests electronic aggression is differently characterized (Law et al. 2012a). For example, cyberbullying often overlaps with traditional bullying (Slonje, Smith and Frisen 2013). Cyberbullying is not always an intentional act (Talwar, Gomez-Garibello and Shariff 2014) and there is not always a clear delineation between bully and victim (Yang and Salmivalli 2013). Without agreed upon measures of the construct, policy makers will continue to struggle to provide effective policy interventions.

The problem definition stage of policy making is complex, involving contestation over both the cause(s) of the problem and the appropriate responses(s). Identifying the specific origins of a problem is often difficult as most policy issues are characterized by multiple causes and experienced in the context of individual social reality (Ebbin 2011; Hankivsky and Cormier 2011). The question of whether the problem is caused by the individual that experiences it, or the social setting in which it occurs, also directs the framing of a problem and the implied solution.

Beyond the importance of problem causation, other key elements of problem definition include: incidence patterns, severity, novelty, and whether the issue is perceived as a crisis (Rochefort and Cobb 1995). The frequency of tire problem occurrence is a key element in the policy definition process, often established through incident measurement and reporting. Novelty effects problem definition as new problems lack clarity around appropriate responses. Severity refers to the extent to which the problem is viewed as threatening to the well-being of individuals and whether the problem is perceived to be getting worse. When a problem is an emergency or crisis, the framing of the problem involves a call for immediate attention and a quick response. In many cases focusing events such as industrial accidents, natural disasters and high school shootings can push an issue onto the agenda and place extensive pressure on decision makers to react (Birkland 1998; Lawrence and Birkland 2004).

Often politics and social value play a greater role than evidence in the problem definition stage (Bardwell 1991; Dery 2000). As Blumer (1971) explains:

Social problems lie in and are produced by a process of collective definition. The process of collective definition is responsible for the emergence of social problems, for the way in which they are seen, for the way in which they are approached and considered, for the kinds of remedial plan that is laid out, and for the transformation of the remedial plan in its application (p. 301).

As there are numerous public problems competing for decision makers' attention at any given time, moving a problem onto the government's

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 3 of 14about:blank

agenda can be a challenge (Jones and Baumgartner 2005). However, the availability of a solution, strong public support and the visibility of the problem increase the likelihood of a government response (Portz 1996).

The visibility of cyberbullying has largely been driven by popular media. News media representations of cyberbullying typically focus on a single case but then treat the event as emblematic of a larger epidemic (Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja 2013). According to Olweus (2012), claims made about cyberbullying in the popular media are exaggerated without adequate empirical evidence. As a result, the public's perception is that the severity of cyberbullying is worse than the evidence would suggest. Finally, the media's tendency to sensationalize the phenomena of cyberbullying by featuring the most extreme and tragic outcomes, pushes government to respond to what the public perceives as a crisis (Vandebosch et al. 2013).

With all these factors taken into account, there are a number of different policy frames used to understand cyberbullying and the potential solutions. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the possible consequences of mental health issues or suicide, combined with adolescent victims' predispositions to not report experiences with bullying all confound the problem definition stage (Li 2006; Totten and Quigley 2005). Policy makers must recognize that the negative aggressive behaviors associated with cyberbullying have unique features and are distinctive forms of behaviour.

According to Bauman (2013) key attributes of cyberbullying include:

[p]erpetrators can conceal their identities; perpetrators have constant access to targets; the potential audience is huge; the perpetrator does not see the target's immediate reaction; there are no nonverbal clues to the meaning of a message; the power imbalance is altered (the perpetrator may have little power in the real world but superior technological skills) and content that is posted online is permanent (p. 249).

Definitions that imply cyberbullying is similar to traditional face-to-face bullying will not provide decision makers with the accurate information they need to implement effective policies and legislation.

The problems defining cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is often defined in reference to Olweus' (1993) traditional elements of bullying, which he "characterized by three criteria: (1) it is aggressive behavior and intentional "harmdoing" (2) it is carried out repeatedly and over time (3) it is an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power" (p. 9-10). However, the role of the Internet in bullying behaviour is complex, involving a range of aggressive, criminal and noncriminal behaviours, committed by people of all age groups toward people of all age groups, and using various communication technologies in an international context (Katz 2012; Shariff and Churchill 2010). The lack of a standard problem definition for cyberbullying has lead decision makers to treat it as a new manifestation of an old problem, even though these types of bullying are differentiated by a number of unique features including anonymity, access, scope, power relations, permanency, assumptions concerning victim versus bully, and distinctions between types of aggression.

There is an ongoing debate about the criteria of repetition and power imbalances online (Langos 2012). Traditional definitions of bullying treat repetition as a repeated intentional act by the bully, whereas in an act of cyberbullying the act of repetition may not be at the hands of the initial bully. As Slonje, Smith and Frisen (2013) explain "a single act by one perpetrator may be repeated many times by others, and experienced many times by the victim. If the repetition is not carried out by the perpetrator, is this still cyberbullying?" (p. 27). Just as important is the question of intent. If the bully has lost control of the bullying, is the same intent to harm implied? Differences in power imbalance between face-to-face and cyberbullying is another feature that differentiates these types of behaviour. For example, Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) found that cyberbullies may have higher levels of technical expertise. Finally, in a cyber setting, the bully is not socially constrained (the bully is not reliant on physical strength) redirecting the power balance of bullying and making youth more likely to engage in the behaviour (Pettalia, Levin and Dickinson 2013). While youth could simply turn the device off, "... victims report feeling helpless due to an inability to escape from online postings that may seem more permanent than words shouted in the schoolyard" (Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson 2013: 585). As such, policy makers must be aware of the more subtle difference between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.

Cascardi et al. (2014) focus on how face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying differ from peer aggression and harassment. Based largely on Olweus' classic definition of bullying, they identify repetition and a power imbalance between bully and victim as the two major differences between bullying, aggression and harassment. Peer aggression is defined as "intent to inflict harm with aggressive acts" (p. 10), while bullying includes intentional aggressive acts, repetition and a power imbalance. Harassment can consist of negative acts that occur once or many times, but differs in that the victim defines the action as harassment while the aggressor may not have harmful intentions. This misunderstanding is also present in antibullying statutes and laws that have been introduced in recent years with much legal confusion as to what bullying is, what harassment is and what peer aggression is in a computer mediated environment.

