1136508

research-article2022
NMS0010.1177/14614448221136508new media & societyPatel and Quan-Haase

Article

new media & society

The social-ecological model of

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2022

cyberbullying: Digital media as Article reuse guidelines:

a predominant ecology in the sagepub.com/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221136508
DOI: 10.1177/14614448221136508

everyday lives of youth

journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

Molly-Gloria Patel and

Anabel Quan-Haase
Western University, Canada

Abstract
While cyberbullying has been recognized as a critically important social problem, a void
remains regarding the role of digital media. To address this gap, we propose the social-
ecological model of cyberbullying, an expanded model that builds on Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory (EST) and expands Swearer and Espelage’s social-ecological
model of bullying. A strength of the proposed model is the addition of the digital
context as a new ecology in the everyday lives of youth, which is closely interconnected
with all the other systems. Furthermore, the model incorporates digital-specific factors
within each ecological system of the original EST model. This provides scholars with
a holistic model that they can test, finetune, and expand. A practical implication of
the model is that it can guide the creation and implementation of effective and age-
appropriate cyberbullying prevention and intervention approaches because it considers
in the chronosystem life phases, life transitions, historical events, and crises.

Keywords
Cyberbullying, digital context, digital media, social-ecological model of cyberbullying,
theoretical model

Corresponding author:
Molly-Gloria Patel, Faculty of Arts & Foundational Programs, Okanagan College, 1000 K.L.O. Rd., Kelowna,
BC V1Y 4X8 & Faculty of Social Science, Western University, 1151 Richmond St., London, ON N6A 3K7,
Canada.
Email: [email protected]
2 new media & society 00(0)

Introduction
Parents, educators, and experts have described cyberbullying as an increasingly preva-
lent social problem in the life of youth (PACER, 2022). Cyberbullying includes a range
of harmful behaviors such as sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, or false
content about a person and is facilitated through digital media. Digital media are defined
as the devices (e.g. cellphones and laptops) and applications (e.g. Snapchat and Instagram)
used to access, produce, consume, and exchange information in digital form for support-
ing peer interactions, gaming, and self-presentation (Quan-Haase et al., 2018). In Canada,
one-third of youth aged 15–29 years reported having been victims of cyberbullying
(Statistics Canada, 2016), and the Pew Research Center reported that in the United
States, the prevalence was almost double (Anderson, 2018). Even more concerning is
that the prevalence of cyberbullying increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pan-
demic (Kee et al., 2022) because youth spent more time online (Gordon, 2020). These
statistics cannot be ignored as victimization can have serious and irreversible conse-
quences for youth including increased anxiety, higher levels of depression, and suicide
ideation (Patchin and Hinduja, 2020). With youth spending increased amounts of time
online in a post-pandemic era (Perrin and Atske, 2021), understanding cyberbullying in
this life stage becomes a pressing social issue.
An extensive body of knowledge has accumulated after decades of research on offline
bullying (Hymel and Swearer, 2015). This body of knowledge includes Swearer and
Espelage’s (2004) influential social-ecological model, which identifies important factors
affecting bullying within different social contexts. The model has provided a systematic
understanding of bullying perpetration and victimization and has informed prevention
and intervention initiatives (Hong et al., 2019). For some scholars cyberbullying is a
form of bullying (Kowalski et al., 2014), but for others it represents a distinct phenom-
enon. For Giumetti and Kowalski (2016) they share some overlap, yet they do not see
cyberbullying as simply an extension of offline bullying. Similarly, for Peebles (2014),
as novel digital media emerge, cyberbullying continues to evolve further distinguishing
it from offline bullying. This makes the study of cyberbullying in youth challenging, as
existing theories of offline bullying can provide a roadmap but cannot simply be applied
to this novel phenomenon. This makes it necessary to develop concepts and theories that
address cyberbullying specifically (Sheanoda et al., 2021).
A key problem is that bullying theories do not sufficiently take into consideration the
digital context in which cyberbullying takes place (McMahon, 2014). Researchers such
as Hinduja and Patchin (2018) have started studying the digital context, identifying
unique characteristics that impact cyberbullying such as anonymity, the perception that
online spaces are free of rules, and the disinhibition effect, which describes how indi-
viduals feel a lack of restraint when online. Despite the relevance of this initial research,
there continues to be a lack of systematic and coherent integration of cyberbullying-
specific findings across various social contexts (Tanrikulu, 2015). This necessitates the
development of a theoretical model that brings existing research on cyberbullying
together with the aim of consolidation.
The aim of this article is to develop a social-ecological model of cyberbullying
focused on youth by building on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory
Patel and Quan-Haase 3

(EST) and Swearer and Espelage’s (2004) social-ecological model of bullying. Scholars
have applied EST to cyberbullying research (e.g. Wright, 2016), but this work has been
rather limited in scope because it has focused primarily on two areas of the larger model:
the individual (e.g. age, socioeconomic status [SES], gender)—where individuals are
placed at the center of their development and affected by their surroundings—and the
microsystem—the social groups that individuals interact with, such as parents, friends/
peers, and educators. Despite EST’s potential utility to inform cyberbullying scholarship,
it has not yet been systematically applied. A key strength of the proposed expanded
social-ecological model of cyberbullying is that it applies EST to integrate, compare, and
organize the cyberbullying literature focused on youth in a coherent way to incorporate
digital-specific factors within each ecological system. A second strength is our recogni-
tion of the digital context as a separate ecological system yet one that is closely intercon-
nected with the other ecological systems. Furthermore, the expanded model incorporates
digital-specific factors within each ecological system and explains how they interact
with cyberbullying. A practical application of this holistic model is that it can guide the
creation and implementation of cyberbullying prevention and intervention initiatives tai-
lored to youth. This is a critical outcome because studies have continuously demon-
strated a need for more effective and age-appropriate cyberbullying-focused initiatives
(Faucher et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2019).
The article begins with an overview of prior models and theories, examining how these
have evolved and their applicability to cyberbullying-related research. The article then pro-
poses the social-ecological model of cyberbullying as an expanded model that systemati-
cally addresses the role of digital media in cyberbullying. While cyberbullying affects
individuals across the lifespan and in diverse social contexts such as workplaces, political
arenas, and leisure (Myers and Cowie, 2019), the current research focus centers on youth,
specifically children and adolescents under the age of 19 (United Nations, 2020), because
they are most vulnerable to and affected by cyberbullying (Anderson, 2018; Patchin and
Hinduja, 2020). The article concludes by discussing the strengths of the social-ecological
model of cyberbullying and opportunities for testing, finetuning, and expanding the model.

Background
To provide the necessary context to develop the expanded model of cyberbullying, we
provide a brief overview of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) EST by discussing how it has
evolved and highlighting key contributions (Figure 1). A strength of EST lies in its expla-
nation of how an individual interacts and develops throughout the life course within
varying social contexts (Corsaro, 1985). Most importantly, these contexts are not seen as
silos, but rather the model suggests they overlap and interact with one another. EST
refers to social contexts as ecological systems and sees these as places where individuals
influence and are influenced by social relations and the broader culture (Swearer and
Espelage, 2004).
EST has continued to evolve. During his career, Bronfenbrenner revisited the model,
making several important modifications (Eriksson et al., 2018). For instance, in the
1980s to mid-1990s, significant changes to the model included emphasizing close, recip-
rocal face-to-face interactions within a child’s immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner
4 new media & society 00(0)

Figure 1.  Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory.

