INTERNET VISIBILITY AND CYBERBULLYING: A SURVEY OF CAPE TOWN HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS
Brenda Scholtz
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing Sciences, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Tracy van Turha

BCom (Hons) in Information Systems, Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town

Kevin Johnston
Associate Professor, Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town

ABSTRACT
The pervasive and open nature of the Internet in the everyday lives of South African children has facilitated benefits such as increased collaboration,
learning opportunities and access to knowledge (A2K). However, the online environment’s increased visibility has at the same time provided new
ways for children to bully each other, and the evidence in the available literature suggests that online bullying – “cyberbullying” – may result in
more harmful consequences than offline variants of such behaviour.

This article provides findings from an online survey of cyberbullying experiences among a sample of high school students aged 15 to 21 years
in the city of Cape Town. The survey found clear evidence of cyberbullying, as reported by both victims and perpetrators, and it was found that
social networking sites (SNSs) were the online spaces most-used for cyberbullying, followed by short message service (SMS) platforms. Among
perpetrators, 19% reported that they cyberbullied once or twice a week and 10% said they cyberbullied every day or almost every day. The survey
also uncovered gender differences in the length of time it took for victims of cyberbullying to put the incidents behind them, with more females
than males taking a long time (i.e., a few weeks, or a month or two or more) to stop feeling “bothered” by the incident.

The authors conclude that the findings show a need for improved efforts, in schools and in student households, towards building learners’,
parents’ and teachers’ e-safety awareness and capacity for preventative action.

KEYWORDS
cyberbullying, online risks, children, South Africa

INTRODUCTION: CHILDREN AND THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

The speed with which children are gaining access to information and communication technology (ICT)-enabled social
media, media, Internet content and mobile platforms is unparalleled in the history of technological advancements
(Livingstone et al., 2013). The progress and use of digital media have escalated quickly, and improvements in social
networking sites (SNSs), mobile media devices, and networked games are finding favour with children (Shipton, 2011).
The level of adoption of mobile phones amongst children has increased significantly in the last decade, and along with
this there has been an increase in the capabilities of mobile handsets (Lenhart, 2009). Children use their handsets for
communications through voice calling, text messages, accessing the Internet, and taking and sharing photographs and videos.

Accordingly, Internet activities amongst children have increased exponentially across the globe in the 21st century
(Tokunaga, 2010) and have become embedded in their lives (Livingstone et al., 2013).This is also true of children in
South Africa (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011; Oosterwyk & Parker, 2010). The wide variety of platforms for accessing
the Internet, and unrestricted access to social networking sites and chat rooms, have been pivotal in the way children’s
communications have evolved in the 21st century (Badenhorst, 2011; Du Preez 2012). Children are proficient with,
and regularly use, technology (Mishna et al., 2010).They are highly dependent on this technology for interaction and
connection with others, as well as for activities such as homework and games. The increasing significance of these
activities has motivated many conversations about the benefits and risks of this constantly changing technology.
The benefits of the Internet relate to the many opportunities available for entertainment and for activities facilitated
by enhanced access to knowledge (A2K),1 such as learning and developing skills of collaboration and creativity
(Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Zhong, 2011).

With all the benefits and opportunities made available by the Internet, there are accompanying risks that cannot
be ignored (Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009). Associated with the increase in adoption of Internet use by children,
fears about children’s online risk to harm have become a prominent feature in research and public discussions
(De Lange & Von Solms, 2011; Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009).

Because the nature of the Internet is self-regulatory and open or “visible” to everyone (Kopecky et al., 2012;
Lorenz et al., 2012), children are offered many diverse opportunities to publish material (Jackson et al., 2007). This openness
or “visibility” allows all material and content to be available to anyone with access, and therefore understanding and
highlighting risks is often complex (Cranmer et al., 2009). For instance, content that is deemed inappropriate
for younger children of six to eight years of age could possibly be appropriate content for adolescent children
aged 16 or 17 (Boyd et al., 2009).

1 See AJIC Issue 16, 2015, for more on A2K matters.

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
93
Some studies have found that children are often unaware of the dangers of the Internet, which can lead to unsafe
behaviour, such as posting personal information on public sites and cyberbullying (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011).
However, in other studies (see Livingstone et al., 2013), children have been found to be highly aware of risks, with a
long list of concerns related to their online usage.