In Wingate, Minney and Guadagno's (2013) work comparing and contrasting traditional face-to-face bullying with cyberbullying, the authors suggest that there is no "gold standard" (p. 88) when it comes to defining cyberbullying. Exploring the role of aggression in bullying, how computer mediated communications change bullying and the role of victim and perpetrator, their study identifies key differences between traditional face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. For example, they found the role of aggression in traditional definitions of bullying assumes aggression can be direct (overt/physical) or relational (covert/social) and that it can also be proactive or reactive. In most cases, cyberbullying aggression tends to be proactive and relational aggression rather than direct and reactive, which is common in face-to-face bullying.

Doole, Pyzalski and Cross (2009) argue that a key difference between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying is the imbalance of power and repetition. In face-to-face bullying the power imbalance is often an outcome of the bully's "physical and/or psychological power in a real world" (p. 184) with repetition focused on recurring behaviours perpetrated by the bully. Alternatively, power imbalances in cyberbullying may still be associated with physical and/or psychological elements, but they are also the result of the power of technology and the features of online content, as well as the nature of computer mediated communication. In addition, one of the more troublesome aspects of face-to-face bullying

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 4 of 14about:blank

involves the role a group can play in perpetuating the aggressive actions of the bully. Online, that effect can be magnified because pictures, videos and messages can be spread quickly and at low cost to large numbers of people. Finally, the imbalance of power is not necessarily the result of the bully possessing power but could be the result of the victim lacking it. Repetition in cyberbullying is also different because it goes beyond the intention and behaviour of the bully, with content easily shared with an undefined audience.

Cyberbullying has also been shown to display characteristics of "mob mentality" because the bullies feel a sense of anonymity, making them less likely to think of the consequences of their actions. The lack of nonverbal cues is another characteristic that makes hurtful messages (in the case of cyberbullying) more salient to victims. In addition, cyberbullying is not influenced by proximity--physical distance doesn't matter as "proximity can be social, as well as physical" (Wingate, Minney and Guadagno 2013: 94). Anonymity is a unique characteristic of cyberbullying because young people can hide behind a screen where the fear of being identified and punished is lessened, a phenomenon called "disinhibition" (Beale and Hall 2007). The online disinhibition effect refers to the abandonment of social rules that are typically present in face- to-face interactions. The ability to conceal one's identity online can lead to inhibition from typical social behavior, decreasing both cognitive empathy (ability to understand another's emotions) and affective empathy (ability to share another's emotions) (Ang and Goh 2010).

The relationship between bully and victims is another significant difference between face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. In face-to-face bullying, the delineation between bully and victim is much clearer. In cyberbullying, youth are often both the perpetrator of aggression while simultaneously experiencing victimization (Yang and Salmivalli 2013). Law et al. (2012a) found that students between the ages of 11 and 18 experience cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying differently as roles are often blurred between the bully (sender), the victim (receiver) and the bystander (witness). In addition the study found that adolescents categorized electronic aggression by modes of bullying as opposed to their role in aggression. This research is further supported by Law et al.'s (2012b) work on the motivation behind online aggression and whether youth were primarily proactive or reactive in their actions. The study found that online aggression was typically distinct from traditional bullying as there was more reciprocal, back and forth interactions where the same individual would often be both victim and aggressor. Finally, bullying rates have traditionally been higher in males than females; however, online gender differences do not play as large of a role (Gorzig and Olafsson 2013; Navarro and Jasinski 2013).

At its core, cyberbullying is a policy problem to the extent that it causes harm. At its most tragic outcome, constant online bullying is associated with suicide, but harm can also include increased depression, marginalization and anti-social behaviour among both victims and perpetrators. Often the level of harm is invisible to those on the outside. An experiment conducted by Primetime Live showed that young girls that are victims of cyberbullying can appear calm and collected even though "the harm caused by the comments were real for the girls involved" (McQuade, Colt and Meyer 2009: 59). The potential for cyberbullying to be a "hidden" problem cloaked from parents and teachers is troubling. Measuring the societal outcomes of cyberbullying is challenging. For instance, youth suicide rates show no increase between 2004 and 2009, and rates of depression and other mental health disorders remain stable. Still the negative physical and psychological effects associated with cyber victimization are well known, including suicide, depression, anxiety, lower self-esteem, increased substance abuse, trouble with school work and issues at home (Feldman, Donato, Wright 2013; Sleglova and Cerna 2011; Wang, Nansel and Iannotti 2011). Assessing harm on a societal scale is a major policy challenge for governments seeking to respond to the problem. As the problem definition of cyberbullying expands, it may need to focus on groups that are marginalized or otherwise vulnerable to online cruelty. Identifying such groups is easier in some cases (children and youth) than in others (those with mental illness).

Another key aspect of the debate is treating cyberbullying as a form of misconduct. Often education is the principal policy response to the problem of cyberbullying. Tools and information provide instructional advice to parents, teachers and students about the nature of cyberbullying, its effect on schools and how to prevent it. One concern is that cruel behaviour in youth can lead to criminal behaviour later in life. Cyberbullying presents a challenge to governments in the sense that it involves behaviours that may be considered socially acceptable for some groups. For instance, name-calling, rumour spreading and insults can all be aspects of political life, at least as it is portrayed in the media. On the one hand, cyberbullying involves an extension of schoolyard bullying behaviour beyond the classroom; on the other, it is not feasible, and even undesirable, to govern all different kinds of meanness in society. In this context, cyberbullying may be analogous to obscenity legislation where "we know it when we see it" but may have considerable difficulty describing what level of "meanness" is over the line.

Government response

Definitional ambiguity surrounding cyberbullying is not unique to Canada. Different American state level governments' anti-bullying laws place emphasis on diverse aspects of bullying (Cascardi et al. 2014). Canadian decision makers have taken a tentative approach to defining cyberbullying. At the federal level, The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights and The Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials has examined various policy responses to cyberbullying including changes to the Criminal Code (Canada 2012). At the provincial and territorial level, governments have had an ad hoc response producing a patchwork of anti-bullying legislation and prevention strategies.

