Research Presentation
good-student-2014
articale_2_alq.pdf
Off the radar and ubiquitous: text messaging and its relationship to ‘drama’ and cyberbullying in an affluent, academically rigorous US
high school
Kathleen P. Allen*
University of Rochester, Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Rochester, NY, USA
(Received 16 February 2011; final version received 22 September 2011)
This mixed methods study explores text messaging in a suburban US high school. Survey questions were answered by students (mean age 16.0; SD � 1.23) regarding the prevalence of bullying and victimization via text messaging. Students and staff members responded to a survey item regarding perceptions of hostile text messaging. Both students and staff members participated in interviews or focus groups where they discussed bullying, student peer interac- tions, and social conflict. Prevalence for text messaging that was viewed as bullying was considerably lower than other published rates. Female students perceived more hostile text messaging than male students. Analysis of qualitative data suggests that texting contributes to conflict and to a phenomenon called ‘drama,’ and that conflict or ‘drama’ may lead to bullying.
Keywords: cyberbullying; adolescent bullying; adolescent aggression; technically mediated communication; text message; texting
Introduction
Concern over the misuse of electronic communication among youth is on the rise. Of
particular interest is communication using text messaging on cell phones. Text
messaging offers a private way of communicating that is not overheard, and like
email or a written letter, allows a person to communicate without seeing or
experiencing the recipient’s response. These forms of communication are in contrast
to face-to-face or telephone conversations where the affect of the other person is
more obvious. As with emails, text messages can be forwarded to others, increasing
the possibility of having private, damaging, or hostile information disseminated to
multiple recipients. Additionally, text messages lack context and are thus subject to
misinterpretation and misconstrued meanings, which can contribute to interpersonal
conflict and damaged relationships whether intentional or not. Text messaging can
qualify as aggression (i.e., intentionally causing harm), and when it is repeated and
exploits an imbalance of power, meets the criteria for cyberbullying, which has been
defined as ‘willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text’
(Patchin and Hinduja 2006, p. 152). Text messaging has become an embedded social
practice in the lives of adolescents and thus merits further study.
*Email: [email protected]
Journal of Youth Studies
Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2012, 99�117
ISSN 1367-6261 print/ISSN 1469-9680 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2011.630994
http://www.tandfonline.com
Purpose of the study
The first purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of bullying as
perpetrated and experienced through text messaging in an affluent, suburban US
high school, as well as to determine students’ and staff members’ perceptions of how
much hostile text messaging occurs among adolescents (aged 14�19) within a high school setting in the US. The second purpose of this study is to explore how text
messaging is viewed by students and staff members as it relates to social conflict, aggression, and bullying among students in a high school setting.
Research questions
This study seeks to answer the following questions:
� What percentage of students experience or perpetrate bullying via text
messaging? Does it differ by gender or by grade level?
� What are students’ and staff members’ perceptions of the prevalence of hostile
text messaging? Are there differences between students’ and staff members’ perceptions? Are there differences between males’ and females’ perceptions?
Are there differences in perceptions by grade level?
� How do subjects view text messaging as it relates to social conflict, aggression,
and bullying in this high school setting?
Theoretical framework
Conceptually, this study is positioned at the intersection of three interconnected but separate fields of study: mediated communication, adolescent development and peer
relationships, and theories of aggression.
Technically mediated interpersonal communication (Thimm 2010), as opposed to
face-to-face speech, is communication that employs the use of an external item or
device (e.g., a handwritten letter, a mobile telephone, and a computer) which acts as a
tool in the facilitation of communication. Mediated communication can be
synchronous (both communicators are involved at the same time, as in a telephone
call or instant messaging) or asynchronous (the communicators do not have to participate simultaneously as in the writing�reading of a letter or an email). Text messaging is mediated communication conducted through a cell phone that can be
synchronous or asynchronous. While the first strand in this theoretical framework
involves communication, the second strand invokes theories of adolescent develop-
ment and peer relationships.
A well-developed literature on adolescent development suggests that adolescence
is a time of increasing independence from parents and a movement toward greater
numbers of and stronger affiliations with peers. According to Ling (2008) technology, in the form of mobile communication, is reconfiguring the way that adolescents and
adults negotiate this ‘emancipation process’ (p. 50). Ling claims that mobile
communication has given adolescents access to the world beyond their parents’
control in ways that are new to this cohort, and that it has allowed teens closer
interaction with their peers on multiple levels. Licoppe (2004) refers to this ‘closer
100 K.P. Allen
interaction’ as ‘connected presence’ (p. 135) and suggests that texting offers
adolescents a sense that they are permanently connected to their friends because a
text message can be sent or received at any time in any location and can be
experienced as a continuous flow of communication. The third strand in this theoretical framework touches on aggression and its
manifestation in adolescence through various forms of communication both
mediated and non-mediated. Several researchers have proposed that there is a
developmental progression with regards to aggression such that early expressions
tend to be physical but as youth develop cognitive and social competencies
manifestations of aggression tend to become first verbal and direct, and then
indirect (Bjorkqvist et al. 1992, Craig and Pepler 2003, Miller et al. 2008). Thus by
middle school and certainly high school, students who aggress are more likely to do so in ways that are indirect or at least not face-to-face, making mediated
communication an attractive and viable alternative to face-to-face aggression.
A second aspect to the discussion of aggression is offered through the literature
on adolescence and conflict within close relationships (Collins and Laursen 1992,
Hartup 1992, Laursen 1993, Laursen and Collins 1994, Laursen et al. 1996). Within
this framework, conflict is seen as a social interaction which may or may not involve
aggression. A key feature of conflict and its resolution is communication. This
essentially returns us to the first strand invoked in this theoretical framework, mediated communication. In summary, three theoretical strands frame this study:
mediated communication (texting), adolescent peer relationships, and adolescent
aggression and interpersonal conflict. Together they suggest that texting may play a
crucial role in how adolescents communicate, form and maintain social relationships,
resolve conflict, and at times, aggress against one another.