Source: Adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1979).

and Ceci, 1994) and taking more fully into consideration the development of the chrono-
system, accounting for changes over time, and how these affect an individual’s develop-
mental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). From the mid-1990s to 2006, Bronfenbrenner
(1995) developed concepts such as proximal processes, which constitute reciprocal inter-
actions with other individuals, objects, and symbols that take place over time. Since its
development, many studies have drawn on Bronfenbrenner’s original EST and later
developments to study a wide range of research questions.
As digital technologies weave into many aspects of everyday life, Johnson and
Puplampu (2008) took an EST approach when examining the influence of Internet use on
child development. The authors propose a techno-subsystem that is integrated into the
EST model as an extension of the microsystem. For Johnson and Puplampu (2008), this
techno-subsystem includes an individual’s interaction with their microsystem relation-
ships as well as material components of communication, information, and recreation
technologies. The limitation of their approach, as discussed by Navarro and Tudge
(2022), is that they conceptualize the techno-subsystem as intrinsically tied to the
microsystem. Thus, the techno-subsystem cannot be expanded to other ecological sys-
tems, providing solutions only at the microsystem level. To study online behaviors like
cyberbullying, a more comprehensive model is needed.

The social-ecological model of bullying

Building on Bronfenbrenner’s EST, Swearer and Espelage (2004) developed the social-
ecological model of bullying (Figure 2). In this model, bullying results from a dynamic
interplay between individuals and their social contexts. Key characteristics found to
Patel and Quan-Haase 5

Figure 2.  Swearer and Espelage social-ecological model of bullying.

Source: Adapted from Swearer and Espelage (2004).

impact youth are the type and amount of social support available in and out of school, the
school’s use of community partnerships and resources (Leff et al., 2004), and interac-
tions taking place between parents and educators (Swearer and Hymel, 2015). Taken
together, these factors highlight the interplay between an individual’s various ecological
systems, where congruency between them helps to mediate the occurrence and impacts
of bullying behaviors (Swearer and Espelage, 2004).
The social-ecological model has advanced understandings of offline bullying because
of its flexibility, allowing scholars to apply it to suit the needs of their research questions
and methodological approaches. For example, Hong et al. (2019) required flexibility to
assess the structure of bully and victim social groups in South Korea. The authors exam-
ined the presence and absence of several relationship variables (e.g. socio-demographic
variables, quality of peer relationships, school activities) within different social-ecologi-
cal systems (e.g. family, friends/peers, school). While some findings paralleled existing
research (Maunder and Crafter, 2018), Hong et al. (2019) provided deeper insight into
which variables, and in what system, help to explain bullying while considering variance
in other relevant variables.
6 new media & society 00(0)

A key benefit of the social-ecological approach is its positive impact on prevention

and intervention approaches because it addresses different ecological systems and targets
multiple risk factors (Bradshaw, 2015). For instance, unlike other models, using the
social-ecological model can help to organize comprehensive programs for bullying pre-
vention (Espelage and Swearer, 2010) and develop targeted interventions at the level of
individuals, teachers, schools, and communities (Hong et al., 2019).

The social-ecological model of cyberbullying

Recognizing the value of the social-ecological model of bullying, scholars have started
applying EST to studies of cyberbullying. These studies have primarily focused on the
individual level and microsystem, with few studies also addressing the mesosystem
(Wright, 2016). Despite the potential of EST for informing research, it has not been sys-
tematically applied. This is because cyberbullying is a complex phenomenon and situat-
ing digital-specific factors within all the ecological systems is difficult. To fill this gap in
the literature, the present article builds on Bronfenbrenner’s EST to examine the role of
the digital context in cyberbullying to provide scholars with a multi-layered explanation.
The proposed model in this article addresses not only the long-standing “blind spot” of
disregarding the digital context (McMahon, 2014), but it also helps to uncover the com-
plex interactions among various factors and contexts that contribute to cyberbullying
(Wright, 2016). The expanded model has a focus on youth, specifically children and
adolescents under the age of 19 (United Nations, 2020). This age group has been identi-
fied as vulnerable to and affected by cyberbullying (Anderson, 2018; Patchin and
Hinduja, 2020), with studies showing a need for age-appropriate cyberbullying-focused
initiatives (Faucher et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2019).

Individual level.  Many factors at the individual level contribute to cyberbullying perpetra-
tion and victimization including a person’s gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation,
religion, and presence or absence of disability (Zhu et al., 2021). Many of these factors
intersect with digital-specific factors. At the individual level (Figure 3), digital-specific
factors of relevance are an individual’s access to and use of digital media because these
factors increase a youth’s availability and social accessibility, which increases potential
cyberbullying perpetration and victimization (Englander, 2019). While not all youth
have the same degree of access (Livingstone et al., 2021), even without regular access,
youth can fall victims to cyberbullying (Rossow, 2018) and experience the repercussions
(e.g. offline consequences to online victimization) (Ferrara et al., 2018). In terms of digi-
tal skill, youth with greater “cyber-confidence” (Shin and Ahn, 2015) and more sophisti-
cated digital skills are more likely to participate in cyberbullying (Wang and Ngai, 2021).
Utilizing digital media for more purposes, combined with advanced digital skills, can
lead some youth to view digital spaces as providing opportunities for participation in
mean behaviors (Rodriguez-De-Dios et al., 2018).
Another important factor is a youth’s digital management strategies, such as the abil-
ity to disconnect (Price and Green, 2016) and the balance between time spent online and
offline (Den Hamer and Konijn, 2016). As youth spend more time online, opportunities
to perpetrate and/or experience cyberbullying increase (Sampasa-Kanyinga and
 Patel and Quan-Haase

Figure 3.  Social-ecological model of cyberbullying.

7
8 new media & society 00(0)

Hamilton, 2015). This suggests that digital management strategies can be a mitigating
factor for reducing exposure to cyberbullying (Brooks and Lasser, 2018). Yet, measuring
digital management strategies can be challenging, as there is not yet a single, widely
acceptable approach.
A youth’s extent of education about cyberbullying is also an individual-level factor
that can influence involvement (Adorjan and Ricciardelli, 2019). This is because learn-
ing how to responsibly use digital technologies can mitigate problematic online behav-
iors (Kaluarachchi et al., 2020). By acknowledging that cyberbullying is a real and
serious concern, youth can protect themselves from being targeted and reduce their
own involvement (Cross et al., 2015; Graber, 2019). By being informed, such as
through cyberbullying-related education, youth can feel more empowered, become
active bystanders, and/or report incidents (Vlaanderen et al., 2020). It is important that
education and awareness start at younger ages to have long-term effects (Salmivalli
et al., 2021).