Federal response

On 16 October 2013 in its Throne Speech, Canada's Federal Government announced it would protect "the most vulnerable of all victims" by introducing legislation that would make it easier for police and prosecutors to combat cyberbullying that "involves criminal invasion of privacy, intimidation and personal abuse." The legislation would also make the nonconsensual sharing of intimate pictures a crime. Weeks earlier, then Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay had promised "holistic" legislation to address cyberbullying following the suicides of Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and Todd Loik. MacKay said the legislation would focus on education and prevention, as well as changes to the Criminal Code. Concerned parents welcomed the announcement. It is expected the new law will complement legislation that has been introduced in several provinces over the past few years.

MacKay introduced Bill C-13 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code), the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (short titled Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act) in the House of Commons on November 20,

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 5 of 14about:blank

2013. The announcement was made during Bullying Awareness Week and contained Criminal Code changes that make the sharing of intimate images without consent punishable by up to five years in prison. The bill has drawn criticism in some sectors for including a variety of provisions that have little to do with cyberbullying, but seem to be focused on expanding government and police surveillance powers (Cohen 2013). Jennifer Stoddart, Canada's Privacy Commissioner at the time the bill was introduced, said her office would be looking at the legislation in more detail but had some initial questions around increased investigative powers included in the bill and the lack of oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of those powers (Canada 2013).

The Federal Government spent considerable time studying the issue of cyberbullying before taking action. In December 2012, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights released a report entitled Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age. The report looked at the issue in regards to the country's obligations under the United Nations' Conventions on the Rights of the Child, which requires signees to take appropriate steps to protect children from physical and mental violence. The committee interviewed students, teachers and experts from across the country before issuing their report which included six recommendations designed to improve intergovernmental cooperation, reach a national consensus on a definition of cyberbullying and how to monitor it and promote human rights education and digital citizenship.

In June 2013, the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials (CCSO), Criminal Justice, Cybercrime Working Group (CWG), released Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety. Unlike the Senate report, which was devoted more towards defining cyberbullying and establishing a national understanding of the scope of the problem, this report is based on what changes can (or should) be made to criminal law. On the issue of cyberbullying, the report reached two conclusions. The first is that the term cyberbullying encompasses a broad range of behaviours that can't be addressed in one criminal offence. The second conclusion is that the Criminal Code often addresses cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying by looking at core components of the situation such as uttering threats, harassment, etc. The CWG does include a number of potential Criminal Code amendments that could be implemented to better combat cyberbullying. The report also looks at the issue of the non- consensual distribution of intimate images, a component that is often present in cyberbullying including the case of Rehtaeh Parsons. The CWG recommended that this activity be made illegal under a new law that includes a maximum punishment of five years in prison, a recommendation that the government seemingly followed up on its proposed legislation.

In early 2014, the Federal Government introduced "Stop Hating Online" the first part of its national campaign designed to increase youth awareness of the potential dangers of certain online activities. The $4 million campaign includes TV and Internet ads designed to increase awareness around the potential legal repercussions of online bullying. One ad shows teenagers sharing a jpeg file named "jacks_girlfriend" over their mobile devices. The ad ends with the participants in their principal's office, confronted by police officers while Canada.ca/StopHatingOnline appears on the screen. A second ad in the campaign includes "rapid fire" close ups of hands and mobile devices sharing the "jack's girlfriend" file with a set of cuffed hands at the end showing the legal repercussions of the actions. Visiting the StopHatingOnline website brings up a variety of resources, including separate sections for teens and for parents. The website is part of a broader "Get Cyber Safe" campaign managed by the Federal Government which focuses on general online safety, including fraud, illegal downloading and computer viruses.

Provincial responses

Cyberbullying is very commonly identified as a problem within schools with traditional approaches to bullying (codes of conduct) considered an appropriate response even though cyberbullying behaviour occurs outside the confines of schools, where codes of behaviour do not apply (Shariff and Churchill 2010). While the provinces have varied responses, they all tend to define cyberbullying as either harm or misconduct (Table 1). In addition, a number of the provinces still lack a definition of cyberbullying or define it in the context of traditional bullying.

Cyberbullying as harm implies that the problem of cyberbullying lies in its effects: for instance, suicidal ideation, social isolation and mental illness. On the other hand, policy makers can look at cyberbullying as a wrongful act in and of itself, regardless of whether any negative effect occurs. Provinces tend to define cyberbullying in terms of harm (Alberta, Saskatchewan Manitoba for example), while other provinces view it as misconduct (British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick for example). Interestingly British Columbia distinguishes between bullying, harassment and intimidation, although "cyber" is only defined in terms of bullying, while harassment and intimidation are not defined in an online context. It is also common to see traditional bullying and cyberbullying treated as the same problem despite evidence to the contrary.

In the past, bullying has usually been addressed through non-legislative means focused on prevention and intervention, which is also evidenced from the provincial policy responses on cyberbullying. British Columbia for example has introduced ERASE (Expect Respect and a Safe Education) strategy in 2012. It is a program designed to promote positive mental health and prevent bullying activities in schools. In Alberta, Children's Services and Education are leading a cross-ministry prevention strategy, while Quebec enacted Bill 56: An Act to prevent and stop bullying and violence in schools requiring all schools to develop anti-bullying strategies. Ontario has also introduced Bill 212: Progressive Discipline and School Safety Act allowing school principals to expel students for up to 20 days for cyberbullying. Across Canada the most commonly used legislation to prevent and respond to cyberbullying is Education Acts.

Nova Scotia however is an outlier in the sense that it has sought to expand responsibility beyond the harm/misconduct dichotomy to the expected possibility of a harmful effect and the role of authoritative bystanders, parents in particular, in ensuring that cyberbullying does not result in increased harm. One of the key differences in the Case of Nova Scotia was the public perception of how severe the problem was. While Rehtaeh Parsons' death attracted significant attention outside Nova Scotia, she was the third teenage girl from the province to commit suicide following prolonged cyberbullying. The problem definition process in the province began earlier than in the rest of the country when the Nova Scotia government created a task force to look at the issues of bullying and cyberbullying. Following the 2012 release of Respectful and Responsible Relationships: There's No App for That, the report of the Cyberbullying Task Force, the Nova Scotia Government implemented Bill 30, Promotion of Respectful and Responsible Relationships Act amending the Education Act to include a definition of cyberbullying, establish a provincial code of conduct for schools and require schools to collect incident data and monitor bullying activities.