Literature review
A central finding of a recent study (Lenhart et al. 2010) on teens and mobile phones
found that texting is a major component of adolescent communication among
friends, with 75% of 12- to 17-year olds owning cell phones, and 88% of those youth
being text-messagers (p. 2). The typical teen sends and receives 50 texts per day
(p. 31) and most of those are with friends. Teens report that texting is often preferred
to talking because it can be asynchronous and because it is more discrete (p. 47).
They also acknowledge that it is ‘safer’ in that it can be done in ways such that adults
are unaware of the communication (p. 47). Teens also report that cell phones, and particularly texting can be used to harass and bully others with 26% of respondents
indicating that they had been harassed through their cell phone and 47% reporting
that they had sent texts that they later regretted sending (p. 88).
Bullying and harassment via text messaging has been studied, sometimes alone
and sometimes as a component of research that considers cyberbullying more
broadly 1 . Raskauskas (2010) found that 43% of students aged 11�18 had experienced
at least one incident of text-bullying with 23% reporting repeated text-bullying. In
another study, Marsh et al. (2010) found that 11% of students aged 15 reported being text-bullied and 7% reported text-bullying others. In a study of youth aged 11�16 by Smith et al. (2008), bullying/cyberbullying was experienced by 14.1% of students and
was perpetrated by 9.2% with the most frequent form of cyberbullying being text
messaging. Another study reported that 17.6% of students were cyber-bullied and
Journal of Youth Studies 101
11.9% perpetrated cyberbullying with 4.8% experiencing text-bullying and 2.4%
perpetrating text bullying (Slonje and Smith 2008). Thus while not all cyberbullying
takes the form of hostile text messaging, youth report that it does take place, often as
part a pattern of other forms of bullying.
Several researchers have described the negative effects of cyberbullying which
include feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and powerlessness (Raskauskas and Stoltz
2007), feeling emotionally distressed (Ybarra and Mitchell 2004), feeling anxious,
feeling bad about oneself, feeling depressed, and not trusting other people
(Raskauskas 2010), and feeling frustrated, angry or sad (Patchin and Hinduja
2006). While these studies did not distinguish between Internet and text-message
bullying, one study in particular did look at the effects of ostracism via text
messaging with college students. These effects included worse mood, lower levels of
belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Smith and Williams 2004).
Perhaps most interesting, however, was the finding that ostracized subjects wrote
more provocative or hostile text messages in response to their experiences than did
subjects who were not ostracized. This finding suggests that while text messaging can
be hostile and aggressive, it can also provoke aggressive retaliation via text
messaging.
A substantial literature on aggression and bullying has developed over the past
30 years. This research suggests that bullying is a subset of aggression that carries
the features of intentionality and harm, but also involves repetition and the
exploitation of power (Olweus 1993, Olweus 2010). Cyberbullying has recently
come under study as either a new form of bullying or as a new way to bully
(Li 2007, Wolak et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2008, Vandebosch and Van Cleemput
2008). Research on bullying has established that bullying can be indirect or direct,
as well as socially or relationally aggressive and that there are some gender
differences (Crick et al. 1996, Galen and Underwood 1997, Paquette and Under-
wood 1999, Owens et al. 2000). Thus far, research on cyberbullying, like that on
bullying, has found that cyberbullying can be direct or indirect, may qualify as
socially or relationally aggressive, and may be perpetrated differently by males and
females (Li 2006, Lenhart et al. 2010).
In summary, text messaging has become a popular form of electronically
mediated communication among teens that can also qualify as bullying. When
texting rises to the level of bullying it qualifies as cyberbullying, a serious problem for
youth that has been found to contribute to adolescent suicide (Hinduja and Patchin
2010). This study seeks to develop further knowledge about text messaging among
teens particularly as it relates to the development and maintenance of social
relationships and with regards to adolescent conflict, aggression, and bullying in a
high school setting.
Theoretical perspective
This study followed a mixed methods design using a concurrent triangulation format.
As such, the quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed
separately, and then merged during interpretation to better understand the research
problem (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007, pp. 63�64). A strength of a mixed methodological approach is that it provides complementarity, defined as seeking ‘to
102 K.P. Allen
measure overlapping but also different facets of a phenomenon, yielding an enriched,
elaborated understanding of that phenomenon’ (Greene et al. 1989, p. 258).
Methods
The first two research questions on prevalence of bullying and perceptions of hostile
text messaging will be answered using survey data. The third research question on
how subjects view text messaging as related to social conflict, aggression, and
bullying will be answered using interview and focus group data.
Participants
Participants for this study (see Table 1) were from a high school located in an affluent
suburb outside of a mid-sized city in the northeastern United States. Total student enrollment for the 2008�2009 school year at Meliora Public Academy (a pseudonym) was 991 (48.6% male), with 1.8% of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch.
Student enrollment by race/ethnicity was: Asian, 6.6%; Black, 3.1%; Hispanic, 1.3%;
and White, 88.9%. Students’ ages ranged from 14 to 19 with an average of 16.0
(SD � 1.23). The high school employed 154 staff members (33.7% male) during the 2008�2009
school year. The racial/ethnic composition of staff members was Asian, 1.2%; Black,
1.2%; Hispanic, 1.2%; and White, 96.7%.
Measures
Surveys were completed by approximately 820 students and 77 staff members. Sixty-
eight students participated in interviews or focus groups and 38 staff members
participated in interviews.