Microsystem.  As shown in Figure 3, the microsystem encompasses the influence of a

youth’s immediate social network (Price and Green, 2016), including the attitudes toward
cyberbullying of peers, parents, and teachers (Wright, 2016). Parents constitute a key
component of the microsystem, especially in childhood and early adolescence, because
they teach children about digital media including topics such as privacy, overuse, and
potential risks (Graber, 2019). Through ongoing conversations with parents, youth can
better recognize cyberbullying and how to cope (e.g. seeking support, saving the evi-
dence) (Savage et al., 2017).
Friends/peers are just as influential as parents, and as youth become more independ-
ent, their influence grows (Sasson and Mesch, 2016). The effect of friends/peers occurs
through normative social influence, which describes how individuals conform to group
norms in a desire to fit in and be liked by others (Schultz et al., 2008). For example,
youth adjust their online engagement to the routines and practices of friends/peers (e.g.
choice of platforms), and group norms toward online behaviors (Marwick and Boyd,
2014). For instance, Cross et al. (2015) found that youth with close friends who engage
in or approve of cyberbullying were more likely to perceive it as acceptable. This shows
how friends/peers serve as role models and can influence youth’s attitudes toward and
involvement in cyberbullying (Sasson and Mesch, 2016).
Even though cyberbullying often occurs outside the classroom (Patchin and Hinduja,
2006), educators play a pivotal role in providing students with knowledge regarding
online safety, digital risks, (mis)use of digital media (Baldry et al., 2018), and cyberbul-
lying-specific information such as what to do if they are being cyberbullied (Patchin and
Hinduja, 2012). This suggests that how educators discuss and respond to cyberbullying
impacts students’ perceptions. For example, when educators take cyberbullying seri-
ously, students better recognize the severity of cyberbullying, which signals to them that
cyberbullying is unacceptable (Hinduja and Patchin, 2013), and they are more likely to
report cyberbullying instances to educators (Cassidy et al., 2013). Thus, educators are
critical in promoting cyberbullying education, prevention, and response.
The different components of the microsystem can also influence one another or work
cooperatively. Teachers can offer workshops and talks about social media and
Patel and Quan-Haase 9

cyberbullying for parents to learn about the risks and prevention strategies. For example,
Alcalá et al. (2019) implemented an intervention program at a school in Spain based on
cooperative learning. The whole school community including peers, parents, teachers,
and the management team were involved in the intervention that consisted of supporting
a cyber victim. The findings show that the intervention produced meaningful improve-
ments in the emotional and social state of the cyber victim. This demonstrates how com-
ponents of the microsystem interact with one another in complex ways, with cooperative
interventions being effective.

Mesosystem.  The mesosystem describes the interaction between microsystem groups

(Figure 3), which can be either congruent or incongruent about what cyberbullying is and
how to address it. For instance, if peers condone aggressive online behaviors, youth may
be more likely to engage in these types of behaviors (Price and Green, 2016). If parents
and educators intervene through education and conversations, this can prevent participa-
tion in cyberbullying (Helfrich et al., 2020). This is because parents and educators make
individuals aware of the consequences of their actions (Park et al., 2021) and better equip
them with the knowledge and skills to make good, informed choices when faced with
pressure from their peers (Espelage and Holt, 2001). As youth grow older and become
more independent, the influence of parents and teachers diminishes while that of peers
increases (Sasson and Mesch, 2016). Additional research is needed to determine which
microsystem groups have greater influence and how incongruence is resolved. If parents’
and educators’ efforts can lessen peer influence, this suggests education and communica-
tion are effective in moderating online aggressive behaviors that peers condone. It is
important to better understand the (in)congruence among microsystem groups for iden-
tifying key mediators of cyberbullying involvement.

Exosystem.  While cyberbullying research on the exosystem remains sparse (Wright,

2016), it is important to assess existing laws and policies related to cyberbullying. These
considerations lead to valuable insights regarding their enforcement, which reminds
youth that, contrary to what some bullies may believe (i.e. lack of accountability online),
there are consequences to being a perpetrator (Hinduja and Patchin, 2019). This percep-
tion of a lack of accountability online can be attributed to the difficulty of enforcing rules
online related to factors such as anonymity (making it challenging to identify the perpe-
trator) and online disinhibition (Hinduja and Patchin, 2018). Regarding enforceability, it
is necessary to examine how parents and institutions teach and enforce cyberbullying
laws and policies (Price and Green, 2016). This is because consistency helps to ensure
youth receive regular and consistent messages about cyberbullying, which can mitigate
involvement (Hinduja and Patchin, 2012).
As illustrated in Figure 3, the exosystem also considers the availability of tools and
resources, such as features of digital environments (e.g. blocking, reporting) that digital
users can take advantage of when they experience cyberbullying (Hudson et al., 2016),
educational resources available online (e.g. Facebook Bullying Prevention Hub), and
information regarding action and response (e.g. platform community guidelines) (Topcu-
Uzer and Tanrikulu, 2018). For example, the availability of anonymous reporting
resources facilitates individuals reporting cyberbullying without the risk of being
10 new media & society 00(0)

exposed (Langos and Giancaspro, 2019) or being further targeted by the cyberbully
(Benzmiller, 2013). Evaluating the awareness and use of cyberbullying resources offered
to young digital users can lead to improving available tools and resources and imple-
menting strategies to increase their effectiveness.
Collaborations between sectors, including, but not limited to, parents, educators,
police, mental health practitioners, policymakers, and service providers, is important for
cyberbullying prevention and response. Also, in the exosystem, indirect influences need
to be considered such as parents’ availability due to job stress (Wernert, 2017). Referred
to as a “networked response” (Broll, 2014), these collaborations can enhance support
services, respond to the causes and consequences of cyberbullying, and implement more
tailored and holistic training programs (UNESCO, 2020). In addition, through these col-
laborations, education regarding cyberbullying can provide individuals with key skills
that help to mitigate cyberbullying such as conflict resolution, empathy and compassion,
resilience, self-esteem building, and communication (Paolini, 2018). Thus, understand-
ing the importance of these collaborations, and their effectiveness for cyberbullying pre-
vention and response, is a critical area of future inquiry.
Cyberbullying experiences of others (i.e. friends/peers, mediated portrayals) can indi-
rectly influence attitudes toward cyberbullying (Gorzig and Machackova, 2016). While
youth themselves may not be directly involved, experiences of others can “frame” per-
ceptions and evaluations of cyberbullying. Framing refers to how certain topics, events,
or phenomena are presented to an audience, which can influence an individual’s point of
view (Goffman, 1974). For example, a highly publicized Canadian case—the cyberbul-
lying of teenager Amanda Todd who took her life as a result—has framed conversations
around cyberbullying (Sklar, 2012). The considerable attention given to the Todd case in
news media has prompted important conversations around cyberbullying, the need for
support systems, and the urgency of immediate response (CBC News, 2022). Other por-
trayals of cyberbullying in streaming media, like the film Cyberbully, depicted cyberbul-
lying in such a way that ignited conversations among youth around cyberbullying,
particularly the impacts associated with victimization and the necessity for effective
interventions. Such depictions make discussions of cyberbullying less taboo, allowing
young viewers to better understand the phenomenon and what to do when it happens.