There can be little doubt that children need to be made aware of the risks from an early age, and be provided
with guidance, in order to keep them safe whilst online. However, parents are frequently ill-equipped to deal with
the threats, due to lack of experience and education regarding the Internet, and often unaware of the activities
that children are involved in. There is often a vast divide between children and their parents with regard to cyber
knowledge and activities.

Among the online risks affecting adolescents, cyberbullying has been found to be the one that causes the most harm
(Haddon & Livingstone, 2012). Cyberbullying can be defined as intentional and persistent harm to a person caused
by a group or person via the use of electronic media (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). Peer victimisation and bullying have
always been an issue for schools and parents alike (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010), but the Internet has the potential to
increase the extent and impact of bullying due to the possible anonymity of its perpetrators and the possible wide
visibility of the bullying behaviour (Boyd et al., 2009).

Children involved in bullying or victimisation by bullies have reported higher levels of depression across all four forms
of bullying: physical, verbal, relational and cyber (Wang et al., 2011). This depression has resulted in an examination of
cyberbullying as a phenomenon in several unfortunate cases of teen suicide (Dooley et al., 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010).

Evidence of instances of cyberbullying among school children is of great concern, because schools should be places
where young people develop confidence and a strong sense of self-worth. While several studies have investigated the
extent of cyberbullying, West (2015) argues that additional research studies related to the details and consequences
of cyberbullying are required particularly in the 16 to 19 year age group. However, the West (2015) study investigated
cyberbullying in a post-compulsory education context in England, and the findings concluded that while cyberbullying
is present in this context it is lower than in a school context. Hinduja and Patchin (2013) investigated cyberbullying
among middle and high school students in the US. While evidence confirmed that cyberbullying was prevalent in
these schools, occurrences were relatively low. However the study only investigated cyberbullying that had occurred
in the previous 30 days (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013).

The purpose of this research was to determine the extent of cyberbullying experienced among students in Grades 10 to 12
(typically in the 15- to 21-year age group) at a set of high schools in South Africa’s second-largest city, Cape Town; to
determine the potential impact of these experiences; and to examine any possible gender differences in the bullying
or in the responses to the bullying.

The next section of this article outlines the research survey that was conducted. This is followed by a section that
provides conceptual framing for the research via a review of existing literature on children’s exposure to online risks,
including cyberbullying. Then there is a section investigating the South African literature. The research findings are
then provided, followed by a final section of conclusions and recommendations.

In this study, the term “children” is used to refer to girls and boys of school-going age, i.e., aged 6 to 18 years, but
with the upper age limit going higher than 18 yeards in cases (as in the sample we surveyed in Cape Town) where
a student may need to stay in high school beyond the age of 18 years). Many of the dynamics of cyberbullying are
particularly pronounced in the teenage years, and that is why our research focused on high school students.

THE RESEARCH
The population that this study looked at was learners in Grades 10 to 12 in selected classes at selected secondary
schools in a Cape Town education district. Grades 10 to 12 in South Africa are the final three years of high school,
meaning the students are typically aged between 15 years and 18 years, i.e., in their final years of childhood, with a
few students older than that (primarily due to repeating of failed years).

A non-probability convenience sampling technique, based on the purposive sampling method (Saunders et al., 2009),
was applied. As the study was exploratory, as well as needing to adhere to time constraints, this method was the
most appropriate. Nine schools were selected to participate in the study, with the schools chosen on the basis of the
types of activities observed on the ChatSA website (http://www.chatsa.biz/). At each school, one class in each grade
(Grades 10, 11 and 12) was requested, via the school’s principal, to take part in the study.

The learners’ home languages were primarily English, Afrikaans or Xhosa, which are the three South African official
languages most widely spoken in Cape Town. A total of 324 students, aged between 15 and 21 years, were targeted,
and 310 responded to the survey.

We used a post-positivist approach – an approach that allows individuals’ instincts, philosophies, morals, beliefs,
education and social standing to be taken into account in understanding what influences their perceptions and
realities (Guba, 1990). It was felt that use of this post-positivist lens to frame the research would allow children’s
actions and reactions in the online world to be grasped.

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
94
The research adopted a deductive approach to the theory since it used an existing conceptual model: a model published
in 2011 by the EU Kids Online research project (Livingstone et al., 2011). The model, outlined in Figure 1 below,
traces the possible consequences of children’s online activity according to four sets of elements: (1) how children
use the Internet, (2) what they do online, (3) the online factors shaping their experience, and (4) the outcomes for
the children.