Table 1. Study participants.
Surveys
Staff members
Males 27
Females 50
Students 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade
Males 107 93 97 78
Females 119 117 101 95
Interviews and focus groups
Staff member interviews (N �38) Males 13
Females 25
Student interviews (N �13) 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade Males 0 1 3 1
Females 0 3 3 2
Student focus groups (N �12) Males 0 2 3 18
Females 0 2 1 29
Journal of Youth Studies 103
Surveys
Students. As part of a larger survey containing 125 items that collected information
on school climate, respect, aggression, and bullying, students answered three
questions about text messaging. The first question asked if they had been bullied
or harassed by someone from school using text messages. The responses included: (1)
It has not happened to me in the past couple of months, (2) Only once or twice, (3) 2
or 3 times a month, (4) About once a week, or (5) Several times a week. The second
question was like the first except that it asked if students had bullied someone using
text messaging. The first response was modified to reflect this change. (i.e., I haven’t bullied anyone . . . ) The third question asked students to determine how often hostile text messaging happens among students at our school or at school sponsored
activities. The responses were 1�5 with 1 � Not at all and 5 � Very often.
Staff. As part of a larger survey containing 75 items that also collected information
on school climate, respect, aggression, and bullying, staff members answered the
third question that students answered regarding perceptions of the prevalence of
hostile text messaging among students.
Interviews and focus groups
Students. Students participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. A range of topics were explored including: definitions and examples of bullying, the
role of text messaging in bullying and conflict, how students respond to peer conflict,
the interconnection of conflict, bullying, and ‘drama,’ 2
the role of gossip, spreading
rumors and talking behind people’s backs, and the influence of status and popularity
on peer interactions.
Staff. Staff members were asked to respond to a similar set of questions about
students during their semi-structured interviews. In particular, staff were asked to
talk about their knowledge of student interactions with regards to conflict,
aggression, and bullying.
Procedures
Data were collected in the school during the second half of the 2008�2009 academic year, beginning in February, 2009 and ending in June, 2009.
Surveys. Data collection for this study involved the administration of anonymous
surveys to students and adult staff members. Students completed their surveys during a homeroom period overseen by teachers. Staff members completed their surveys at a
faculty meeting overseen by school administrators. The principal investigator (PI) was
not present for nor involved in the administration of these surveys.
Interview and focus groups. Students participated in interviews and focus groups.
Students who were interviewed were volunteers and were recruited in one of several
ways:
104 K.P. Allen
1. All but three of the students who were interviewed for this study had
participated in interviews during a pilot study.
2. One student was invited to participate in an interview by a teacher because he
had been the target of bullying for most of his high school career. 3. One student was perplexed by the definition of bullying on the student survey
and following a discussion about it with his homeroom teacher, was referred to
the PI for an interview.
4. One student who participated in a focus group was invited to participate in an
interview because of her own experiences as a target.
Students who participated in focus groups were recruited in one of two ways:
1. They were required to do so by their English teachers as part of a class activity.
2. They were students who had participated in a pilot study in interviews or focus
groups and they were invited back to participate a second time.
All students were assured that their comments would be held in confidence by the PI,
and that no one from the school would ever have access to the audio or visual records
or written transcripts.
Staff members participated in interviews and were recruited in one of three ways:
1. They responded to a flyer that invited them to participate in an interview that
was included at the end of the survey that they completed.
2. They responded to a casual invitation from the principal.
3. They were invited by the PI because another staff member had suggested that
they would have valuable information to share on the topic of bullying.
As with the student interviews, all staff interviews were tape-recorded. Staff members
were assured that their comments would be held in confidence by the interviewer,
that no one from the school would ever have access to the audio records, and that
no one from the school would ever see the transcripts of these sessions. Participants
were also assured that any comments that were included in research reports would be
de-identified.
Interviews and focus groups with students were conducted by the author in a
secluded room off the library of the high school. Staff members were interviewed in
one of several places: (1) their own classroom which was empty of students at the
time, (2) the secluded room off the library, or (3) a conference room off the main
office suite. In all cases, the doors to the rooms were closed during the interviews and
focus groups, affording a high degree of privacy. Interviews were tape-recorded and
focus groups were tape-recorded and video recorded for ease of transcription. The
length of time for interviews and focus groups was generally limited to the length of a
period, thus the time varied from approximately 25�40 minutes. The superintendent of the school district provided a letter of commitment to
the PI indicating that all data collected could be used for research purposes. The
University of Rochester Human Subjects Review Board approved the use of the
secondary data for research purposes.
Journal of Youth Studies 105
Analysis
Surveys. The two student questions on victimization and bullying through the use of
text messages were recoded into binary variables that indicated involvement or non-
involvement. If students indicated that they had not bullied or been victimized, or if it
had only happened ‘once or twice,’ then they were not considered to have been a victim
or a perpetrator. If they responded that the behavior had occurred 2�3 times a month or more, they were considered to have been a victim or a perpetrator. This recoding is
in keeping with Solberg and Olweus (2003) for cut-off points to determine prevalence.
Frequencies were calculated for victimization and bullying for the entire group, for males and females, and for students by grade level. A chi-square test of
independence was calculated to determine if there were differences between males
and females. A Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was performed to determine if
there were differences by grade level.
Students and staff members both answered the third question regarding
perceptions of frequencies with regards to hostile text messaging. Frequencies and
means were calculated for students’ and staff members’ responses. An independent
samples t-test was performed to determine if there were differences between students’ and staff members’ perceptions of hostile text messaging among students. For
students only, frequencies and means were calculated for males and females, and for
students by grade level. An independent samples t-test was performed to determine if
there was a difference between males’ and females’ perceptions. A one-way ANOVA
was conducted to determine if there were differences among grade levels with regards
to perceptions of hostile text messaging.