Macrosystem.  The macrosystem examines changing social norms around cyberbullying

and associated policy and legal frameworks at local and national levels. It also examines
factors at the macrolevel including issues of access to technology such as existing infra-
structure in neighborhoods, schools, and rural areas (Robinson et al., 2020). When look-
ing at social norms, these guide perceptions around cyberbullying and the corresponding
mechanisms in place for cyberbullying prevention and response (Coburn et al., 2019).
For example, if the social norm about what is an acceptable behavior sees cyberbullying
as a major problem that needs attention, this norm will be reflected in policies, legal
frameworks, and the consequences for perpetrators (West et al., 2014). However, as digi-
tal media change and evolve, policies must be updated and evaluated to assess their rel-
evance (Marczak and Coyne, 2016).
As Figure 3 shows, smaller-scale cultural variations, such as adult culture and youth
culture, racial/ethnic differences, and socioeconomic differences are also important because
Patel and Quan-Haase 11

they impact how different groups understand cyberbullying (Crosslin and Golman, 2014).
For instance, looking at differences across generations and cohorts, parents who may not
have grown up with social media face challenges understanding cyberbullying (Espelage
and Hong, 2017) and the degree of impact of cyberbullying outcomes (Cassidy et al.,
2012). From parents’ perspectives, this lack of understanding is attributed to insufficient
opportunities to stay updated on digital media, the limited knowledge about the impacts of
cyberbullying on their children, and not knowing how they can take a more active role to
prevent and intervene in cyberbullying (Midamba and Moreno, 2019). Furthermore, there
is a necessity to consider racial/ethnic and/or socioeconomic differences as many factors
influence cyberbullying involvement (Edwards et al., 2016). For example, Xu et al. (2020)
found that racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately affected by contextual-level
factors associated with bullying (e.g. adverse home and school environments), yet these
individuals were protected against bullying involvement and outcomes due to strong ethnic
identity, positive cultural and family values, and other resilience factors. To develop a more
informed understanding of cyberbullying, smaller-scale cultural considerations can reveal
potential variations in the phenomenon as well as impact the development of better targeted
cyberbullying prevention and response strategies.
The macrosystem also focuses on cross-cultural views, such as how cultural norms
and values influence attitudes toward digital media, understanding cyberbullying, and
acceptability of and attitudes toward online behaviors (Marczak and Coyne, 2016; Price
and Green, 2016). For example, in a study of African youth, Ephriam (2013) emphasized
how digital media use and engaging in online behaviors like cyberbullying can challenge
cultural norms and values. This work shows cultural differences in digital and social
media use for perpetrating deviant and criminal online behaviors, primarily because cul-
ture is not universal and different cultures have differing norms (Ephriam, 2013).
Research so far has shown that variations across cultures can lead to varying cyberbully-
ing prevalence rates and differing conceptualizations of the phenomenon (Wright, 2016).
Being attuned to cultural differences is important given that cyberbullying removes geo-
graphical boundaries (Hinduja and Patchin, 2018). However, more macrolevel research
is needed, as limited studies exist examining cultural differences (Bayraktar, 2016), yet
such research can uncover how to collectively combat serious outcomes for cyber vic-
tims (Muneer and Fati, 2020). While broader strategies targeting cyberbullying may not
need to drastically differ across cultures (Shapka et al., 2018), being attuned to cultural
variations can help tailor better cyberbullying initiatives (Mojdehi et al., 2019).

Chronosystem.  The chronosystem considers time-related factors that affect cyberbullying,

as shown in Figure 3. First, the chronosystem looks at how digital media have evolved and
their integration into the lives of individuals (Wright, 2016) to identify changing and dif-
fering social norms around digital media use and how these can impact attitudes toward
cyberbullying (Bayraktar, 2016). Following the proliferation of digital devices (i.e. smart-
phones) and new applications (i.e. social media like Instagram and Twitter) (Balbi and
Magaudda, 2018), social media has gained immense popularity for supporting social
interactions, enabling engagement within online communities, and shifting the way youth
communicate (Anderson and Jiang, 2018). Therefore, by taking into consideration digital-
specific changes over time, reflecting on the ways youth are using and interacting within
12 new media & society 00(0)

online spaces, and examining how online interactions can lead to the facilitation of prob-
lematic social behaviors, we can better understand cyberbullying.
Second, life course transitions can affect perceptions around and engagement in
cyberbullying (Cross et al., 2015). For example, in childhood and early adolescence,
cyberbullying generally manifests through behaviors like mean messages, social exclu-
sion, or having private information revealed, whereas in later life stages (e.g. older ado-
lescence, young adulthood), cyberbullying manifests itself differently, taking place in the
form of sexting, public shaming, or harassment (Myers and Cowie, 2019). As individuals
move into the workforce, they encounter different types of cyberbullying such as having
one’s opinions and expertise ignored and being given unreasonable tasks and/or a heavy
workload (Mowry and Giumetti, 2019). These types of cyberbullying can particularly
affect youth, who have limited work experience. In work settings, the consequences of
being exposed every day to the bully can be damaging, as the victim can feel helpless,
particularly in cases where there are power imbalances. This can lead to decreased job
satisfaction and mental strain (Mowry and Giumetti, 2019). Researchers need to consider
life course–related changes in cyberbullying and how they affect youth. Experiences of
cyberbullying are detrimental for children and youth (Patchin and Hinduja, 2020), and
evidence suggests that as cyberbullying behaviors change, evolve, and escalate, the con-
sequences can be just as serious and damaging (Cowie and Myers, 2018).
Third, historical events and crises have changed cyberbullying. For example, despite
reports suggesting positive aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for youth (e.g. benefits
of learning remote, feeling closer to family and loved ones) (Anderson et al., 2022), there
have been serious downsides, particularly regarding online behaviors like cyberbullying.
For instance, due to public health regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g.
social distancing), youth used digital technologies for more types of activities (i.e. social-
izing, learning) (De et al., 2020), subsequently increasing exposure to and participation
in cyberbullying (Rideout et al., 2021). While evidence suggests social support from
one’s microsystem relationships helps mitigate cyberbullying outcomes (Hellfeldt et al.,
2020), and that social support is vital during times of stress and uncertainty (Wang and
Eccles, 2012), the availability of support may have been compromised during the pan-
demic due to limited in-person interactions (Rogers et al., 2021). As a result, victims
faced potentially more serious outcomes, like severe depression (Michael and Reyes,
2021) and loneliness (Han et al., 2021). In sum, considering how historical events and
crises impact cyberbullying provides insights into the challenges for victims and the
need for additional support systems.

Digital context.  The social-ecological model of cyberbullying depicted in Figure 3 shows

how digital media are intertwined with many domains of life. In the model, the digital
context permeates throughout all the other ecological systems, impacting how they func-
tion. Figure 3 also shows the digital context as an additional, outer layer to the model in
which all other ecological systems are embedded within. This outer layer shows how
some digital-specific factors relevant to cyberbullying are exclusive to the digital context
because they cannot be situated within any other ecological system (McMahon, 2014).
Yet, as the arrows of Figure 3 show, these digital-specific factors—while external to the
other systems—can have an indirect influence (e.g. features of digital media like notifi-
cations may determine an individual’s purpose and frequency of digital media use).
Patel and Quan-Haase 13

