Cyberbullying continues to receive growing research attention, but much of this work focuses on prevalence estimates. Little is known about responses to these incidents. The present study relies on traditional theoretical explanations as a basis for modeling predictors for reporting to authorities and police clearance of cyberbullying using two national data sources. Initial support is obtained for the importance of incident seriousness and solvability characteristics for cyberbullying reporting and clearance. These findings suggest the utility of traditional theory to explain responses to cyberbullying, and also highlight a need for measures tailored to the cyber context to comprehensively test such models.
AddingtonL. A. (2004). The effect of NIBRS reporting on item missing data in murder cases. Homicide Studies, 8, 1-21.
2.
AddingtonL. A. (2008). Assessing the extent of nonresponse bias on NIBRS estimates of violent crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 32-49.
3.
AddingtonL. A. (2011). Current issues in victimization research and the NCVS’s ability to study them. In A dialogue between bureau of justice statistics and the justice system community. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bjsworkshop.pdf
4.
AddingtonL. A.RennisonC. M. (2008). Co-occurring rape: Do additional crimes affect how victims and police respond to rape?Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 205-226.
5.
AllisonP. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BaumerE. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology, 40, 579-616.
7.
BidermanA. D.LynchJ. P. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York, NY: Springer.
8.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). National Crime Victimization Survey: School crime supplement 2009 codebook. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
9.
BlackD. (1976). The behavior of law. New York, NY: Academic Press.
10.
BosickS. J.RennisonC. M.GoverA. R.DodgeM. (2012). Reporting violence to the police: Predictors through the life course. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 441-451.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1992). Uniform crime reporting handbook (National Incident-Based Reporting System edition). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
13.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
GottfredsonM. R.GottfredsonD. M. (1988). Decision making in criminal justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
15.
HayC.MeldrumR.MannK. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 130-147.
16.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2011). Cyberbullying: A review of the legal issues facing educators. Preventing School Failure, 55, 71-78.
18.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2012). School law enforcement and cyberbullying. In PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 161-184). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
HolfeldB.GrabeM. (2012). An examination of the history, prevalence, characteristics and reporting of cyberbullying in the United States. In LiQ.CrossD.SmithP. K. (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives (pp. 117-142). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
20.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2012). Police perceptions of computer crimes in two Southeastern cities: An examination from the viewpoint of patrol officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 396-412.
21.
HongJ. S.EspelageD. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311-322.
KlingerD. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology, 35, 277-306.
25.
KowalskiR. M.LimberS. P.AgatstonP. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
26.
LawD. M.ShapkaJ. D.HymelS.OlsonB. F.WaterhouseT. (2012). The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 226-232.
27.
LynchJ. P.AddingtonL. A. (2007). Conclusion. In LynchJ. P.AddingtonL. A. (co-editors), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR (pp. 297-334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
McQuadeS. C.IIIColtJ. P.MeyerN. B. B. (2009). Cyber bullying: Protecting kids and adults from online bullies. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29.
MishnaF.SainiMSolomonS. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children’s and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1222-1228.
30.
MuschertG. W.PegueroA. A. (2010). The Columbine effect and school antiviolence policy. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 17, 117-148.
31.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. (2010). National incident-based reporting system, 2008: Extract files [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
NavarroJ. N.JasinskiJ. L. (2012). Going cyber: Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 32, 81-94.
34.
ParrisL.VarjasK.MeyersJ.CuttsH. (2012). High school students’ perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44, 284-306.
35.
PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society, 43, 727-751.
36.
PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 13-35). New York, NY: Routledge
37.
QiL.SmithP. K.CrossD. (2012). Research into cyberbullying: Context. In LiQ.CrossD.SmithP. K. (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives (pp. 3-12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
ReynsB.W.EnglebrechtC. M. (2010). The stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 998-1005.
39.
RiedelM. (2008). Homicide arrest clearances: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 2, 1145-1164.
40.
RobertsA. (2009). Contributions of the National Incident-Based Reporting System to substantive knowledge in criminology: A review of research. Sociology Compass, 3, 433-458.
41.
SlonjeR.SmithP. K.FrisenA. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26-32.
42.
StewartD. M.FritschE. J. (2011). School and law enforcement efforts to combat cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure, 55, 79-87.
43.
TokunagaR. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
44.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement, 2009. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.
45.
UnneverJ. D.CornellD. G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reports being bullied?Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373-388.
46.
VandeboschH.BeirensL.D’HaeseW.WeggeD.PabianS. (2012). Police actions with regard to cyberbullying: The Belgian case. Psicothema, 24, 646-652.
47.
WatkinsA. M.MaumeM. O. (2011). School victims and crime reporting. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 333-351.
48.
WolakJ.FinkelhorD.MitchellK. J. (2012). How often are teens arrested for sexting?: Data from a national sample of police cases. Pediatrics, 129, 4-12.
49.
XieM.LauritsenJ. L. (2012). Racial context and crime reporting: A test of Black’s stratification hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 265-293.
50.
YbarraM. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet harassment among young regular Internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 247-257.