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 6 of 14about:blank

In May 2013, the Cyber-Safety Act Bill 61, also called Rehtaeh's Law, was enacted. The legislation brought into force an expansion of cyberbullying for justice responses, the introduction of parental liability, protection orders, regulations and a "CyberSCAN" unit to investigate cyberbullying complaints. The CyberSCAN unit is mandated to investigate complaints of cyberbullying, but it has also raised a number of concerns about online privacy. In addition, the Nova Scotia government has introduced the Restorative Approaches in Schools, a crime- prevention program led by the departments of Justice and Education, which introduces restorative practices in schools. They also implemented the Speak Up, an Action Plan to Address Bullying and Cyberbullying Behavior, which helps students in terms of interpersonal relationships, build public awareness and education, and creates partnerships among school system participants to develop greater social accountability and responsibility.

Municipal responses

Canadian towns and cities have also been proactive on the anti-bullying front. Many municipalities have passed bylaws to combat bullying with fines ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. Regina was the first city in the country to proceed in this manner when the AntiBullying and Public Fighting Bylaw was passed in 2006. The bylaw gives city police the authority to issue tickets for bullying, whether it happens online or in a public place, with fines of up to $2,000. In the place of a fine, the bylaw also gives the court the power to force individuals into antibullying educational courses. Even though several tickets have been issued under the bylaw, as of November 2012, none have followed through to actual payment of a fine and/or prosecution (Deutsch 2012). The relative lack of use of Regina's bylaw has not discouraged other municipalities, including the City of Edmonton, from attempting to prevent bullying in this manner. The town of Hanna, Alberta passed a bylaw in 2012 that makes it an offence not only to bully, but to encourage bullying. Potential punishment includes fines, but also jail terms of up to six months.

Following the suicide of Amanda Todd of Port Coquitlam, B.C. in 2012, the city looked into anti-bullying measures it had the power to implement, including a municipal bylaw. Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore said that even though the bylaw would include the ability to issue tickets and fines, the main focus would be on raising awareness and preventing bullying (Kurucz 2013). Upon review by the RCMP and legal staff, however, the city was told the police force would be unable to enforce the bylaw as it infringed on portions of the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Kurucz 2013). Mayor Moore and other city councillors expressed disappointment but said they were hopeful the Federal Government would bring about changes to the Criminal Code to make it easier for communities to offer programs at the local level (Strandberg 2013).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED] (1)

Considering the policy response

Governments have a number of policy instruments available to address cyberbullying including law, education and public awareness campaigns. While cyberbullying is not a criminal offense in Canada, the Criminal Code does cover numerous aspects of cyberbullying including criminal harassment, uttering threats, intimidation, mischief in relation to data, unauthorized use of computer, identity fraud, extortion, false messages, indecent or harassing telephone calls, counseling suicide, defamatory libel, incitement of hatred and child pornography offences (Canada. Department of Justice 2013). Canada has also done a great deal of work around public awareness through both traditional and online channels. In class educational initiatives that teach youth about cyberbullying are also common with schools taking the lead across the country. However, due to the poorly defined problem of cyberbullying, the goals of these activities are not always clear. In many cases anti- cyberbullying initiatives are simply updates of existing bullying interventions. This could produce a layering effect where policy instruments become layered on top of each other, over time working towards specific and often conflicting objectives (Howlett 2009).

The word cloud in Figure 1 identifies several themes in how governments are defining cyberbullying. Word frequencies suggest it is understood as a behavioural problem in the context of Olweus' (1993) classic bullying criteria including intent to harm and repetition. Other key elements of the problem definition include the association with electronic communications, the assumption that schools are the institutional site of the problem/solution and finally that students are the main recipients of the interventions. This definition of cyberbullying is troublesome as it misses a number of important policy considerations. Closely reflective of Olweus' classic definition with the addition of computer mediated communications, it does not assume cyberbullying is much different than traditional bullying. Indeed the definition contains several serious flaws and a number of significant omissions.

The three major flaws with the definition are the assumption that cyberbullying originates in schools, that youth are the main victims, and that the behaviour is intentional. Schools are not the sole site of cyberbullying with social media and cell phone mobility allowing people to stay connected to their online worlds constantly. In many cases cyberbullying goes beyond schools and enters the victim's private life (Mishna et al. 2012; Tokunaga 2010). Second, cyberbullying is not limited to youth. Bullying behaviour among adults has typically been studied as a social problem within a specific context such as a workplace, university or prison. In addition, bullying is frequently seen as an individual problem consisting of the "bully" and the "victim" with less consideration given to the role of groups and organizational culture (Escartfn et al. 2013; LaVan and Martin 2008; Rhodes et al. 2010). The prevalence of bullying by adults is less frequent than for youth, for instance when adult prisoners are compared to youth offenders (Ireland 1999). However, it is still not an uncommon adult behaviour, with studies showing from ten to fifteen per cent of workers experiencing some form of bullying (Branch, Ramsay and Barker 2013; Giorgi et al. 2013; Zapf et al. 2011). Finally, recent research suggests that cyberbullying may not be intentional (Shariff 2013). For example, Talwar, Gomez-Garibello and Shariff (2014) found that there are development differences in how youth morally evaluate bullying activity, suggesting that the behaviour does not have to be intentional to cause harm.

Many of the known elements of cyberbullying discussed previously are also omitted from the definition. First, cyberbullying involves a vast audience of bystanders who are often strangers and who may have different responses to the bullying. There are also current debates around the culpability of bystanders (Benzmiller 2013). Second, cyberbullying is often an anonymous act of aggression. Third, cognitive and affective empathy decreases when the aggression is not face-to-face and the bully does not see the impact of their behaviour. Finally, research shows

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 7 of 14about:blank

that there is often an overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, with a number of youth engaging in both activities simultaneously (Kowalski et al. 2014). As a result, it is possible that existing intervention programs will also help reduce the rates of cyberbullying.