In the digital context, it is important to consider the types of digital media used and their
features (i.e. portability, capabilities, design) (Gorzig and Machackova, 2016; Price and
Green, 2016). Since digital devices enable connectivity from almost anywhere (in high-
income countries), the boundaries of where and when cyberbullying can take place have
broken down (Festl et al., 2013). For example, the development of easily transportable smart-
phones, rise in high-speed Internet, affordability of data plans, and services like unlimited
texting, expanded the range of services available, subsequently increasing opportunities for
engaging in, being targeted by, and viewing cyberbullying (Sathyanarayana et al., 2018).
The digital context also identifies unique aspects of digital media that help facilitate
cyberbullying, which can be linked to boyd’s (2010, 2014) characteristics of technology,
including persistence, visibility, spreadability, and searchability. Digital media are per-
sistent by design (boyd, 2010) and never truly shut off (Ito et al., 2010), which breaks
down boundaries of space and time (Hinduja and Patchin, 2018). This means that unlike
offline bullying, even when digital devices are turned off and platforms are signed out of,
youth can still become targets of cyberbullying (Sabella et al., 2013). This heightens
vulnerability and the potential harms accompanying cyberbullying (Rice et al., 2015)
because online content is “durable,” permanent, and accessible on-demand (boyd, 2010).
As a result, cyberbullying may never truly go away and snowball to be even more impact-
ful (Reio and Ledesma Ortega, 2016).
Related to persistence is visibility. With social life converging online, our lives have
become more public, allowing wider audiences access to more information quickly and
easily (Baym and boyd, 2012). If privacy protection strategies are not used, this visibility
is wider and private information could be exposed (Carrier, 2018), further increasing
opportunities for cyberbullying (Adorjan and Ricciardelli, 2019). Increased visibility can
magnify social conflicts, allowing audiences to not only see, but participate in the con-
flict (boyd, 2014), which could also increase cyberbullying occurrences (Koutamanis
et al., 2015).
Visibility is enhanced by spreadability where online, audience members can see,
engage with, and contribute to (e.g. commenting, liking) online content (boyd, 2014).
The concern is that sharing online content increases the chances for information to spiral
out of control (i.e. starting rumors) (Baym and boyd, 2012), which could lead to facilitat-
ing or worsening cyberbullying (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2010). This is especially true
when content goes viral, creating an impression of the targeted individual (e.g. embar-
rassing or shaming them), which can impact their reputation online and offline
(Rosewarne, 2016). Thus, even though individuals may be sharing content they find
interesting or as a form of social currency (boyd, 2014), it could lead to and worsen
cyberbullying (Patchin and Hinduja, 2014).
Reinforcing the permanence of online content, information can easily be retrieved
long after it was posted with a simple search (boyd, 2014). Due to this searchability, there
is an increased possibility for rumors to flourish, which can lead to and escalate cyber-
bullying (Ito et al., 2010). This could have long-standing impacts on one’s reputation
(Bridges, 2021).
In addition to the four characteristics boyd discussed, another factor is the ability to
conceal one’s identity online through anonymity, aliases, and fake accounts, which allow
cyberbullies to perpetrate cyberbullying without cyber victims knowing who they are
14 new media & society 00(0)

(Hinduja and Patchin, 2018). By remaining anonymous, cyberbullies may be more com-
pelled to disclose personal or private information about their target(s), thinking that their
actions have no repercussions (Hinduja and Patchin, 2015). This gives cyberbullies an
immense amount of power and reduces empathy since cyberbullies cannot necessarily
see the harm caused, further removing them from their actions (Rosewarne, 2016). Thus,
cyberbullies protect themselves while inflicting harm onto others. However, differences
should be noted between those initiating cyberbullying and those going along with the
cyberbullying such as bystanders, as there may be variations in how to address different
types of cyberbullies depending on their social role (Song and Oh, 2018).
Finally, the digital context also includes the online disinhibition effect, which describes
a lack of restraint online compared with how individuals act and behave offline (for a full
explanation of this concept, see Suler, 2004). Online disinhibition is enabled because
youth are removed from the influence of in-person authority figures such as adults and
social norms, causing cyberbullies to push the boundaries of acceptability because there
are no rules, regulations, or cues telling them otherwise (Hinduja and Patchin, 2019).
Thus, online disinhibition facilitates cyberbullying because digital media changes the
nature of interactions, making certain behaviors acceptable online (Wright and Wachs,
2018). Overall, by taking the digital context into consideration, there is a better under-
standing of the unique aspects of digital media that help facilitate cyberbullying, and the
ways the phenomenon has evolved and expanded with and alongside digital media.

Discussion
The present article develops a novel model of cyberbullying based on the existing litera-
ture that incorporates digital-specific factors within each system of the original EST
model. While the model is based on Bronfenbrenner’s EST, it expands it by integrating
the digital context as its own ecological system. Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) stressed
the importance of close, reciprocal face-to-face interactions within a youth’s immediate
environment. While interactions with parents and caregivers are still considered critical
for cyberbullying education and awareness, the social-ecological model of cyberbullying
expands on this by stressing the relevance of weak, nonreciprocal digital interactions
with other gamers, social media users, influencers, and so on. This acknowledges the
relevance of the digital context, where perpetrators are often unknown. Furthermore, our
model also builds on Bronfenbrenner’s refinement of the chronosystem. We argue for
age-appropriate understandings of cyberbullying that consider life phases and transi-
tions. Here, we also include historical events and crises—such as the COVID-19 pan-
demic—that can affect the amount of time youth spend online, tilting the balance between
time spent online and offline. Therefore, the social-ecological model of cyberbullying
expands and updates the model to take into consideration that digital media are an inte-
gral part of a youth’s everyday life, and online and offline spheres are not separate but
rather overlap.
While scholars have previously attempted to integrate the digital context within an
EST approach, debates have persisted in the literature as to where and how to situate it
(Cross et al., 2015; Johnson, 2010). While some scholars have situated digital-specific
factors within one of the systems of the existing model, this approach is lacking because
Patel and Quan-Haase 15

it does not fully integrate digital-specific factors across all the systems (McMahon,
2014). For example, Sincero (2012) and Wright (2016) both integrated the digital context
into the chronosystem. Yet, it is not well suited to account for all the ways that digital
media influence an individual with the chronosystem’s unique focus on the passage of
time and the various events and major changes that occur throughout an individual’s life.
While changes in how digital media are used constitute major societal shifts, the chrono-
system cannot account for the overall digital context and its many ramifications. As a
result, integrating the digital context into a single ecological system does not fully cap-
ture the larger role of the digital in cyberbullying. To remedy this problem, the social-
ecological model of cyberbullying emphasizes the interconnectedness of the digital
context with all other systems of the ecological model as demonstrated by the arrows in
Figure 3. Therefore, unlike other models that tend to focus on a subset of digital variables
or omit the interconnectedness of the digital context with other ecological systems
(McMahon, 2014; Tanrikulu, 2015), the proposed model embeds the ecological systems
of the original EST under the digital context to allow for a more comprehensive exami-
nation of cyberbullying.

Limitations
Since the social-ecological model of cyberbullying builds on and expands EST, it shares
similar limitations. Like EST, the social-ecological model of cyberbullying takes into
consideration a multiplicity of factors within each ecological system, which makes it
unfeasible to examine all factors in a single study (Harper et al., 2018). This means that
scholars need to make decisions as to what factors, contexts, and ecological systems to
include in a single study. In addition, some factors are easier to operationalize and meas-
ure than others (e.g. empathy, digital literacy), which can impact what factors researchers
prioritize (Patchin and Hinduja, 2015).