FIGURE 1: MODEL FOR RESEARCHING CHILDREN’S ONLINE ACTIVITIES

What do What online factors What are the

How do children
children do shape their outcomes for
use the internet?
online? experience children?

Usage Activities Opportunities/risks Benefits/harms

Where Learn Positive content Learning
How Create User-generated Self-esteem
content
Amount Play Sexual content/ Sociality
messages
Skills Meet people Stranger contact In/excluded
Hang out Bullying Coping/resilience
Try new things  ersonal data
P Bothered/upset
misuse
Bully others Abuse
Etc Etc Etc Etc

Source: Livingstone et al. (2011)

Data were collected and analysed via an online survey based on a survey instrument developed by EU Kids Online
that had already been tested and used in 25 countries across Europe to gain insight into the risks and experiences that
children encounter online. (Hasebrink et al., 2008). Using this online survey tool allowed the number of respondents
to be maximised while minimising the time and labour required to gather the data (Saunders et al., 2009).

The research questions we sought to explore via the survey were as follows:

1. To what extent do high school learners in Cape Town encounter cyberbullying?

2. To what extent are the learners who experience cyberbullying bothered by it?
3. To what extent are there gender differences in the perpetrating or experiencing of cyberbullying?

The study complied with the ethics and confidentiality guidelines of the University of Cape Town (where two of the
authors of this article are based). There were some potential limitations to this study. One was that the high schools
were not chosen randomly; they were chosen specifically because they were using the aforementioned ChatSA website.
Another potential limitation was the relatively small sample size (310 respondents). In addition, the respondents’
parents and teachers were not questioned or interviewed.

ONLINE RISKS FOR CHILDREN

Children are often portrayed as techno-savvy users of the various technologies (Mishna et al., 2010). A study
by Helsper and Eynon (2010) confirmed that young people use the Internet more than their older counterparts.
Children tend to use the Internet as their first port of call, have higher levels of Internet self-efficacy than older
people, and use the Internet for fact-checking and formal learning activities. But at the same time, in examinations
of online risk, children are often portrayed as innocent, vulnerable and in need of protection (Vickery, 2012), and
parents are urged to take on the important role of supporting their children’s use of technology and providing
guidance (Helsper & Eynon, 2010).

Staksrud and Livingstone (2009) maintain that children are active agents in their own lives, and that they use the
Internet to express themselves, to socialise, and to discuss their frustrations. Among other things, children use
the Internet to post pictures, fall in love, end relationships, and avenge each other (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009).
Children are playful by nature and often use the online environment to experiment with new behaviours, as their
offline lives tend to be restricted by parents, teachers and schools. These behaviours can expose children to several
opportunities and risks. Such exposure has initiated expectations and dismay from policy communities, the public
and private sectors, and parents alike (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010).

While pornography has for more than two decades been seen as the highest of the online risks (Livingstone et al., 2013),
additional potential high-risk exposures have emerged, such as exposure to “sexting” (the sending of sexually
explicit messages or pictures electronically), self-harm, personal data misuse, interactions with strangers, and the

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
95
subject of this article: cyberbullying (Kopecky et al., 2012; Livingstone et al., 2013; Sharples et al., 2009; Staksrud &
Livingstone, 2009). Boyd, Marwick, Aftab and Koeltl (2009) point out that the risks children take and face online tend
to equal the risks they take and face in the offline world, and that technology merely moves longstanding fears and
risks to a digital platform. Livingstone and Haddon (2009) also argue that the medium (the Internet) is not the root
cause of the risks that adolescents experience; rather, the message is the key problem. Regardless, online harassment
or bullying is typically more visible, to more people, than offline bullying.

The increased visibility of the Internet has provided new ways for adolescents to torment each other, and it has
been persuasively argued that online bullying is often more harmful than the offline version, because the Internet
amplifies messages and intensifies cruelty by making it more widely visible (Kopecky et al., 2012). (At the same time,
however, this increased visibility can potentially make it easier for adults to see the online bullying than to see its
offline variants.)