Several provinces and a number of school boards have implemented initiatives around digital citizenship and bystander education; however, evaluating the impact of these programs is in very early stages. Curriculum focused on digital citizenship teaches students appropriate online conduct and respect for others. Promoting digital citizenship in schools was one of the key recommendations coming out of the Senate Standing Committee (2012) report Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age. The report defines digital citizenship "as a concept encompassing the various moral and ethical responsibilities we all have, both as members of our communities and as global citizens engaging with each other through technology" (p. 60). As youth become increasingly sophisticated users of social media, learning appropriate online behavior and promoting good digital citizens will be key preventive measures (Kumazaki et al. 2011). Despite the potential of digital citizenship initiatives, evaluating this type of program will require longitudinal studies that provide evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of such interventions (Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson 2013; Perren et al. 2012).

Bystanders witnessing cyberbullying have varied reactions with some youth helping the victim, while others join in the bullying, while others just passively observe (Van Cleemput, Vandebosch and Pabian 2014). Get Cyber Safe, a national public awareness campaign around cyberbullying, includes bystander education to encourage supportive behavior including confronting the bully, telling an adult, and speaking out against the bullying. Research suggests that bystander education may play a critical role in intervention however; evidence on possible determinants of supportive behavior is mixed with question around situational factors and bystanders' perception of bullying (Holfeld 2014; Machackova et al. 2013). As Polanin, Espelage and Pigott (2012) have observed "best practice guidelines to promote effective bystander intervention behaviors remain undefined because research findings varied widely with regard to their implementation focuses and approaches" (p. 50).

Problem definition is a dynamic process, and the current Canadian public policy definition of cyberbullying will inevitably evolve as we come to a clearer understanding of the associated issues and appropriate responses. Currently the causal explanations of cyberbullying are poorly understood, with most research focused on the individual psychological/sociopsychological attributes of the bully (Baroncelli and Ciucci 2014). Identifying the specific origins of cyberbullying is also difficult as the phenomenon is characterized by multiple causes and experienced in the context of individual social reality. Reframing of the problem will occur over time through changes in incident rates, standardized research definitions and measurements and through the deliberative dialogues that occur in policy formulation processes (Cross et al. 2011; Dery 2000; Fischer 2003).

Conclusion

As is so often the case in the problem definition stage, the current problem definition of cyberbullying relies heavily on the availability of a solution (traditional bullying), which is common when a problem is perceived as a crisis creating public outcry (Birkland 1998; Portz 1996). As has been discussed, the Canadian media has played a key role in characterizing the severity and prevalence of cyberbullying, focusing on tragic incidences resulting in teen suicide. While public awareness is high, policy makers' responses are limited by the lack of a standardized construct and associated measurement instruments. In addition, there is a dearth in the public policy and public administration literature on cyberbullying leaving analysts to integrate research insights from diverse disciplinary fields including psychology, education, criminology, law, and health studies. The current approach to cyberbullying in Canada relies heavily on traditional approaches to bullying, and while there is some policy experimentation around bystander education and digital citizenship, the dominant understanding of the problem remains unchanged.

While research suggests that multi-pronged policy instruments are effective means to prevent and respond to cyberbullying (Bauman 2013; Cascardi et al. 2014), the effects of these instruments on policy outcomes is in the early stages of evaluation. In Canada, the current definition of cyberbullying does not provide policy makers with the analytic precision required to develop and implement effective interventions, identify which existing interventions might be used to the same ends and ensure the proper programming is in place to address the different elements of cyberbullying from traditional bullying.

Note

(1) The word cloud presented in Figure 1 was created in TagCrowd (http://tagcrowd.com/), a free online software service. It was generated by entering all of the text contained in Table 1 under the problem definition heading. For more information on the use of word clouds as visualization tools, see Heimerl et al. 2014, Berson and Berson 2009 and McNaught and Lam 2010.

References

Alberta. Alberta Education. School Technology Branch. 2012. Digital Citizenship Policy Development Guide. Available at http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology.aspx.

Ang, Rebecca P. and Dion H. Goh. 2010. "Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender." Child Psychiatry & Human Development 41 (4) August: 387-397.

Bardwell, Lisa V. 1991. "Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving." Environmental Management 15 (5) September/October: 603-612.

Baroncelli, Andrea and Enrica Ciucci. 2014. "Unique effects of different components of trait emotional intelligence in traditional bullying and cyberbullying." Journal of Adolescence 37 (6) August: 807-815.

Bauman, Sheri. 2013. "Cyberbullying: What does the research tell us?" Theory into Practice 52 (4) October: 249-256.

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 8 of 14about:blank

Beale, A.V. and Kimberly R. Hall. 2007. "Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) can do." The Clearing House 81 (1) September-October: 8-12.

Benzmiller, Heather. 2013. "The Cyber-Samaritans: Exploring criminal liability for the 'innocent' bystanders of cyberbullying." [Notes and Comments] Northwestern University Law Review 107 (2) Winter: 927-962.

Berson, Ilene R. and Michael J. Berson. 2009. "Making sense of social studies with visualization tools." Social Education 73(3): 124-126.

Birkland, Thomas A. 1998. "Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting." Journal of Public Policy 18 (01) January: 53-74.

Blumer, Herbert. 1971. "Social problems as collective behavior." Social Problems 18 (3) Winter: 298-306.

Branch, Sara, Sheryl Ramsay and Michelle Barker. 2013. "Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review." International Journal of Management Reviews 15 (3) July: 280-299.

British Columbia. Ministry of Education. 2008. Safe, Caring and Orderly Schools: A Guide. November. Available at https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/sco/guide/scoguide.pdf

--. 2012. Safe and Caring School Communities. Available at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/ topic.page? id=7DBB671F61A540F5AC3A89A904C85245

--. 2013. Codes of Conduct. Available at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic. page?id=F9780A8215EA4D40A606E4CCF20E802F

Brown, Karen, Margaret Jackson and Wanda Cassidy. 2006. "Cyber-bullying: Developing policy to direct responses that are equitable and effective in addressing this special form of bullying." Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 57 (4) December: 136.

Canada. Department of Justice. CCSO Cybercrime Working Group. 2013. "Cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images." Report to the Federal/Provincial/ Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety. Canada Justice. Available at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii/

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Human Rights. 2012. Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age. 10th Report. 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/ridr/dpk/ 01dec12/reports-e.htm

Cascardi, Michele, Cathy Brown, Melinda Iannarone and Norma Cardona. 2014. "The problem with overly broad definitions of bullying: Implications for the schoolhouse, the Statehouse, and the ivory tower." Journal of School Violence 13 (3) May: 253-276.