Interviews and focus groups. The interview and focus group data were analyzed using a
grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006). The tape-recorded interviews and focus
groups were transcribed, coded, and categorized. During transcription and coding,
the PI engaged in memoing. Memo-writing is a process where the researcher
constructs analytic notes which link codes and categories and makes comparisons
between ‘data and data, data and codes . . . codes and categories, and categories and concepts . . . [for the purpose of] articulating conjectures’ (Charmaz 2006, pp. 72�73). Along with and after the process of memo-writing and coding, the PI developed ‘theoretical codes’ (p. 63) which link categories and concepts to themes that establish
relationships between categories. Through the process of defining codes and
categories and organizing them into concepts, theoretical sampling also occurs.
‘Theoretical sampling’ is a process of fitting ‘emerging theories with . . . data’ (p. 101) not ‘about representing a population or increasing the statistical generalizability of
your results’ (p. 101). Theoretical sampling involves movement to more abstract levels
of analysis which link categories and themes through the emergence of hypotheses and
inferences. Lastly, the data were analyzed to develop ‘grounded theories’ which are hypotheses and inferences that explain or elaborate subjects’ views of text messaging
as it is related to social conflict, aggression, and bullying among students.
Results: surveys
Students. Data are reported for all students aggregated, by gender and by grade level
(see Table 2). A chi-square test of independence indicated that there was no
106 K.P. Allen
statistically significant difference in reported victimization when comparing males to
females (x2(1) � 1.35, p�.05). A chi-square test of independence for perpetrating bullying also found no statistically significant difference between males and females
(x2(1) � 2.63, p�.05). A Kruskal-Wallis test determined that there were no statistically significant differences for either bullying (H(1) � 0.00, p�.05) or for victimization (H(1) � 0.05, p�.05) by grade level.
Students also responded to a question on how often they think students engage in
hostile text messaging. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies are located in
Table 3. An independent samples t-test determined that there was a statistically
significant difference in perceptions between males and females (t(800) � � 5.63, pB.05) with females reporting more than males that students engage in hostile text
messaging. A one-way ANOVA determined that there were no differences among
grade levels (p�.05).
Students and staff members. Means, standard deviations, and frequencies are
reported in Table 3 for staff members’ perceptions of student use of hostile text
messaging. An independent samples t-test determined that there were no statistically
significant differences in the means between students and staff members
(t(881) � �.210, p�.05).
Table 2. Percentages of students reporting victimization by bullying and bullying by someone
at school using text messages, aggregated, by gender and by grade level.
Victimization: I was bullied by
someone at school using text messages
Bullying: I bullied someone at
school using text messages
Students (aggregated) 3.2% 1.0%
Males 4.0% 1.6%
Females 2.5% 0.5%
9th graders 3.5% 0.4%
10th graders 2.8% 1.9%
11th graders 3.5% 1.0%
12th graders 2.9% 0.6%
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and percentages of students (aggregated, by gender,
and by grade level), and staff members reporting that hostile text messaging occurs at school
or at school sponsored events.
How often does hostile text messaging occur?
Not at all Very often
Means (SD) 1 2 3 4 5
Students (aggregated) 2.62 (1.30) 25.2% 25.2% 21.9% 17.5% 10.2%
Males 2.34 (1.26) 32.0% 29.0% 19.4% 11.3% 8.3%
Females 2.86 (1.29) 19.3% 22.1% 23.7% 23.0% 11.9%
9th graders 2.74 (1.32) 20.9% 27.6% 21.8% 16.0% 13.8%
10th graders 2.51 (1.23) 26.7% 26.7% 21.0% 20.0% 5.7%
11th graders 2.61 (1.31) 26.3% 24.2% 22.2% 16.7% 10.6%
12th graders 2.62 (1.33) 27.3% 21.5% 22.7% 18.0% 10.5%
Staff members 2.65 (0.91) 9.6% 32.9% 42.5% 12.3% 2.7%
Journal of Youth Studies 107
Results: interviews and focus groups
The third question for this study, How do subjects view text messaging as it relates to
social conflict, aggression, and bullying in this high school setting?, has been
explored through the use of interviews and focus groups. A number of themes
emerged and are discussed below.
Grounded theory #1: Cell phones are ubiquitous and text messaging is common,
and in some instances replaces verbal speech. Staff members report that cell phones
are ever-present. As one teacher in her early thirties acknowledges:
I didn’t have a cell phone in high school. I didn’t have a cell phone in college. They [our students] are joined with them and it’s a constant . . . there’s never any escape from it and so I think they have access to each other all the time. Four in the morning and they can be texting each other and their parents don’t know.
Another teacher who has observed student behavior thinks that face-to-face speech
is being replaced by texting:
I used to each lunch with the kids, and I still do it a little bit. And they’re sitting there, and they’re not even talking. They’re all sitting there texting on their phones. Maybe they’re texting the person right next to them. It’s strange. They don’t talk anymore; they just text.
A student also described a situation where she texted a girl when they were with a
larger group of friends because she wanted to tell her friend something that she didn’t
want the whole group to know or overhear. The outcome, however, was that another
friend who observed the exchange thought that she was being talked about behind
her back and got upset.
Lastly, one student suggested that texting is altering human communication:
. . . the guy breaks up with a girl by giving her a text message . . . texting is an easy way for people to be lazy. They don’t have the guts to do it face-to-face. They (texting/mediated forms of communication) are tools for people to be lazy socially. They think they can get away with more by texting or Facebook. Texting is taking away the human aspect of talking to someone.