A classification framework created by the aforementioned EU Kids Online project (Hasebrink et al., 2008), classified
the various factors influencing online benefits and risks experienced by children. The age, gender and socio-economic
status (SES) of participants were used as the main independent variables in examining the variances in benefits
and risks. In a 2013 EU Kids Online survey of 10,000 children in Europe (Livingstone et al., 2013), it was found that
the primary risks adolescents faced online were pornography, cyberbullying, exposure to sexual content, sexting
and personal data misuse (Livingstone et al., 2013). The top three most risky platforms were considered to be, in
descending order of risk, video-sharing sites, websites and social networking sites (SNSs). Content-related risks
were the highest risks mentioned by children, with 58% identifying pornographic, violent or other content risks first.
Contact- or conduct-related risks such as bullying, along with other risks such as viruses, were mentioned by nearly
half (42%) of the children in the study as the highest risk. This was the opposite ordering to what parents expect,
since they would put contact-related risks at the top of their concerns. The reason that conduct-related risks came
second in the children’s ranking of concerns is most likely due to the fact that cyberbullying and sexting is linked to
the widespread use of mobile, personal and networked devices.

An earlier EU Kids Online study (Livingstone et al., 2011) found that a lower percentage of children reported being
exposed to cyberbullying as compared to exposure to other risks (such as sexting or meeting strangers offline), but
the children reported that cyberbullying had a more harmful impact on them than exposure to other risks. It must
be borne in mind that what adults consider risks (i.e., meeting strangers) can be seen by adolescents and children as
opportunities (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009).

Meanwhile, an American study by Lenhart, Purcell, Smith and Zickuhr (2010) found that 26% of US teens and young
adults reported being tormented or harassed on their mobile phones, while the percentage reporting that they had
received a “sext” text message was much lower at 15%, and only 4% reported having sent a sext.

As shown in the EU Kids Online model (Livingstone et al., 2011) in Figure 1 (in the section of this article entitled
“The research”), potential harms that can result from Internet activity include feeling excluded, feeling upset or
bothered, and, in more extreme cases, suffering abuse. While confirming the argument that there are risks to children
using the Internet and other online platforms, Livingstone et al. (2011) at the same time propose that the margin for
harm resulting from the risks is often surprisingly small.

Regardless of their scale, harms experienced online by children cannot be ignored. Adults have attempted to place
restrictions and regulations on children to limit online activities, but these have not proved adequate (Staksrud
& Livingstone, 2009). Placing increased restrictions on online activity may not be the answer. There is evidence to
suggest that the perception that parents and teachers are placing restrictions on their online activity may make children
reluctant to request help from parents and teachers if and when they experience a problem online – as such a request
would force the child to reveal an element of her / his online activity (Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009). Adolescents fear
that punishment, and more restrictions, will result from requests for help. More often than not, they will confide in
a friend, rather than a parent or teacher, when confronted with an online issue that bothers them (Hasebrink et al.,
2008). Increased e-safety education in schools could increase the trust relationship between learners and teachers
with regard to online activities (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011).

Cyberbullying incidents can be classified as direct or indirect (Bauman et al., 2013). With direct cyberbullying, the
bully makes contact with the victim directly, for example by sending him/her a malicious text message. In indirect
cyberbullying, the person responsible may not be known. An example of indirect cyberbullying is gaining access to
another person’s email account or social networking page and either falsely claiming to be that person (and sending
out messages or making postings in that person’s name); or blocking access to the account so that the person
cannot use it.

Cyberbullying behaviour includes the distribution of humiliating pictures or videos about a particular person, making
unkind remarks about someone, or cyber-stalking someone online (Mishna et al., 2009). Cyberbullying characteristically
involves repetition, as the media (pictures or text) distributed online can be repeatedly re-distributed, and viewed and
re-viewed, with no geographical limitations. Specifically on mobile phones, cyberbullying can take the form of sending
malicious text messages, sexting, or taking pictures or videos of someone with the intention of distributing the content
to others via a mobile network or the Internet (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013).

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
96
The characteristics of the behaviour in cyberbullying are to a great extent the same as in its offline counterpart, but
with the culprit or culprits able to be anonymous and the offending behaviour visible to many more people (Cowie &
Colliety, 2010). Perceived anonymity plays a major role in the ability to harass others online; being able to hide one’s
identity enables adolescents to act in ways that they would not normally act if their identities were known (Mishna
et al., 2009). Individuals can impersonate others online, or set up fake profiles, in order to perpetrate cyberbullying.
However, in spite of this perceived anonymity, Boyd et al. (2009) found that cyber victims typically have the ability to
figure out who the culprit or culprits are and generally do figure it out. And, in a high percentage of cases the culprit
is known to the victim.

