In a society where it is becoming more common for perpetrators to choose electronic forms of communication (cell phones, social media, etc.) to bully others, it is crucial that we understand how our country is working to intervene in this cyberbullying epidemic. Therefore, this systematic research synthesis sought to examine all intervention efforts addressing cyberbullying that have been implemented within the United States. A systematic search using variations of cyberbullying intervention program search terms was narrowed down to a final sample size of 11 articles fitting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results suggested that programs addressing cyberbullying have only been implemented in schools or online, and most have not been evaluated for their effect on actual cyberbullying behaviors, but rather on attitudes and intentions about cyberbullying. Despite the significant concern about cyberbullying and its potential problematic outcomes, there seems to be a glaring lack of effective evidence-based programs that have been implemented in the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SalvatoreAJ. An anti-bullying strategy: action research in a 5/6 intermediate school. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,, 2006; AAI3210027.
2.
EspelageDL, HongJS. Cyberbullying prevention and intervention efforts: current knowledge and future directions. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2017; 62:374–380.
3.
Cyberbullying Research Center. Summary of our Cyberbullying Research from 2004–2010. www.cyberbullying.us/research.php (accessed May8, 2018).
4.
HutsonE. Cyberbullying in adolescence: a concept analysis. Advances in Nursing Science, 2016; 39:60–70.
KowalskiRM, GiumettiGW, SchroederAN, et al.Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 2014; 140:1073–1137.
7.
HolfeldB, GrabeM. (2012) An examination of the history, prevalence, characteristics, and reporting of cyberbullying in the United States. In LiQ, CrossD, SmithPK, eds. Cyberbullying in the global playground: research from international perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 117–142.
8.
KowalskiR, LimberSP, AgatsonPW. (2012) Cyberbullying: bullying in the digital age. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Riley-Blackwell.
9.
VazsonyiAT, MachackovaH, SevcikovaA, et al.Cyberbullying in context: direct and indirect effects by low self-control across 25 European countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2012; 9:210–227.
10.
BeranT, LiQ. Cyber-harassment: a study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2005; 32:265–277.
11.
BeranT, LiQ. The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 2007; 1:15–33.
12.
SouranderA, RonningJ, Brunstein-KlomekA. Childhood bullying behavior and later psychiatric hospital and psychopharmacologic treatment: findings from the Finnish 1981 Birth Cohort Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2009; 66:1005–1012.
13.
MatthiesenSB, EinarsenS. Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 2007; 22:735–753.
14.
Del ReyR, CasasJA, OrtegaR. Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbullying roles. Aggressive Behavior, 2016; 42:123–135.
15.
Ortega-RuizR, Del ReyR, CasasJA. Knowing, building and living together on Internet and social networks: the ConRed Cyberbullying Prevention Program. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2012; 6:303–312.
16.
SalmivalliC, KamaA, PoskipartaE. Counteracting bullying in Finland: the KiVa program and its efforts on different forms of being bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2011; 35:405–411.
17.
PalladinoBE, NocentiniA, MenesiniE. Evidence-based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: evaluation of the NoTrap! Program in two independent trials. Aggressive Behavior, 2016; 42:194–206.
18.
MenesiniE, CalussiP, NocentiniA. (2012) Cyberbullying and traditional bullying: unique, additive, and synergistic effects on psychological health symptoms. In LiQ, CrossD, SmithPK, eds. Cyberbullying in the global playground: research on international perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 245–262.
19.
GaraigordobilM, Martínez-ValderreyV. Effect of Cyberprogram 2.0 on reducing victimization and improving social competence in adolescence. Journal of Psychodidactics, 2014; 19:289–305.
20.
GaraigordobilM, Martínez-ValderreyV. Cyberprogram 2.0: effects of the intervention on “face-to-face” bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema, 2015; 27:45–51.
21.
GaraigordobilM, Martínez-ValderreyV. The effectiveness of cyberprogram 2.0 on conflict resolution strategies and self-esteem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2015; 57:229–234.