This student’s comment echoes the thoughts of the teacher who sees students texting
when speech is an option. In other words, when synchronous, face-to-face
communication is possible, students sometimes choose a mediated-form of commu-
nication.
Grounded theory #2: Gossiping, rumor spreading, and talking behind people’s backs
are common and contribute to conflict. Repeatedly, students indicated that texting was
a way to spread gossip, repeat rumors, and talk behind people’s backs, and along
with these observations, students said that texting of this sort caused social problems
among friends. One way was for students to pass around a text message that might
have said something unflattering about another student. Regarding the spreading of
rumors, one student explained how it worked:
[You might hear] ‘‘oh, this person hooked up with this person while they were dating X.’’ And then it turns out it’s not true at all and it gets spread around and everybody
108 K.P. Allen
hears about it. Especially when it’s text messaging because there’s no body language and you can’t tell if it’s sarcastic. That’s a problem I’ve seen. You can’t tell if someone is insulting you.
This comment also brings up the problem of how text messages can easily be
misunderstand or misconstrued. Along this line, another student commented, ‘A text
message can be interpreted in so many ways. Sometimes they sound mean and you
didn’t mean it that way.’
One female student said the following in a response to a question about text
messaging being a problem:
People play their conflicts out using text messaging. My mom has a rule to talk to people, because tone of voice is not read in a text message. People can misinterpret the tone of a text. I don’t use texting to solve a problem. I call the person on the phone. If I need to make plans, I talk to them so I can hear their tone of voice . . . Teachers and parents can’t read text messages. Kids can hide text messages from parents. There’s no third person listening in. Texting the message on to other people makes the fight
3 get
bigger. It’s like trying to get someone on your side.
Thus, texting contributes to peer conflict because it can be misused, misunderstood,
or misconstrued. Additionally, because of its secretive nature, students are perhaps
more likely to say things in a text that they would not verbally speak in the presence
of an adult. Lastly, this student alludes to a form of social-relational aggression
referred to as ‘alliance building’ where one student tries to get a group of friends to
dislike or exclude another person, certainly a behavior that contributes to conflict
and may qualify as aggression or even bullying.
Grounded theory #3: Students and staff members claim that bullying doesn’t occur
in their school, but that ‘drama,’ which involves gossiping and talking behind people’s
backs is very common. However, students and staff acknowledge that texting
contributes to conflict, and ‘drama,’ and that either can lead to bullying. Students of
all ages and both genders, as well as most staff members talked about ‘drama,’ a
construct which is not defined in the literature, but which is part of the adolescent
lexicon (Hoffman 2010, Lenhart et al. 2010). What follows is a description of drama
and its relationships to conflict, aggression, and bullying, as it is understood by the
students and staff members from Meliora Public Academy. Drama is social interaction that can lead to conflict or it can grow out of conflict
that is ‘normal’ or ‘regular’ (Remboldt and Zimman 1996, Doll et al. 2004). Normal
or regular conflict involves honest disagreements between individuals who have
conflicting needs, wants, goals, or opinions. Normal conflict is usually resolved
without aggressive interactions among individuals who do not intentionally harm
one another and who do not exploit power imbalances.
Drama is social interaction that is characterized by overreaction and excessive
emotionality. With drama, the substance of the issue tends to be trivial or
insignificant relative to the immediate circumstances (In other words, the relevance
of the issue is inflated.), or the level of upset being experienced by one or more of the
parties is greater than would be expected for the given situation. Because drama is
characterized by inflated relevance, it is generally short-lived.
Drama involves situations where excessive time and attention may be devoted to
the issue, where extraneous people become involved in the issue, or where overreaction
Journal of Youth Studies 109
and excessive emotionality may be intentionally prolonged by individuals, who are
either intimately or peripherally involved with the situation. Drama often moves
beyond the original individuals to include others who may have little stake in the
original situation which sometimes adds to the intensity of the drama.
Drama is characterized by many of the same behaviors that can also be bullying,
such as gossiping, spreading rumors, and talking (or texting) behind people’s backs.
Drama that makes use of electronically mediated communication such as text
messaging, IMing, email, Internet social networking sites, chat rooms, or Internet
postings qualify as ‘cyberdrama’ (Hoffman 2010).
Behavioral choices and responses determine if conflict becomes drama, or if
drama becomes conflict, or if either becomes bullying. The specific features of
drama: overreaction, excessive emotionality, prolongation, involvement of extra-
neous individuals, and inflated relevance would seem to indicate that drama is a
construct separate from normal (regular) conflict and bullying.
Students linked texting to drama. One student referred to texting as a ‘drama
starter.’ Other students said that texting was a way to start or spread rumors which
were part of drama. The following exchange described how texting can be implicated
in drama that can become conflict:
Interviewer: What makes something drama?
Student: Breaking up with your boyfriend. Not wearing the right clothes. Talking about people. Phone calls. Text messages. Drama is before a fight (a non-physical conflict) and can lead to a fight. It’s talking behind someone’s back, or saying things face-to-face that are critical. Then saying, ‘You can’t hang with us anymore.’ That would be a fight.
Several students offered comments that explained how texting contributes to conflict
primarily because it is easy to misinterpret. ‘A lot of things in texting . . . you don’t know, like the emotion. It happens with friends . . . You don’t know their expression. Is it sarcastic or not? You can’t tell excitement in a text message. Maybe it’s like a
mask they can put on and they can be rude.’ ‘A text message can be interpreted in so
many ways. Sometimes they sound mean and you didn’t mean it that way.’