Cassidy, Wanda, Chantal Faucher and Margaret Jackson. 2013. "Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice." School Psychology International 34 (6) May: 575-612.

Cassidy, Wanda, Margaret Jackson and Karen N. Brown. 2009. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? Students' experiences with cyber-bullying." School Psychology International 30 (4) July: 383-402.

Cesaroni, Carla, Steven Downing and Shahid Alvi. 2012. "Bullying enters the 21st century? Turning a critical eye to cyberbullying research." Youth Justice 12 (3) December: 199-211.

Cohen, Tobi. 2013. "Cyberbully bill includes sweeping changes to bring Criminal Code into modern era." Canada.com. 20 November. Available at http://o.canada.com/news/ federalgovemment-tables-bill-to-crack-down-on-cyberbullying

Cross, Donna, Helen Monks, Margaret Hall, Therese Shaw, Yolanda Pintabona, Erin Erceg, Greg Hamilton, Clare Roberts, Stacey Waters and Leanne Lester. 2011 "Three-year results of the Friendly Schools whole-of-school intervention on children's bullying behaviour." British Educational Research Journal 37 (1) February: 105-129.

David-Ferdon, Corinne and Marci Feldman Hertz. 2007. "Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public health problem." Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (6) December: S1-S5.

Dery, David. 2000 "Agenda setting and problem definition." Policy Studies 21 (1) March: 37-47.

Deutsch, Jeremy. 2012. "Anti-bullying bylaw already in place." Coquitlam Now. 30 November: Available at http://www.thenownews.com/news/anti-bullying-bylaw-already-inplace-1.448220.

Dooley, Julian J., Jacek Pyzalski and Donna Cross. 2009. "Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying a theoretical and conceptual review." Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 217 (4): 182-188.

Dredge, Rebecca, John Gleeson and Xochitl de la Piedad Garcia. 2014. "Cyberbullying in social networking sites: An adolescent victim's perspective." Computers in Human Behavior 36 (July): 13-20.

Ebbin, Syma Alexi. 2011. "The problem with problem definition: Mapping the discursive terrain of conservation in two pacific salmon management regimes." Society and Natural Resources 24 (2) February: 148-164.

Escartin, Jordi, Johannes Ullrich, Dieter Zapf, Elmar Schliiter and Rolf van Dick. 2013. "Individual-and group-level effects of social

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 9 of 14about:blank

identification on workplace bullying." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22 (2): 182-193.

Feldman Hertz, Marci, Ingrid Donato and James Wright. 2013. "Bullying and suicide: A public health approach." Journal of Adolescent Health 53 (1) July: S1-S3.

Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York. Oxford University Press.

Giorgi, Giorgi, Mikayo Ando, Alicia Arenas, Mindy Krischer Shoss and Jose Maria Leon-Perez. 2013. "Exploring personal and organizational determinants of workplace bullying and its prevalence in a Japanese sample." Psychology of Violence 3 (2) April: 185-197.

Gorzig, Anke and Kjartan Olafsson. 2013. "What makes a bully a cyberbully? Unraveling the characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five European countries." Journal of Children and Media 7 (1): 9-27.

Hankivsky, Olena and Renee Cormier. 2011. "Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models." Political Research Quarterly 64 (1) March: 217-229.

Heimerl, Florian, Steffen Lohmann, Simon Lange and Thomas Ertl. 2014 "Word Cloud Explorer: Text Analytics based on Word Clouds." Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS 2014), January 6-9th 2014. http://www.vis.unistuttgart.de/uploads/tx_vispublications/HICSS2014_Word_Cloud_Explorer_preprint.pdf

Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. . 2009. Cyberbullying: Identification, Prevention, and Response. Cyberbullying Research Centre 1. http://www.cyberbullying.us/Cyberbullying_Identification_Prevention_Response_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

Holfeld, Brett. 2014. "Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyber bullying." Computers in Human Behavior 38 (September): 1-7.

Howlett, Michael. 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multilevel nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences 42 (1) February: 73-89.

Ipsos Reid. 2012. One in Ten (12%) Parents Online, Around the World Say Their Child Has Been Cyberbullied, 24% Say They Know of a Child Who Has Experienced Same in Their Community. [Blog post], 9 January. Available at http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20- 14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf

--. 2013. Bullies Taking to Social Networking as Teens Become More Mobile. [Press Release], 26 February. Available at http://www.ipsos- na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx7id=6010

Ireland, Jane L. 1999. "Bullying behaviors among male and female prisoners: A study of adult and young offenders." Aggressive Behavior 25 (3) April: 161-178.

Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Katz, Adrienne. 2012. Cyberbullying and E-Safety: What Educators and Other Professionals Need to Know. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Kowalski, Robin M., Gary W. Giumetti, Amber N. Schroeder and Micah R. Lattanner. 2014. "Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth." Psychological Bulletin 140 (4) July: 1073-1137.

Kumazaki, Ayuchi, Kanae Suzuki, Rui Katsura, Akira Sakamoto and Megumi Kashibuchi. 2011. "The effects of netiquette and ICT skills on school-bullying and cyberbullying: The two-wave panel study of Japanese elementary, secondary, and high school students." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 December: 735-741.

Kurucz, John. 2013. "PoCo decides not to pass an anti-bullying bylaw." Coquitlam Now. 15 May. Available at http://www.thenownews.com/news/anti-bullying-bylaw-backed-l. 444903.

Langos, Colette. 2012. "Cyberbullying: The challenge to define." Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15 (6) June: 285-289.

LaVan, Helen and Wm. Marty Martin. 2008. "Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches." Journal of Business Ethics 83 (2) December: 147-165.

Law, Danielle M., Jennifer D. Shapka, Jose F. Domene and Monique H. Gagne. 2012a. "Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression." Computers in Human Behavior 28 (March): 664-672.

Law, Danielle M., Jennifer D. Shapka, Shelley Hymel, Brent F. Olson and Terry Waterhouse. 2012b. "The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (January): 226-232.

Lawrence, Regina G. and Thomas A. Birkland. 2004. "Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school the shooting problem across public arenas." Social Science Quarterly 85 (5) December: 1193-1207.

Li, Qing. 2006. "Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences." School Psychology International Y1 (2) May: 157-170.