In the US, some studies have found that male children are more likely to be cyberbullies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013;
Wang et al, 2009), and that females are more likely to be cyber victims (Wang et al., 2009). But other studies in
Sweden (Slonje & Smith, 2008) and in the US (Williams & Guerra, 2007) have found little or no gender difference in
cyberbullying or being cyberbullied.

A Canadian study (Mishna et al., 2010) of middle and high school students reported that nearly half (49.5%) of the
respondents had been bullied online in the previous three months. And the Hinduja and Patchin (2013) study of
middle and high schools in the US found that 5% of participants had cyberbullied others more than once.

Just as reported incidences of cyberbullying vary, so too do reports of the degree of upset that cyberbullying
causes. One US study found that children preferred to use the term “drama” rather than cyberbullying, and
in this way to allow themselves to be classed less as victims or culprits in the bullying incidents (Marwick
& Boyd, 2011). For instance, in this study, a female respondent labelled her victimisation as “drama” even while
acknowledging that incidents were affecting her emotionally. The “drama” label seemingly made the actions more
acceptable to her, and she sought to brush the perpetrator’s actions off as attention-seeking (Marwick & Boyd, 2011).

Because self-esteem plays a significant role in children’s development, particularly in their teenage years, the positive
or negative outcomes of online interactions are an important facet of their experience that needs to be thoroughly
investigated (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). Teens tend to look for settings where they will be socially accepted, and to
avoid places where they could be marginalised or isolated. The negative effects of cyberbullying on teens (both the
recipients and the perpetrators) need to be clearly documented (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013).

An EU Kids Online study (Ólafsson et al., 2013) reported that while certain risks (such as seeing intimate pictures
or being propositioned online) were encountered by one in eight children (12.5%), not all children were necessarily
bothered by the encounter. What did bother the children the most was receiving hurtful messages.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT

The South African population, according to study commissioned by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
is one of the main consumers of mobile technology and social networking on the African continent (Beger & Sinha,
2012). Statistics from Effective Measure, the web traffic measurement vendor for the country’s websites, has revealed
that nearly 49% of South African Internet users are male, compared to just over 51% of users that are female (Slonje
& Smith, 2008).

A 2011 study of primary and high school learners in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality of South Africa’s Eastern
Cape Province found that 90% of respondents used SNSs (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011), and that 67% were accessing
these sites on a daily basis. Two SNSs, Mxit (a South African mobile social network) and Facebook, were found to
be the most popular sites amongst the surveyed youth, and social networking was their favourite online pastime,
followed by gaming (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011). This same survey found that 36% of the surveyed learners had
experienced cyberbullying to some extent. A survey of 303 learners from Grades 8 to 12 in high schools in Cape
Town found that 93% owned a mobile phone (Oosterwyk & Parker, 2010), and that the learners primarily used their
mobile phones to access mobile Internet applications (e.g., Facebook) and mobile social networks (e.g., Mxit) to link
with peers and family. The Oosterwyk and Parker (2010) study also revealed that with the adoption of mobile
phones by learners in Cape Town, there was an increase in the number of learners being cyberbullied. Similarly,
Kruger’s (2011) qualitative research in one school in the Western Cape Province established that cyberbullying had
become a significant issue in schools and educators were struggling to deal with it in the absence of rules or strategies
in place to mitigate the problem.

Findings from the aforementioned UNICEF-commissioned study (Beger & Sinha, 2012) found that the main online
risks faced by South African 15- to 24-year olds were cyberbullying, sexting, and meeting strangers online. A more
recent study (Alfreds, 2013) reported that the full extent of cyberbullying in South Africa is not known, but that it is
definitely growing. Evidence from the Alfreds (2013) study has suggested that young people in particular are exposed
to cyberbullying.

Accordingly, the South African government and private-sector actors have initiated projects that blend the promotion of both
ICT development and online safety (De Lange & Von Solms, 2011). With the number of South African ICT users growing
rapidly, especially among low-income user sectors not previously well-connected to the digital world, there is an urgent need
for well-structured policymaking in support of ICT development that balances the imperatives of education and e-safety.

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
97
RESEARCH FINDINGS
A total of 324 students were targeted by the study, and Table 1 below provides grade and gender breakdowns
for the students.