One other way that texting contributes to conflict or drama is when students
show a negative text to the person who is the subject of the negative text. In other
words, a text becomes a permanent record of something disparaging about another
person that can be shown to that person, which can cause conflict or drama. ‘Other
people read the text. It gets passed around.’ ‘Texting is like talking behind people’s
backs, but that’s [showing the text] worse because the person shows the person
[whom the text is about] the text . . . and [then he/she knows] who said it.’ Lastly, students implicated texting in conflict or drama that they saw as bullying:
Start with texting and say something that upsets someone, criticizes them in some way between friends. It can turn into a fight (non-physical conflict) because the person won’t want to take it anymore. Accusations happen. Then it can become bullying.
Another student said the following:
I think there is a very, very fine line between drama and bullying. I think drama is what happens but bullying is what comes out of it. Something will happen and it will lead to
110 K.P. Allen
something else and then it will turn into an evil text message here . . . a Facebook message there. People don’t usually see that as bullying, but I’ve been caught up in some drama, and I’ve heard people talking about me and I really think that that’s bullying because it’s hurtful because it’s coming from your friends and I just think that bullying comes out of drama.
In summary, students talked about conflict and drama as separate phenomena which
could evolve into bullying. Most of these instances of conflict or drama occurred
within friendships or friendship groups, with text messaging facilitating the passing
of negative information or comments about individuals or situations. Students
alluded to the fact that texters sometimes felt anonymous even though their phone
number identified them. Texting could result in hurting people, thus precipitating
conflict or drama, and either form of social interaction could escalate to bullying.
Grounded theory #4: Text messaging is a private form of communication that is
easily hidden from adults. This secrecy allows students to interact in hurtful ways that
adults are unaware of. Students see great benefit in the secrecy afforded in
communicating through texting. As one student said:
And a lot of the things the kids are getting good at . . . [like] keeping it away from teachers. There’s texting now. Texting has opened a whole new realm of bullying, because it’s harder for the teachers to find out . . . because they don’t know.
Adults endorsed the position that they have little knowledge about student
interactions that include text messaging. In essence, they say that students have
become skilled at deception and that unless a student shows them a hostile text
message, they would have no way of knowing about this aggression:
I’m not hearing that it’s [texting] a big problem here. I think a lot of it is underground. It’s only if a kid confides in a teacher or we actually happen to overhear it, or we hear kids say, ‘He got my text and now he’s mad.’
Other teachers commented, ‘Some of that cyberbullying, text-bullying stuff . . . I think there’s way more of that than we realize . . . they do it out of our range intentionally.’ Regarding texting, ‘It’s a really hard one unless you overhear someone
talking about texting . . . you have no way of knowing.’ ‘Now a lot of the bullying, we’re not seeing [it]. They’re smart enough not to do it in front of us. So it’s
happening online . . . texting.’ The teacher who made this last comment described how an incident that
happened in the locker room where two friends engaged in horseplay resulted in an
accident where one student got seriously hurt. It was unintentional, but because
texting became the vehicle for disseminating information, the situation ‘got blown
out of proportion’ and became so twisted that students thought there had been an
intentional attack. The teacher added that the volume and intensity of the gossip that
was communicated via texting increased the stress of the situation, and that the
rumors spread faster with texting than they would have if they were only being
communicated through speech.
There is a sense among adult staff that they have lost control of their ability to
influence students because students have been able to disconnect from adults via
technically mediated communication to which they are often not privy. ‘ . . . they’re so
Journal of Youth Studies 111
good at not showing or not coming to you, and hiding things. Things that you might
see in a classroom or in the halls . . . have gone into that whole other world.’ This veteran teacher feels more disconnected from students than ever because students
can interact with their peers in ways that are totally hidden from adults.
This same teacher speaks of texting and drama:
Texting facilitates the drama. The messages go and it becomes a big deal and everybody’s got to talk about it. It’s a lot more interesting than what they’re learning in school sometimes . . . the little soap opera that they have fun with. I teach boys and girls and my comments are about both of them.
Thus, for students, the ability to say and do things that adults would disapprove of is
increased when students can communicate via text messaging. Comments from
adults and students indicate that texting and the secrecy it affords contributes to
drama and conflict, and makes it more difficult for adults to respond to students who
are involved in damaging social interactions.
Discussion
It is surprising how little bullying or victimization via text messaging is reported in
this school. Just over 3% of students indicated that they are victimized and only 1%
say they bully using text messages. This is in comparison to Raskauskas’s (2010) 23%
or Marsh et al.’s (2010) 11% reports of the frequencies for victimization, or Marsh
et al.’s (2010) 7% report for the frequency of bullying, via text messaging. Although
males report more victimization and bullying by text messaging than females in this
study, these differences were not statistically significant. Likewise, there were no
differences in either bullying or victimization by grade level. These findings suggest
that bullying via text messaging is a minor problem in this school. This is perhaps
explained by the repeated comment made by students and staff that ‘we don’t have
bullying here.’ Thus, when asked about bullying via text messaging, subjects just
don’t see hostile text messaging as a behavior that corresponds to their under-
standing of bullying, and therefore they don’t report it as such.
In addition to actual prevalence, subjects were asked about their perceptions of
the prevalence of hostile text messaging. Responses indicated that students thought
there was more ‘hostile text messaging’ than actual reported bullying or victimization
through text messaging. There was also a statistically significant difference by gender
for students for perceptions of hostile texting, with females indicating that they
thought there was more of this behavior than males. This perception, which seems to
contradict actual prevalence data, reflects research that suggests that females prefer
tactics which are more indirectly, socially, or relationally aggressive as compared to
males who may aggress in more direct ways (Crick et al. 1996, Galen and Underwood
1997, Paquette and Underwood 1999, Owens et al. 2000). In this case, perceptions
may be reflecting the attitudes of females toward indirect, social, or relational
aggression. In other words, because they prefer this kind of aggression, females may
think there is more of it. Another reason for the finding that females perceive more
hostile texting than males may be found in the fact that females text more than males
do (Lenhart et al. 2010), providing them more opportunities for sending nasty texts.