Future research
The model is a first step toward consolidation of the vast literature on cyberbullying and
there is much opportunity for future research, including testing, finetuning, and expanding
the model. First, the model affords great flexibility, allowing scholars to test the model in
ways tailored to their research questions or methodologies. For example, scholars can eval-
uate a specific social context such as investigating cyberbullying at post-secondary institu-
tions. Or scholars can choose to focus on parental responses to cyberbullying across
cultures. Second, scholars can work to finetune the model as new digital media emerge,
and cyberbullying evolves and changes. For example, finetuning is necessary with the
emergence and growing use of TikTok (Zhang and Quan-Haase, 2022), which has distinct
uses and gratifications (Shao and Lee, 2020) that have led to higher rates of cyberbullying
(Na, 2020). By looking at the broader digital context and the ways digital media intercon-
nect with other ecological systems, the model does not risk becoming outdated as digital
media evolve. Instead, new digital media, such as TikTok, can be investigated using the
model to finetune various components such as the relation between features of platforms
and cyberbullying risks. Finally, the social-ecological model of cyberbullying can be
16 new media & society 00(0)

expanded to other life phases, such as young adulthood (19+), and contexts, such as the
workplace. It can also guide studies of toxic online behaviors related to or under the
umbrella of cyberbullying including sexting, trolling, and sextortion. Like the social-eco-
logical model of bullying, a key contribution of the social-ecological model of cyberbully-
ing is that it can guide effective and well-developed cyberbullying prevention, intervention,
and educational programs. As the digital context remains prominent in a post-COVID-19
era (Gordon, 2020), such initiatives are much needed, as they target simultaneously a mul-
titude of dimensions or ecological systems related to cyberbullying.

Authors’ note
Molly-Gloria Patel is also affiliated to Okanagan College, Canada.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This article draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.

ORCID iDs
Molly-Gloria Patel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7928-5341
Anabel Quan-Haase https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2560-6709

References
Adorjan M and Ricciardelli R (2019) Cyber-Risk and Youth. New York: Routledge.
Alcalá DH, Río JF, Calvo GG, et al. (2019) Effects of a cooperative learning intervention program
on cyberbullying in secondary education. The Qualitative Report 24(10): 2426–2440.
Anderson M (2018) A majority of teens have experienced some form of cyberbullying. Available
at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/09/27/a-majority-of-teens-have-experienced-
some-form-of-cyberbullying/
Anderson M and Jiang J (2018) Teens, social media, and technology. Available at: https://www.
pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-and-their-experiences-on-social-media/
Anderson M, Faverio M and McClain C (2022) How teens navigate school during COVID-19.
Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/06/02/how-teens-navigate-school-
during-covid-19/
Balbi G and Magaudda P (2018) A History of Digital Media. New York: Routledge.
Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A, et al. (2018) Cyberbullying and cybervictimization.
In:Baldry AC, Blaya C and Farrington DP (eds) International Perspectives on Cyberbullying.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–24.
Baym NK and boyd D (2012) Socially mediated publicness. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media 56(3): 320–329.
Bayraktar F (2016) Does culture matter? In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-Ecological Approach to
Cyberbullying. New York: Nova Publishers, pp. 253–268.
Benzmiller H (2013) The cyber-samaritans. Northwestern University Law Review 107(2): 927–
962.
boyd d (2010) Social network sites as networked publics. In:Papacharissi Z (ed.) Networked Self.
New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.
boyd d (2014) It’s Complicated. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Patel and Quan-Haase 17

Bradshaw CP (2015) Translating research into practice in bullying prevention. American

Psychologist 70(4): 322–332.
Bridges J (2021) How to recognize, prevent, and respond to cyberbullying. Reputation Defender,
9 September. Available at: https://www.reputationdefender.com/blog/protect-your-kids/how-
recognize-prevent-and-respond-to-cyberbullying
Broll R (2014) Policing cyberbullying. Doctoral Dissertation, Western University, London, ON,
Canada.
Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner U (1986) Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental
Psychology 22(6): 723–742.
Bronfenbrenner U (1995) Developmental ecology through space and time. In:Moen P, Elder GH
Jr and Lusher K (eds) Examining Lives in Context. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, pp. 619–647.
Bronfenbrenner U and Ceci SJ (1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspec-
tive. Psychological Review 101(4): 568–586.
Brooks M and Lasser J (2018) Tech Generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgess-Proctor A, Patchin J and Hinduja S (2010) Cyberbullying and online harassment. In:Garcia
V and Clifford J (eds) Female Crime Victims. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 162–176.
Carrier M (2018) Smartphones to Social Media. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Cassidy W, Brown K and Jackson M (2012) Under the radar. School Psychology International
33(5): 520–532.
Cassidy W, Faucher C and Jackson M (2013) Cyberbullying among youth. School Psychology
International 34(6): 575–612.
CBC News (2022) Verdict in Amanda Todd case spurs renewed calls to battle online sexual extor-
tion. CBC News, 8 August. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/todd-
reaction-verdict-extortion-1.6544396
Coburn PI, Connolly DA and Roesch R (2019) Cyberbullying. Canadian Journal of Criminology
and Criminal Justice 57(4): 566–579.
Corsaro W (1985) Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. New York: Ablex Publishing.
Cowie H and Myers CA (2018) School Bullying and Mental Health. London: Routledge.
Cross D, Barnes A, Papageorgiou A, et al. (2015) A social-ecological framework for understand-
ing and reducing cyberbullying behaviors. Aggression and Violent Behavior 23: 109–117.
Crosslin K and Golman M (2014) Maybe you don’t want to face it. Computers in Human Behavior
41: 14–20.
De R, Pandey N and Pal A (2020) Impact of digital surge during COVID-19 pandemic. International
Journal of Information Management 55: 102171.
Den Hamer A and Konijn E (2016) Exposure to antisocial and risk behavior media content
stimulates cyberbullying behavior. In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-Ecological Approach to
Cyberbullying. New York: Nova Publishers, pp. 225–242.
Edwards L, Kontostathis AE and Fisher C (2016) Cyberbullying, race/ethnicity, and mental health
outcomes. Media and Communication 4(3): 71–78.
Englander E (2019) Childhood access to technology and cyberbullying. Journal of Pediatrics and
Pediatric Medicine 3(2): 1–4.
Ephriam PE (2013) African youths and the dangers of social networking. Ethics and Information
Technology 15: 275–284.
Eriksson M, Ghazinour M and Hammarstrom A (2018) Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s eco-
logical theory in public mental health research. Social Theory & Health 16: 414–413.
Espelage DL and Holt MK (2001) Bullying and victimization during adolescence. Journal of
Emotional Abuse 2(2–3): 123–142.
18 new media & society 00(0)

