El impacto emocional y las consecuencias del ciberacoso

ABSTRACT Cyberbullying is a relatively recent form of relational aggression usually considered in the research literature to be bullying by means of technology through the medium of the Internet and mobile phones (Menesini et al. 2012, Smith et al. 2008). Cyberbullying takes a number of forms, such as sending insulting, rude or threatening messages, spreading rumours, revealing personal information, publishing embarrassing pictures or exclusion from online communication. As Perren et al. (2012) indicate, one distinctive aspect is that the power imbalance in cyberbullying can be expressed through the bullies’ superior technological knowledge and their anonymity, coupled with the victims’ limited capacity to defend themselves. A second aspect is that cyberbullying can be viewed by potentially huge numbers of people far beyond the target’s immediate social network, so causing acute embarrassment to the victim. Research consistently identifies the consequences of bullying for the emotional health of children and young people. Victims experience lack of acceptance in the peer groups which results in loneliness and social isolation. The young person’s consequent social withdrawal is likely to lead to low self-esteem and depression (Perren et al., 2010: Pörhölä, 2008; Sourander et al., 2010). Bullies too are at risk. They are more likely than non-bullies to engage in a range of maladaptive and anti-social behaviours, and they are at risk of alcohol and drugs dependency; like victims, they have an increased risk of depression and suicidal ideation. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that cybervictims are particularly at risk. Sourander et al. (2010) found that nearly 1 in 4 of cybervictims reported feeling unsafe and were more likely to have psychosomatic problems, such as headaches, recurring abdominal pain and sleeplessness, as well as peer relationship difficulties. Similarly, cyberbullies felt unsafe at school and unsupported by their teachers; they too had a high incidence of headaches. Cyberbullies had high levels of conduct disorders, hyperactivity, frequent smoking and drunkenness and low scores for prosocial behavior. Those who were both cyberbullies and cybervictims were the most troubled group in that they scored higher on depression, feeling unsafe, abusing alcohol and exhibiting conduct disorders. Recent studies have demonstrated that there is a significant conceptual and practical overlap between both traditional bullying and cyberbullying, in that most young people who are cyberbullied also tend to be bullied by traditional, face-to-face methods (Dooley et al., 2009; Gradinger et al., 2009; Perren et al., 2010; Riebel et al., 2009; Sourander et al. 2010). As is the case with traditional bullying, according to Willard (2006), the reported reasons for attacking a person online involve the bullies’ need for power and dominance within a group, the perceived vulnerability of the target, perceived provocativeness on the part of the target (usually as a justification for the aggression on the part of the bully) and interpersonal animosities. This suggests that, while acknowledging certain unique aspects of the phenomenon, we can draw on over 20 years of research and practice on school bullying in order to address the problem. At the same time, we need to be aware that oversimplification of the problem runs a very real risk of impeding a clear-headed understanding of the phenomenon. For one thing, there are difficulties in making accurate comparisons among the studies of cyberbullying since researchers vary widely in their definitions and in the measures that they use. This results in a great deal of inconsistency across studies in the ways in which cyberbullying is operationalised. As Rivers (2013, in press) points out, researchers differ substantially in their estimates of frequency or prevalence of cyberbullying since they do not all word their questions in the same way. This means that reports on the incidence of cyberbullying vary dramatically, from 4% (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) to 36% (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Consequently, a certain amount of ‘moral panic’ surrounds the concept of cyberbullying and some exaggeration in the media both of its prevalence and of its negative effects on young people. Rivers (2013, in press) emphasises the need to focus on the nature of the relationship between the cyberbully and the target. Furthermore, he points out that, in view of the technological nature of cyberbullying, it may be necessary to take greater account of the very different perspectives of cyberbullies, cybervictims and bystanders. As is the case with face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying needs to be seen in the context of the complex network of relationships amongst young people in their social networks.