TABLE 1: GRADE AND GENDER BREAKDOWNS OF TARGETED RESPONDENTS (N = 324)

Grade Number in Sample (n) Gender
Male Female Prefer not to say
Grade 10 83 38 41 4
Grade 11 82 28 52 2
Grade 12 159 53 94 12
Total 324 119 187 18

Of the 324 students in the target sample, 310 completed the survey. The ages of the respondents ranged from 15 to 21 years
old, and 87% of respondents (n = 271) were between the ages of 15 and 18. As outlined in Table 2, of the 310 respondents,
more than half (60%) were female, 35% were male, and 5% chose the “Prefer not to say” response when asked their gender.
It is unclear why these students chose not to identify their gender in a simple binary choice. This reluctance could relate
to gender issues connected to experiences of cyberbullying – for example, heteronormativity, monosexuality and
homophobia (Pawelczyk et al., 2014). These issues could be addressed in future research. (Research into questions
of sexuality in schools is important and necessary, and school children need to be provided with the knowledge and
skills to challenge and deal with homophobic behaviour (Pawelczyk et al., 2014)).

TABLE 2: GENDER BREAKDOWN OF RESPONDENTS (N = 310)

Gender n %
Male 108 35
Female 185 60
Prefer not to say 17 5
Totals 310 100

The number of questions answered by participants depended on their experience of cyberbullying. In response to the
question regarding if they had been bullied online (on the Internet or SNSs) in the previous 12 months, 42% (n = 131)
stated that they had (Table 3). The next question related to specifics of the platforms on which they had experienced
cyberbullying.The highest frequency (29%) of response was SNSs, and the second-highest (22%) was SMS (see Figure 2
below). This finding reinforces the results of the aforementioned Nelson Mandela Bay study by De Lange and Van
Solms (2011), which also found that SNSs were the most-used platform for cyberbullying amongst South African high
school students, with SMS a close second.

TABLE 3: RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCING CYBERBULLYING IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS (N = 310)

n %
Bullied online 131 42
Not bullied online 180 58
Totals 310 100

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
98
FIGURE 2: PLATFORM WHERE CYBERBULLYING WAS EXPERIENCED (N = 131)

29%
SNS

SMS 22%

In a chatroom 6%

By email 1%

In a gaming site 2%

Some other way on the Internet 6%

Don’t know the platform

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Respondents were also asked about the specifics of cyberbullying incidents and their experiences as cyber victims.
They were provided with a list of possible experiences and could select more than one response. (Out of the 144 responses
to this question, 127 indicated their gender, and for purposes of analysis those who did not disclose their gender were
ignored.) As outlined in Table 4, among the 127 male and female (M+F) responses to this question, 24 had “nasty or
hurtful” messages sent to them.

Of the 24 respondents who said they had received nasty or hurtful messages, three-quarters (n = 18) were female
and a quarter male (n = 6). As Table 4 shows, there was in fact a higher percentage of females than males for each of
the experiences listed. But a Chi² goodness-of-fit test was done (see Table 5) to determine whether the percentages
by gender per form of bullying differed significantly from the gender percentage for the sample (i.e., the sample
was 63% female and 37% male). The Chi2 results showed that the gender differences were in fact not statistically
significant for this sample, i.e., the data did not statistically confirm that females experienced more cyberbullying
incidents online than males.

TABLE 4: SPECIFICS OF CYBERBULLYING EXPERIENCE AS VICTIM

Males + females
Male Female Prefer not to say Totals
(M+F)
n % M+F n % M+F n % n % n %
Totals Totals
Nasty or hurtful
messages were sent to 6 25% 18 75% 24 96% 1 4% 25 100%
me online
Nasty or hurtful
messages about me
2 15% 11 85% 13 100% 0 0% 13 100%
were passed around or
posted online
I was excluded from a
4 29% 10 71% 14 93% 1 7% 15 100%
group or activity online
I was threatened online 3 38% 5 63% 8 89% 1 11% 9 100%
Other nasty or hurtful
2 25% 6 75% 8 100% 0 0% 8 100%
things online
Something else
9 41% 13 59% 22 88% 3 12% 25 100%
happened online
Don’t know 15 54% 13 46% 28 88% 4 13% 32 100%
Prefer not to say 3 30% 7 70% 10 91% 1 9% 11 100%
No. of responses 44 35% 83 65% 127 88% 17 12% 144 100%