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 10 of 14about:blank

--. 2007. "New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools." Computers in Human Behavior 23 Quly): 1777-1791.

--. 2010. "Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students' behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon." Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 19 (4) May: 372-392.

Machackova, Hana, Lenka Dedkova, Anna Sevcikova and Alena Cema. 2013. "Bystanders' support of cyberbullied schoolmates." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23 (1): 25-36.

McNaught, Carmel and Paul Lam. 2010. "Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool." Qualitative Report 15 (3): 630-643.

McQuade, Samuel C, James P. Colt and Nancy B.B. Meyer. 2009. Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online Bullies. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Mishna, Faye, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, Tahany Gadalla and Joanne Daciuk. 2012. "Risk factors or involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims." Children and Youth Services Review 34 (1): 63-70.

Navarro, Jordana N. and Jana L. Jasinski. 2013. "Why girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys." Women & Criminal Justice 23 (4) October: 286-303.

Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education. 2006. Safe and Caring Schools Policy. Available at http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/publications/

Olweus, Dan. 1993. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

--. 2012. "Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?" European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9 (5): 520-538.

Paglia-Boak, Angela, Edward M. Adlaf, Hayley A. Hamilton, Joseph H. Beitchman, David Wolfe and Robert E. Mann. 2012. "The Mental Health and Well-being of Ontario Students, 1991-2011." CAMH Research Document Series No. 35. Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Paterson, Stephanie. 2010. "What's the problem with gender-based analysis? Gender mainstreaming policy and practice in Canada." Canadian Public Administration 53 (3) September: 395-416.

Perren, Sonja, Lucie Corcoran, Helen Cowie, Francine Dehue, D'Jamila Garcia, Conor McGuckin, Anna Sevcikova, Panayiota Tsatsou and Trijntje Vollink. 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.

Pettalia, Jennifer L., Elizabeth Levin and Joel Dickinson. 2013. "Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence." Computers in Human Behavior 29 (November): 27582765.

Piesclil, Stephanie, Christina Kuhlmann and Torsten Porsch. 2014. "Beware of publicity! Perceived distress of negative cyber incidents and implications for defining cyberbullying." Journal of School Violence 14 (1): 111-132.

Polanin, Joshua R., Dorothy L. Espelage and Therese D. Pigott. 2012. "A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs' effects on bystander intervention behavior." School Psychology Review 41 (1): 47-65.

Portz, John. 1996. "Problem definitions and policy agendas." Policy Studies Journal 24 (3) September: 371-386.

Rhodes, Carl, Alison Pullen, Margaret H. Vickers, Stewart R. Clegg and Alexandra Pitsis. 2010. "Violence and workplace bullying: What are an organization's ethical responsibilities?" Administrative Theory & Praxis 32 (1) March: 96-115.

Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb. 1993. "Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice." Policy Studies journal 21 (1) March: 56-71.

--. 1995. "Problem definition: An emerging perspective." In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda, edited by David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Sabella, Russell A., Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja. 2013. "Cyberbullying myths and realities." Computers in Human Behavior 29 (November): 2703-2711.

Saskatchewan. Ministry of Education. 2013. Saskatchewan's Action Plan to Address Bullying and Cyberbullying. 13 November. Available at http://www.saskatchewan.ca7~/media/ news%20archive/2013/november/14/govemment%20takes%20action%20against%20bullying/campeau%20report%20on%20bullying%20and% 20cyberbullying.pdf

Schenk, Allison M. and William J. Fremouw. 2012. "Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students." journal of School Violence 11 (1) January: 21-37.

Shariff, Shaheen. 2013. Define the Line: Clarifying Boundaries Between Cyberbullying and Socially Responsible Digital Citizenship. Available at http://definetheline.ca/images/FB-FINALREPORT-SHARIFF-DIGITAL -CITIZENSHIP-JANUARY28-2014-PDF2-NEW-VERSION-1.pdf

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 11 of 14about:blank

Shariff, Shaheen and Andrew H. Churchill, eds. 2010. "Appreciating complexity: Detangling the web of stakeholder influence and responsibility." Truths and Myths of Cyberbullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Sleglova, Veronika and Alena Cerna. 2011. "Cyberbullying in adolescent victims: Perception and coping." Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace 5 (2): 4.

Slonje, Robert, Peter K. Smith and Ann Frisen. 2013 "The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention." Computers in Human Behavior 29 (January): 26-32.

Smith, Peter K., Jess Mahdavi, Manuel Carvalho, Sonja Fisher, Shanette Russell and Neil Tippett. 2008. "Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils." journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49 (4) April: 376-385.

Strandberg, Diane. 2013. "Port Coquitlam nixes anti-bullying bylaw plan." The Tri-City News 15 May.

Thomas, Hannah J., Jason P. Connor and James G. Scott. 2014. "Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents-a review." Educational Psychology Review 27 (1): 135-152.

Talwar, Victoria, Carlos Gomez-Garibello and Shaheen Shariff. 2014. "Adolescents' moral evaluations and ratings of cyberbullying: The effect of veracity and intentionality behind the event." Computers in Human Behavior 36(July): 122-128.

Tokunaga, Robert S. 2010. "Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization." Computers in Human Behavior 26 (May): 277-287.

Totten, Mark and Perpetua Quigley. . 2005. "Parental knowledge of child-reported bully-victim and sexual harassment problems in several Canadian schools: Implications for policy and program development." Canadian Public Health Association. November 8, 2005.

Van Cleemput, Katrien, Heidi Vandebosch and Sara Pabian. 2014. "Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine 'helping,' 'joining in,' and 'doing nothing' when witnessing cyberbullying." Aggressive Behavior 40 (5): 383-396.

Vandebosch, Heidi and Katrien Van Cleemput. 2008. "Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters." Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11 (4) August: 499-503.

Vandebosch, Heidi, Roma Simulioniene, Magdalena Marczak, Anne Vermeulen and Luigi Bonetti. 2013. "The role of the media." In Cyberbullying through the New Media: Findings from an International Network, edited by Peter K. Smith and Georges Steffgen. UK: Psychology Press, pp. 99-118.

Wang, Jing, Tonja R. Nansel and Ronald J. Iannotti. 2011. "Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression." Journal of Adolescent Health 48 (4) April: 415-417.

Weiss, Janet A. 1989. "The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork." Policy Sciences 22 (2) May: 97-121.