112 K.P. Allen
While the independent samples t-test did not indicate that the mean difference
between student and staff perceptions of hostile text messaging was statistically
significant, it is interesting to consider the frequencies reported by students and staff
(see Table 3). Just over 25% of students felt that hostile text messaging happened ‘not
at all,’ whereas 9.6% of staff members thought it happened ‘not at all.’ This would
seem to indicate that adults perceive texting to be more of a problem than students.
In contrast, just over 10% of students said that hostile text messaging happened ‘very often,’ whereas only 2.7% of staff members said it happened ‘very often.’ This seems
to indicate the opposite, that students perceive texting to be more of a problem than
adults. Given the secretive nature of texting and the fact that research indicates that
bullying is more apparent to students than it is to school staff (Craig and Pepler
1997, Atlas and Pepler 1998), one would expect that there would be a clear-cut
indication that students perceive texting to be a greater problem than adults do,
but this is not indicated by the t-tests and by the number of students who indicate
that texting does not happen at all. This discrepancy is further difficult to explain in
light of the qualitative data suggesting that staff members feel they have little
knowledge of students’ text messaging behaviors. Perhaps such findings are related to
the fact that there is generally little aggression expressed through text messaging in
this school.
The most compelling question revolves around why this high school would have
such low rates of bullying and victimization by text messaging in comparison to
studies conducted elsewhere. A possible answer to that question lies in a contextual feature of this school which reflects an additional grounded theory not previously
discussed.
Meliora Public Academy resides in an affluent community and is a school which
offers a highly rigorous academic programme. Status in this school is achieved by
taking a full load of Advanced Placement courses, doing well in them, and then
getting into a prestigious college or university. Failure to attend school, complete
assignments, or treat teachers with respect is unacceptable, and students enforce
these norms among their peers. One student viewed bullying peers who were slacking
as a positive form of social pressure that could have a good outcome for the target by
getting the target to become more focused on school work. Thus, the additional
grounded theory related to this finding might be the following: With academic
success as the main focus, students view themselves as superior to students elsewhere.
Maintenance of this identity requires that students not overtly aggress against each
other or adult staff (because doing so would jeopardize academic success and the status
that comes with it), hence the perception and perhaps legitimate conclusion that ‘we
don’t have bullying here.’
Students viewed those who were physically aggressive as ‘losers,’ and teachers
quite consistently spoke of how ‘nice,’ tolerant, hardworking, and respectful students
at Meliora are. When students spoke of aggression among their peers, it was almost
always a form of indirect aggression which included gossip, talking behind people’s
backs, or spreading rumors. Because status seemed to be achieved in part in this
school from being a successful student as opposed to being sociometrically popular,
there was less competition for social status and the often cruel and vicious
interactions that accompany it. In other words, it is possible that the strong
academic culture suppressed some of the behaviors that would be more typical of a
school where social hierarchy and popularity were of greater value to students. This
Journal of Youth Studies 113
might explain the low levels of bullying via text messaging, and it would also explain
the way that students hide their negative behaviors from adults, with texting being a
very convenient method of doing so.
Strengths, limitations, and future research
One of the strengths of this research is that it is a mixed methods study. Research on
bullying and aggression has tended to be quantitative in nature and the methodo- logical approach of this study suggests that greater access to knowledge may be
available through an expansion of research methods in this field.
There are several limitations. One is that this study was conducted in a single high
school, and thus the sample was not random. Additionally, the high school is not
representative of high schools across the United States. These two features of the
data would indicate that the results are not generalizable. Finally, these data are two
and a half years old and when considered in light of the speed with which youth
adopt new communication technologies, the findings may be called into question with regards to their applicability to youth now.
The findings from this study suggest that future research should consider
studying ‘drama’ as a construct separate from conflict and bullying. Peer relations
research would benefit from further exploration of how drama relates to bullying and
conflict, as well as the nature and impact of drama on the relationships and social
interactions of youth.
Conclusions
While this study originally posed questions about text messaging in a high school and
how it relates to social conflict, aggression, and bullying, the real value of the
knowledge that was uncovered lies in the perceptions of students and staff regarding conflict, drama, and bullying. The findings suggest a complicated set of social
dynamics where texting plays a role in the development of conflict, and of a
phenomenon not previously described in the literature which is referred to as ‘drama.’
Both conflict and drama may develop into the other, and either can evolve into bullying
with technically mediated communication contributing to all three phenomena.
Research from the fields of peer relations and bullying seldom links the constructs
of conflict and bullying, and as previously stated, there is no mention of drama in the
literature at all. This may be due to the fact that most research is quantitative, reflecting a perspective which values parsimony and begins, rather than ends with the
development of hypotheses. The current study, because of its mixed methods approach,
was able to explore how students and staff perceive peer relationships that include
conflict, drama, and bullying in an, up to this point, rare approach to studying peer
relationships, conflict, and bullying.
An additional concern which arises from the qualitative data addresses the
connection between cyberbullying, of which texting is a form, and suicide. Students
and staff clearly suggested that text messaging was increasingly allowing students to remove themselves from the ‘prying eyes’ of adults. When the literature on
cyberbullying and suicide is considered, it is apparent that one of the risks of youth
putting greater distance between themselves and adults is that adults may have no
awareness of the aggressive experiences of youth and the fragile mental health to which
114 K.P. Allen
it has contributed. Thus, not only has technology afforded youth the ability to aggress
secretly, but it may also hide from adults the signs of deteriorating mental health that
contribute to suicide.