22.
GaraigordobilM, Martínez-ValderreyV. Impact of Cyberprogam 2.0 on different types of school violence and aggressiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016; 7:428.
23.
YbarraML, Diener-WestM, LeafPJ. Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2007; 41:42–50.
24.
DoaneAN, KelleyML, PearsonMR. Reducing cyberbullying: a theory of reasoned action-based video prevention program for college students. Aggressive Behavior, 2016; 42:136–146.
25.
EspelageDL, LowS, Van RyzinMJ, et al.Clinical trial of second step middle school program: impact on bullying, cyberbullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual harassment perpetration. School Psychology Review, 2015; 44:464–79.
26.
SavageMW, DeissJr. DM, Roberto AJ, et al. Theory-based formative research on an anti-cyberbullying victimization intervention message. Journal of Health Communication, 2017; 22:124–34.
27.
RobertoAJ, EdenJ, SavageMW, et al.Outcome evaluation results of school-based cybersafety promotion and cyberbullying prevention intervention for middle school students. Health Communication, 2014; 29:1029–1042.
28.
HicksJF, Le ClairB, BerryS. Using solution-focused dramatic empathy training to eliminate cyber-bullying. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 2016; 11:378–390.
29.
ChibnallS, WallaceM, LeichtC, et al.(2006) i-Safe evaluation: final report (Research Report No. 213715). National Criminal Justice Reference Service.https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213715.pdf (accessed May8, 2018).
30.
CamelfordKG, EbrahimC. The cyberbullying virus: a psychoeducational intervention to define and discuss cyberbullying among high school females. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 2016; 11:458–468.
31.
MillerE, GoldsteinS, McCauleyHL, et al.A school health center intervention for abusive adolescent relationships: a Cluster RCT. Pediatrics, 2015; 135:76–85.
32.
LaytonD. The implementation of a positive behavior support intervention and its influence on student perceptions of bullying and cyberbullying. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global,, 2017; 10615311.
33.
HswenY, RubenzahlL, BickhamDS. Feasibility of an online and mobile videogame curriculum for teaching children safe and healthy cellphone and internet behaviors. Games for Health Journal: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications, 2014; 3:252–259.
34.
WitteK, CameronKA, McKeonJK, BerkowitzJM. Predicting risk behaviors: development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1996; 1:317–341.
35.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977; 84:191–215.
36.
OlweusD. (2007) Olweus bullying questionnaire. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
37.
YbarraML, EspelageDL, MitchellKJ. The co-occurrence of internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: associations with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2007; 41:S31–S41.
38.
FischSM. A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on television. Journal of Media Psychology, 2000; 2:63–91.
39.
BennettDC, GuranEL, RamosMC, MargolinG. College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 2011; 26:410–429.
40.
WillardN. (2004) Cyberbullying: mobilizing educators, parents, students and others to combat online social cruelty. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. www.cyberbully.org/cbbook.html (accessed May8, 2018).
41.
DareS.Changing perceptions of middle school students regarding bullying: the influence of student-centered interventions. UMI Research Press 2011. http://cdm15323.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15323coll5/id/5348 (accessed May8, 2018).
42.
TtofiMM, FarringtonDP. Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2011; 7:27–56.
43.
Della CioppaV, O'NeilA, CraigW. Learning from traditional bullying interventions: a review of research on cyberbullying and best practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2015; 23:61–68.
44.
SmithPK. Why interventions to reduce bullying and violence in schools may (or may not) succeed: comments on this special section. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2011; 35:1–5.
45.
HutsonE, KellyS, MilitelloLK. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2018; 15:72–79.
46.
ChauxE, VelasquezAM, Schultze-KrumbholzA, et al.Effects of the cyberbullying prevention program media heroes (Medienhelden) on traditional bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 2016; 42:157–165.
47.
DurlakJA, DuPreEP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2008; 41: 327–350.
48.
Von BertalanffyL. (1968) General system theory. New York: George Braziller.