Espelage DL and Hong JS (2017) Cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts. The Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry 62(6): 374–380.
Espelage DL and Swearer S (2010) A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and inter-
vention. In:Jimerson SR, Swearer S and Espelage DL (eds) Handbook of Bullying in Schools.
New York: Routledge, pp. 61–72.
Faucher C, Cassidy W and Jackson M (2020) Awareness, policy, privacy, and more. European
Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 10: 795–815.
Ferrara P, Ianniello F, Villani A, et al. (2018) Cyberbullying a modern form of bullying. Italian
Journal of Pediatrics 44: 14.
Festl R, Scharkow M and Quandt T (2013) Peer influence, internet use and cyberbullying. Journal
of Children and Media 7(4): 446–462.
Giumetti GW and Kowalski RM (2016) Cyberbullying matters. In:Navarro R, Yubero S and
Larranaga E (eds) Cyberbullying across the Globe. New York: Springer, pp. 117–130.
Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gordon S (2020) Research shows rise in cyberbullying during COVID-19 pandemic. Verywell
Family, 1 August. Available at: https://www.verywellfamily.com/cyberbullying-increasing-
during-global-pandemic-4845901
Gorzig A and Machackova H (2016) Cyberbullying in Europe. In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-
Ecological Approach to Cyberbullying. New York: Nova Publishers, pp. 295–326.
Graber D (2019) Raising Humans in a Digital World. New York: HarperCollins Leadership.
Han Z, Wang Z and Li Y (2021) Cyberbullying involvement, resilient coping, and loneliness of
adolescents during COVID-19 in rural China. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 664612.
Harper CR, Steiner RJ and Brookmeyer KA (2018) Using the social-ecological model to improve
access to care for adolescents and young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health 62(6): 641–642.
Helfrich EL, Doty JL, Su YW, et al. (2020) Parental views on preventing and minimizing negative
effects of cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review 118: 105377.
Hellfeldt K, Lopez-Romero L and Andershed H (2020) Cyberbullying and psychological well-
being in young adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 17(1): 45.
Hinduja S and Patchin J (2012) School law enforcement and cyberbullying. In:Patchin J and
Hinduja S (eds) Cyberbullying Prevention and Response. New York: Routledge, pp. 161–184.
Hinduja S and Patchin J (2013) Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and
high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42: 711–722.
Hinduja S and Patchin J (2015) Cyberbullying warning signs. Cyberbullying Research Center,
March. Available at: https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-warning-signs
Hinduja S and Patchin J (2018) Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Cyberbullying
Research Center, October. Available at: https://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identification-
Prevention-Response.pdf
Hinduja S and Patchin J (2019) School Climate 2.0. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hong JS, Kim DH and Hunter SC (2019) Applying the social-ecological framework to explore
bully/victim subgroups in South Korean schools. Psychology of Violence 9(3): 267–277.
Hudson CC, Lambe L, Pepler DJ, et al. (2016) Coping while connected. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology 31(1): 3–16.
Hymel S and Swearer SM (2015) Four decades of research on school bullying. American
Psychologist 70(4): 293–299.
Ito M, Baumer S, Bittanti M, et al. (2010) Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Patel and Quan-Haase 19

Jackson M, Faucher C and Cassidy W (2019) What’s policy got to do with it? In:Cassidy W,
Faucher C and Jackson M (eds) Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts. New
York: Routledge, pp. 181–197.
Johnson GM (2010) Internet use and child development. Educational Technology & Society 13(1):
176–185.
Johnson GM and Puplampu KP (2008) Internet use during childhood and the ecological techno-
subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 34(1): 1–11.
Kaluarachchi C, Warren M and Jiang F (2020) Responsible use of technology to combat cyberbul-
lying among young people. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 24: 1–17.
Kee D, Al-Anesi M and Al-Anesi S (2022) Cyberbullying on social media under the influence of
COVID-19. Global Business and Organizational Excellence 41: 11–22.
Koutamanis M, Vossen H and Valkenburg PM (2015) Adolescents’ comments in social media.
Computers in Human Behavior 53: 486–494.
Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, et al. (2014) Bullying in the digital age. Psychological
Bulletin 104(4): 1073–1137.
Langos C and Giancaspro M (2019) Cyberbullying in the Australian university context. In:Cassidy
W, Faucher C and Jackson M (eds) Cyberbullying at University in International Contexts.
New York: Routledge, pp. 181–197.
Leff SS, Power TJ and Goldstein AB (2004) Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of
bullying-prevention programs in schools. In:Espelage DL and Swearer SM (eds) Bullying in
American Schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 269–293.
Livingstone S, Mascheroni G and Stoilova M (2021) The outcomes of gaining digital skills for
young people’s lives and wellbeing. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 13 September.
DOI: 10.1177/14614448211043189.
McMahon C (2014) Why we need a new theory of cyberbullying. SSRN, 29 November. Available
at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531796
Marczak M and Coyne I (2016) English teachers and cyberbullying. In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-
Ecological Approach to Cyberbullying. New York: Nova Publishers, pp. 197–224.
Marwick A and Boyd D (2014) It’s just drama. Journal of Youth Studies 17(9): 1187–1204.
Maunder RE and Crafter S (2018) School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression
and Violent Behavior 38: 13–20.
Michael MJ and Reyes M (2021) Cyberbullying victimization as a predictor of depressive symp-
toms among selected adolescents amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Makara Human Behavior
Studies in Asia 25(2): 145–152.
Midamba N and Moreno M (2019) Differences in parent and adolescent views on cyberbullying in
the US. Journal of Children and Media 13(1): 106–115.
Mojdehi AS, Leduc K, Mojdehi AS, et al. (2019) Examining cross-cultural differences in youth’s
moral perceptions of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
22(4): 243–248.
Mowry NL and Giumetti GW (2019) Cyberbullying in the workplace. In:Giumetti GL and
Kowalski RM (eds) Cyberbullying in Schools, Workplaces, and Romantic Partnerships. New
York: Routledge, pp. 118–134.
Muneer A and Fati SM (2020) A comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for cyber-
bullying detection on Twitter. Future Internet 12(11): 187.
Myers CA and Cowie H (2019) Cyberbullying across the lifespan of education. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(7): 1217.
20 new media & society 00(0)

Na P (2020) Cyberbullying on TikTok is a major issue. Youthopia, 22 October. Available at:

https://youthopia.sg/read/cyberbullying-on-tiktok-is-a-major-issue/
Navarro JL and Tudge JRH (2022) Technologizing Bronfenbrenner. Current Psychology. Epub
ahead of print 21 January. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3.
PACER (2022) Cyberbullying. PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center. Available at:
https://pacer.org/bullying/info/cyberbullying/
Paolini A (2018) Cyberbullying. International Journal of Educational Technology 5(1): 1–8.
Park M, Golden KJ, Vizcaino-Vickers S, et al. (2021) Sociocultural values, attitudes, and risk fac-
tors associated with adolescent cyberbullying in East Asia. Cyberpsychology 15(1): 5.
Patchin J and Hinduja S (2006) Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice 4(2): 148–169.
Patchin J and Hinduja S (2012) Cyberbullying Prevention and Response. New York: Routledge.
Patchin J and Hinduja S (2014) Words Wound. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
Patchin J and Hinduja S (2015) Measuring cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior 23:
69–74.
Patchin J and Hinduja S (2020) Tween cyberbullying in 2020. Cyberbullying Research Center, 7
October. Available at: https://i.cartoonnetwork.com/stop-bullying/pdfs/CN_Stop_Bullying_
Cyber_Bullying_Report_9.30.20.pdf
Peebles E (2014) Cyberbullying. Paediatrics & Child Health 19(10): 527–528.
Perrin A and Atske S (2021) About three-in-ten U.S. adults say they are “almost constantly”
online. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/26/about-three-in-ten-
u-s-adults-say-they-are-almost-constantly-online/
Price D and Green D (2016) Social-ecological perspective. In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-Ecological
Approach to Cyberbullying. New York: Nova Publishers, pp. 181–196.
Quan-Haase A, Wang H, Zhang A, et al. (2018) Weaving family connections on and offline.
In:Neves BB and Casimiro C (eds) Connecting Families. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 57–77.
Reio TG and Ledesma Ortega CC (2016) Cyberbullying and its emotional consequences.
In:Tettegah SY and Espeilage DL (eds) Emotions, Technology, and Behaviors. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, pp. 145–158.
Rice E, Rhoades H, Winetrobe H, et al. (2015) Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization
among middle-school students. American Journal of Public Health 105(3): 66–72.
Rideout V, Fox S, Peebles A, et al. (2021) Coping with COVID-19. Available at: https://www.
commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2021-coping-with-covid19-full-
report.pdf
Robinson L, Schulz J, Dunn HS, et al. (2020) Digital inequalities 3.0: emergent inequalities in the
information age. First Monday 25(7). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v25i7.10844.
Rodriguez-De-Dios I, Oosten J and Igartua JJ (2018) A study of the relationship between parental
mediation and adolescents’ digital skills, online risks, and online opportunities. Computers in
Human Behavior 82: 186–198.
Rogers AA, Ha T and Ockey S (2021) Adolescents perceived socioemotional impact of COVID-
19 and implications for mental health. Journal of Adolescent Health 68(1): 43–52.
Rosewarne L (2016) Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Rossow A (2018) You no longer need to be on social media to be a victim of cyberbullying.
Forbes, 6 May. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewrossow/2018/05/06/you-
no-longer-need-to-be-on-social-media-to-be-a-victim-of-cyberbullying/
Sabella RA, Patchin J and Hinduja S (2013) Cyberbullying myths and realities. Computers in
Human Behavior 29: 2703–2711.
Patel and Quan-Haase 21