Willard, Nancy E. 2007. "The authority and responsibility of school officials in responding to cyberbullying." Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (6) December: S64r-S65.

Wingate, Skye V., Jessy A. Minney and Rosanna E. Guadagno. 2013. "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will always hurt you: A review of Cyberbullying." Social Influence 8 (2-3) April: 87-106.

Yang, An and Christina Salmivalli. 2013. "Different forms of bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and victims." European Journal of Developmental Psychology 10 (6) May: 723-738.

Yukon. Yukon Education. 2008. Safe and Caring Schools Policy 1011: Records File # 3500-31011. 31 January. Available at http://www.education.gov.yk.ca/pdf/policy_ safe_schools.pdf

Zapf, Dieter, Jordi Escartin, Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel and Maarit Vartia. 2011. "Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace." In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edition, edited by Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Ryan Deschamps is a PhD candidate, and Kathleen McNutt is Executive Director, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina.

Caption: Figure 1. Word Frequency in Cyberbullying Problem Definitions (1)

Table 1. Provincial Response to Cyberbullying

Jurisdiction Instrument Problem definition

Ontario Education Act Cyberbullying defined: (1.2) Bill 13 Without limiting the generality of 19 June 2012 the definition of "bullying" in

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 12 of 14about:blank

Bill 212: subsection (1), bullying includes Progressive bullying, known as cyberbullying, Disciplineand that is done through any form of School Safety electronic means using any Act technique, including, (a) creating a web page or a blog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person; (b) impersonating another person as the author of posted content or messages; and (c) communicating material to more than one person or posting material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons.

Quebec Education Act Cyberbullying defined: "any Act Respecting behavior, speech, actions or Private gestures, including cyberbullying, Education Bill expressed directly or indirectly, 56 15 June 2012 in particular through social media, prevention plan having the aim of injuring, hurting, oppressing or ostracizing an individual"

Alberta The Education Cyberbullying defined: "repeated Act and hostile or demeaning behaviour by an individual in the school community where the behaviour is intended to cause harm, fear or distress to one or more other individuals in the school community, including psychological harm or harm to an individual's reputation." The Act requires students to "refrain from, report and not tolerate bullying or bullying behaviour directed toward others in the school, whether or not it occurs within the school building, during the school day or by electronic means," while school boards must "establish, implement and maintain a policy respecting the board's obligation under subsection (l)(d) to provide a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment that includes the establishment of a code of conduct for students that addresses bullying behaviour."

Nova Scotia Education Act Cyberbullying defined: "bullying by electronic means that occurs through the use of technology, including computers or other electronic devices, social networks, text messaging, instant messaging, websites or e-mail."

Bill 30, the Passed in May 14, 2012 to amend the Promotion of Education act to include Respectful and definitions of cyberbullying and Respon-sible bullying (cited above). Amend Relationships Chapter 1 of the Acts of 199596, Act the Education Act, to Address Bullying by Promoting Respectful and Responsible Relationships

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 13 of 14about:blank

Bill 61, Cyber- "Cyberbullying" means any safety Act electronic communication through the use of technology including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, computers, other electronic devices, social net-works, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and electronic mail, typically repeated or with continuing effect, that is intended or ought reasonably [to] be expected to cause fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other damage or harm to another person's health, emotional wellbeing, self-esteem or reputation, and includes assisting or encouraging such communication in any way

New Education Act Cyberbullying defined in the Brunswick (Bill 45) context of misconduct: Students are 13 June 2012 guaranteed a "positive learning and Reporting working environment" free from Prevention "bullying, cyberbullying, Action harassment and other forms of disruptive or non-tolerated behaviour or misconduct, including behaviour or misconduct that occurs outside school hours and off the school grounds to the extent the behaviour or misconduct affects the school environment."

Prince School Act N/A--school officials may suspend Edward Focused on use or expel students based on Island of suspension regulations set by the Department. for misconduct.

Newfound- Strategy N/A--focused on a code of conduct, land and Safe and Caring rather than specific definitions of Labrador Schools Policy behaviour. May 2006

Manitoba Bill 24 The Cyberbullying defined: "using the Public Schools Internet or other information or Amendment Act communication technologies, such as Safe Schools e-mail messages or text messages Charter sent by cell phone or pager, to support deliberate, repeated and hostile behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to harm someone else."

Saskatchewan Action plan to Cyberbullying defined: "emotional, address bullying psychological or social bullying and cyberbullying- that occurs using technology to 2013. forward or spread hurtful messages and/or images through email, texting, social media or other forms of electronic communication. Cyberbullying is simply a different setting for bullying. Those who are the target of cyberbullying may be the target of other types of bullying as well."

11/18/16, 8:23 PM

Page 14 of 14about:blank

Alberta Education Act Cyberbullying defined in the Bill 3 context of bullying: "repeated and 10 December 2012 hostile or demeaning behaviour by an individual in the school community where: the behaviour is intended to cause harm, fear or distress to one or more other individuals in the school community, including psychological harm or harm to an individual's reputation."

British Safe and Caring Cyberbullying defined: "bullying Columbia School behaviour which is carried out Communities June through an internet service such as 2012 Code of email, chat room, blog, discussion Conduct group or instant messaging. It can also include bullying through mobile phone technologies and new internet technologies in the future."

Yukon Safe and Caring Cyberbullying defined in the Schools Policy context of bullying: "Bullying is a January 2008 pattern of repeated aggressive behaviour, with negative intent, directed from one person to another, or from one group to another. In many cases bullying occurs when there is a power imbalance. Repeated bullying behaviors can take many forms and are not limited to; physical (e.g. pushing, tripping), verbal (e.g. name calling, put-downs), social (e.g. social isolation, gossip), intimidation (extortion, defacing property or clothing) or cyberbullying (threats or harmful and demeaning text messages, photos or videos distributed or published to the internet)."

Northwest Passed a motion N/A Territories for a strategy Territory-wide anti-bullying campaign

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Deschamps, Ryan, and Kathleen McNutt. "Cyberbullying: what's the problem?" Canadian Public Administration, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016, p. 45+.

Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_oaklandu&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA450037971&it=r&asid=5e91deb83675b55ef3dc3128c24f8af0. Accessed 18 Nov. 2016.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A450037971