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
99
TABLE 5: CHI2 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST RESULTS FOR SPECIFICS OF CYBERBULLYING AS CYBER VICTIM
Chi-square p(df = 1) Cramer’s V
Nasty or hurtful messages were sent to me online 1.47 .226 n.a.
Nasty or hurtful messages about me were passed
2.59 .107 n.a.
around or posted online
I was excluded from a group or activity online 0.42 .517 n.a.
I was threatened online Sample too small
Other nasty or hurtful things happened to me online Sample too small
Something else 0.15 .699 n.a.
Chi-square p (df = 1) Cramer’s V
Respondents who reported having been cyberbullied were then asked how long they felt “bothered” by the cyberbullying
experience. They were only able to select one response from a list of five possible responses (Table 6). Of the 121
responses given to this question, 25% (n = 30) reported that they “got over it straight away” and 37% (n = 45) said they
felt bothered “for a few days”. Only 9% (n = 11) reported that they were bothered “for a couple of months or more”.

TABLE 6: DURATION OF FEELING BOTHERED BY CYBERBULLYING INCIDENT

Gender How long did you feel bothered for? Totals
I felt like that Don’t know
I got over it I felt like that for I felt like that for
for a couple of how long I felt
straight away a few days a few weeks
months or more bothered
Male 15 38% 11 28% 5 13% 0 0% 9 23% 40 100%
Female 15 21% 31 43% 9 13% 11 15% 6 8% 72 100%
Prefer not to say 0 0% 3 33% 2 22% 0 0% 4 44% 9 100%

Totals 30 25% 45 37% 16 13% 11 9% 19 16% 121 100%

Among the M+F respondents to the “duration of feeling bothered” question, the gender breakdown was evenly split
(15 females, 15 males) for those who stopped feeling bothered straight away. But gender differences were found for
two of the other possible answers to this question:

• among those who answered that they felt bothered for a few days, a clear majority were females (31 females
compared to only 11 males); and
• among those who were bothered by the experience for a couple of months or more, all 11 respondents who
gave this answer were females.

A Chi² test was performed in order to determine statistical significance of these gender differences and the “Prefer not
to say” category of gender was excluded. The results (Chi2(4) = 14.29, p = .006, V = 0.36) revealed that the differences
in gender groups was statistically significant. It can therefore be concluded that overall females felt bothered for a
longer time than males.

Respondents who reported being cyberbullied were also asked what actions they took in response to the incident
(Table 7). They were provided with a list of possible responses and could select more than one response.

TABLE 7: ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO CYBERBULLYING

Males + females
Male Female Prefer not to say Totals
(M+F)
% %
n % M+F n % M+F n n n
Totals Totals
I stopped going online for 4 25% 12 75% 16 100% 0 0% 16 100%
a while
I deleted any messages 11 31% 25 69% 36 100% 2 6% 38 100%
from the person
I changed my contact 2 17% 10 83% 12 100% 0 0% 12 100%
settings
I blocked the person from 8 24% 26 76% 34 100% 1 3% 35 100%
contacting me
I reported the problem 2 17% 10 83% 12 100% 0 0% 12 100%
None of these 20 51% 19 49% 39 100% 4 10% 43 100%
Don’t know 5 56% 4 44% 9 100% 1 11% 10 100%
No. of responses 52 33% 106 67% 158 100% 8 5% 166 100%

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
100
The response with the highest frequency (n = 36) to the actions taken question was “I deleted any messages from
the person”, and the second-highest (n = 34) was “I blocked the person from contacting me”. Of the 158 responses
to this question who also indicated their gender, 16 stated that they stopped using the Internet for a while, and
of these 16 respondents, 75% (n = 12) were female and 25% (n = 4) male (Table 7). In fact, for each of the responses,
females had a higher proportion responding in the affirmative than males. But a Chi² goodness-of-fit test (Table 8 below)
found that the gender differences in these results were not statistically significant given the gender split within the
total sample.

TABLE 8: CHI² GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST RESULTS FOR GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES TO

CYBERBULLYING
Chi-square P (df = 1) Cramer’s V
I stopped going online for a while 0.98 .323 n.a.
I deleted any messages from the person 0.63 .428 n.a.
I changed my contact settings 2.12 .146 n.a.
I blocked the person from contacting me 2.62 .105 n.a.
I reported the problem 2.12 .146 n.a.
None of these 3.45 .063 n.a.