Salmivalli C, Laninga-Wijnen L, Malamut ST, et al. (2021) Bullying prevention in adolescence.

Journal of Research on Adolescence 31(4): 1023–1046.
Sampasa-Kanyinga H and Hamilton HA (2015) Use of social networking sites and risk of cyber-
bullying victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18(12): 704–710.
Sasson H and Mesch G (2016) The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of
cyberbullying. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 178(1): 15–27.
Sathyanarayana TS, Bansal D and Chandran S (2018) Cyberbullying. Indian Journal of Psychiatry
60(1): 3–5.
Savage MW, Deiss DM Jr, Roberto AJ, et al. (2017) Theory-based formative research on anti-
cyberbullying victimization intervention message. Journal of Health Communication 22(2):
124–134.
Schultz WP, Tabanico JJ and Rendon T (2008) Normative beliefs as agents of influence. In:Crano
WD and Prislin R (eds) Attitudes and Attitude Change. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 385–409.
Shao J and Lee S (2020) The effect of Chinese adolescents’ motivation to use TikTok on satisfac-
tion and continuous use intention. The Journal of Convergence on Culture Technology 6(2):
107–115.
Shapka JD, Onditi HZ, Collie RJ, et al. (2018) Cyberbullying and cybervictimization within a
cross-cultural context. Child Development 89(1): 89–99.
Sheanoda V, Bussey K and Jones T (2021) Sexuality, gender and culturally diverse interpre-
tations of cyberbullying. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 14 November. DOI:
10.1177/14614448211055366.
Shin N and Ahn H (2015) Factors affecting adolescents’ involvement in cyberbullying.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18(7): 393–399.
Sincero SM (2012) Ecological systems theory. Available at: https://explorable.com/ecological-
systems-theory
Sklar A (2012) What can we learn from Amanda Todd’s tragic bullying-related suicide?
Risk(within)reason, 15 October. Available at: https://www.montrealfamilies.ca/what-can-
we-learn-from-amanda-todds-tragic-bullying-related-suicide/
Song J and Oh I (2018) Factors influencing bystanders’ behavioral reactions in cyberbullying situ-
ations. Computers in Human Behavior 78: 273–282.
Statistics Canada (2016) Cyberbullying and cyberstalking among Internet users aged 15 to 29 in
Canada. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/161219/dq161219a-
eng.htm
Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7(3): 321–326.
Swearer SM and Espelage DL (2004) A social-ecological framework of bullying among youth.
In:Espelage DL and Swearer SM (eds) Bullying in North American Schools. New York:
Routledge, pp. 1–12.
Swearer SM and Hymel S (2015) Understanding the psychology of bullying. American Psychologist
70(4): 344–353.
Tanrikulu I (2015) The relationship between cyberbullying perpetration motives and personality
traits. Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Topcu-Uzer C and Tanrikulu I (2018) Technological solutions for cyberbullying. In:Campbell M
and Bauman S (eds) Reducing Cyberbullying in Schools. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press,
pp. 33–47.
UNESCO (2020) Recommendations by the scientific committee on preventing and addressing
school bullying and cyberbullying. Available at: https://healtheducationresources.unesco.
org/library/documents/international-conference-school-bullying-recommendations-scien-
tific-committee
22 new media & society 00(0)

United Nations (2020) Youth. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth

Vlaanderen A, Bevelander KE and Kleemans M (2020) Empowering digital citizenship. Computers
in Human Behavior 112: 106459.
Wang L and Ngai S (2021) Cyberbullying perpetration among Chinese adolescents. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. Epub ahead of print 29 December. DOI: 10.1177/08862605211062988.
Wang MT and Eccles JS (2012) Social support matters. Child Development 83(3): 877–895.
Wernert SP (2017) The social-ecological influences of college bullying behavior. Doctoral
Dissertation, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
West B, Foster M, Levin A, et al. (2014) Cyberbullying at work. Laws 3: 598–617.
Wright MF (2016) A social-ecological approach to understanding cyberbullying involvement.
In:Wright MF (ed.) A Social-Ecological Approach to Cyberbullying. New York: Nova
Publishers, pp. 1–12.
Wright MF and Wachs S (2018) Does parental mediation moderate the longitudinal association
among bystanders and perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying? Social Sciences 7: 231.
Xu M, Macrynikola N, Waseem M, et al. (2020) Racial and ethnic differences in bullying.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 50: 101340.
Zhang J and Quan-Haase A (2022) WeChat. In:Quan-Haase A and Sloan L (eds) The Handbook of
Social Media Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: SAGE, pp. 598–613.
Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R, et al. (2021) Cyberbullying among adolescents and children. Frontiers
in Public Health 9: 634909.

Author biographies
Molly-Gloria Patel (she/her) is a professor at Okanagan College in Kelowna, BC as well as a post-
doctoral scholar at Western University in London, ON where she is working under Dr. Anabel
Quan-Haase. Recently, she completed her Ph.D. at Western University where her dissertation
centered on the examination of cyberbullying, particularly cyberbullying occurring at the post-
secondary level. Her research interests center on cyberbullying, digital media, social media, youth
and youth culture, deviance, and criminology. Her co-authored work has been published in promi-
nent journals including Network Science, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, and
Information, Communication & Society.
Dr. Anabel Quan-Haase (she/her) is a Full Professor of Sociology and Information and Media
Studies and the Rogers Chair in Studies in Journalism and New Information Technology at
Western University. She is the director of the SocioDigital Media Lab and her work focuses on
social change, social media, and social networks, with a keen interest in novel methodologies.
She is the coeditor of the Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (Sage, 2022), coeditor
of the Handbook of Computational Social Science (Routledge, 2022), coauthor of Real-Life
Sociology (Oxford University Press, 2020), and author of Technology and Society (Oxford
University Press, 2020).