Technically mediated communication seems to factor into the ways that
adolescents communicate, relate, and aggress, with text messaging being a favored
form at the moment. Given the concern over bullying and cyberbullying in schools,
continued study of adolescent adoption and use of technically mediated communica-
tion is strongly warranted.
Notes
1. Cyberbullying includes bullying which uses cell phones and computers. While text messaging does not make use of the Internet, communication through computers does. Some cell phones have Internet access and thus bullying via the Internet can occur through the use of these mobile devices.
2. Students spontaneously talked about ‘drama’ when they were discussing how students get along with each other, what types of interactions produce conflict, and how they manage these issues.
3. In this context the word ‘fight’ refers to a non-physical conflict.
References
Atlas, R. and Pepler, D.J., 1998. Observations of bullying in the classroom. American journal of educational research, 92, 86�99.
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., and Kaukiainen, A., 1992. Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive behavior, 18, 117�127.
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, W.B. and Laursen, B., 1992. Conflict and relationships during adolescence. In: C.U. Shantz and W.W. Hartup, eds. Conflict in child and adolescent development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 216�241.
Craig, W. and Pepler, D., 1997. Observation of bullying and victimization in the school yard. Canadian journal of school psychology, 13, 41�59.
Craig, W.M. and Pepler, D.J., 2003. Identifying and targeting risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian journal of psychiatry, 48 (9), 577�582.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L., 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A., and Howes, C., 1996. Gender differences in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: how do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child development, 67, 1003�1014.
Doll, B., Song, S., and Siemers, E., 2004. Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In: D.L. Espelage and S.M. Swearer, eds. Bullying in American schools: a social- ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 161�183.
Galen, B.R. and Underwood, M.K., 1997. A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental psychology, 33 (4), 589�600.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., and Graham, W.F., 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11 (3), 255�274.
Hartup, W.W., 1992. Conflict and friendship relations. In: C.U. Shantz and W.W. Hartup, eds. Conflict in child and adolescent development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 186�215.
Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J.W., 2010. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of suicide research, 14 (3), 206�221.
Journal of Youth Studies 115
Hoffman, J., 2010. Online bullies pull schools into the fray. The New York Times, 27 June. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html. [Accessed 12 February 2011].
Laursen, B., 1993. Conflict management among close peers. In: B. Laursen, ed. Close friendships in adolescence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc, 39�54.
Laursen, B. and Collins, W.A., 1994. Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological bulletin, 115 (2), 197�209.
Laursen, B., Hartup, W.W., and Koplas, A.L., 1996. Towards understanding peer conflict. Merrill-Palmer quarterly, 42 (1), 76�102.
Lenhart, A., et al., 2010. Teens and mobile phones: text messaging explodes as teens embrace it as the centerpiece of their communication strategies with friends. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/�/media// Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Teens-and-Mobile-2010-with-topline.pdf. [Accessed 12 February 2011].
Li, Q., 2006. Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender differences. School psychology international, 27 (2), 157�170.
Li, Q., 2007. New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in human behavior, 23, 1777�1791.
Licoppe, C., 2004. ‘Connected’ presence: the emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and planning d: society and space, 22 (1), 135�156.
Ling, R., 2008. Mobile communication and teen emancipation. In: G. Goggin and L. Hjorth, eds. Mobile technologies: from telecommunications to media. New York, NY: Rutledge, 50� 61.
Marsh, L., et al., 2010. Brief report: text bullying and traditional bullying among New Zealand secondary school students. Journal of adolescence, 33, 237�240.
Miller, J.L., Vaillancourt, F., and Boyle, M.H., 2008. Examining the heterotypic continuity of aggressing using teacher reports: results from a national Canadian study. Social development, 18 (1), 164�180.
Olweus, D., 1993. Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D., 2010. Understanding and researching bullying: some critical issues. In: S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, and D.L. Espelage, eds. Handbook of bullying in schools: an international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge, 9�33.
Owens, L., Slee, P., and Shute, R., 2000. ‘It hurts a hell of a lot . . . ’ the effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School psychology international, 21 (4), 359�376.
Paquette, J.A. and Underwood, M.K., 1999. Gender differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer quarterly, 45 (2), 242�266.
Patchin, J.W. and Hinduja, S., 2006. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 4 (2), 148�169.
Raskauskas, J., 2010. Text-bullying: associations with traditional bullying and depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of school violence, 9, 74�97.
Raskauskas, J. and Stoltz, A.D., 2007. Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental psychology, 43 (3), 564�575.
Remboldt, C. and Zimman, R.N., 1996. Respect & protect: a practical, step-by-step violence prevention and intervention program for schools and communities. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute.
Slonje, R. and Smith, P.K., 2008. Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scandinavian journal of psychology, 49 (2), 147�154.
Smith, A. and Williams, K.D., 2004. R u there? ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group dynamics: theory, research, and practice, 8 (4), 291�301.
Smith, P.K., et al., 2008. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 49 (4), 376�385.
Solberg, M.E. and Olweus, D., 2003. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive behavior, 29, 239�268.
116 K.P. Allen
Thimm, C., 2010. Technically-mediated interpersonal communication. In: E. Matsumoto, ed. APA handbook of interpersonal communication. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 57�76.
Vandebosch, J. and Van Cleemput, K., 2008. Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11 (4), 499�503.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K.J., and Finkelhor, D., 2007. Does online harassment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal of adolescent health, 41, S51�S58.
Ybarra, M.L. and Mitchell, K.J., 2004. Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 45 (7), 1308�1316.
Journal of Youth Studies 117
Copyright of Journal of Youth Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