Another question in the survey asked respondents to indicate whether or not they had cyberbullied someone else
in the past 12 months. Of the 310 respondents, 187 (60%) admitted to being a perpetrator. Of these 187, 10% (n =
18) admitted to “acting nastily” online to someone “every day or almost every day” (Table 9), and 19% (n = 35) of
respondents said they were nasty to someone online “once or twice a week”.

TABLE 9: FREQUENCY OF BULLYING AS PERPETRATOR

Gender How often do you act nastily to someone online? Totals
Every day or Once or twice a Once or twice a Less often Don’t know how
almost every day week month often
Male 7 11% 12 20% 11 18% 21 34% 10 16% 61 100%
Female 11 10% 19 17% 13 12% 45 41% 21 19% 109 100%
Prefer 0 0% 4 24% 3 18% 4 24% 6 35% 17 100%
not to
say
Totals 18 10% 35 19% 27 14% 70 37% 37 20% 187 100%

Among respondents to this question who also indicated their gender (M+F):

• of those who admitted to acting nastily to someone online every day (n = 18), 11% (n = 11) were female and
10% (n = 7) were male; and
• of those who reported being nasty to someone online once or twice a week, 20% (n = 12) were male and 17%
(n = 19) were female.

However, a Chi² test was done with “Prefer not to say” excluded and it was found that the results (Chi2(4) = 1.86, p =
.761) were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) given the gender split within the total sample.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The survey results provide valuable insights into the cyberbullying experiences of a sample of Cape Town high school
students. The most noteworthy findings are:

• that 47% of respondents had been victims of cyberbullying;

• that 60% of respondents had been perpetrators of cyberbullying;
• that 19% of perpetrators said they cyberbullied once or twice a week, and a further 10% said they cyberbullied
every day or almost every day;
• that SNSs were the most frequent place for cyberbullying to occur, followed by SMS platforms;
• that only 25% of respondents who reported being cyberbullied were able to immediately get over feeling
bothered, with 59% of respondents taking a few days, a few weeks, or a month or two or more, to get over the
experience;
• that far more female respondents than male respondents took a long time (i.e., a few weeks, or a month or
two or more), to get over a cyberbullying experience; and
• that no statistically significant gender difference could be found in the proportions of male and female students
who reported that they had been victims of cyberbullying, that they had been perpetrators cyberbullying, or
in the actions they took in response to cyberbullying.

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
101
A key finding from the literature review was that it is not the online platforms themselves that are at the core of
the problem; rather, it is the human behaviours that occur via these platforms. The fundamental problems are
thus human not technical. This result confirms the argument that education, guidance and mediation are required
in children’s use of technology and content (Lin & Atkin, 2014). The results of both our survey and our literature
review highlight a need to build e-safety and anti-cyberbullying awareness and preventative action among learners,
teachers and parents. Dialogue at home and in schools, between learners and parents and between learners and
teachers, needs to be a central component of the awareness-raising and prevention, and the efficacy of such efforts
will need to be investigated in future research.

REFERENCES
Alfreds, D. (2013, 12 August). Cyber bullying growing in SA. News24. Retrieved from http://www.news24.com/Technology/News/Cyber-
bullying-growing-in-SA-20130812

Badenhorst, C. (2011). Legal responses to cyber bullying and sexting in South Africa. Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention. Retrieved
from http://www.cjcp.org.za/uploads/2/7/8/4/27845461/issue_paper_10.pdf

Bauman, S., Cross, D., & Walker, J. (2013). Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures and methodology. New York:
Routledge.

Beger, G., & Sinha, A. (2012). South African mobile generation: Study on South African young people on mobiles. UNICEF Digital
Citizenship Safety project. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_mobilegeneration.pdf

Boyd, D., Marwick, A., Aftab, P., & Koeltl, M. (2009). The conundrum of visibility: Youth safety and the Internet. Journal of Children and
Media, 3(4), 410–414. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17482790903233465

Cowie, H., & Colliety, P. (2010). Cyberbullying: Sanctions or sensitivity? Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of
Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 28(4), 261-268. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643944.201
0.528017

Cranmer, S., Selwyn, N., & Potter, J. (2009). Exploring primary pupils’ experiences and understandings of “e-safety”. Education and
Information Technologies, 14(2), 127-142. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10639-008-9083-7

De Lange, M., & Von Solms, R. (2011). The importance of raising e-safety awareness amongst children in South Africa. In Proceedings of
the 13th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications ZA. Retrieved from http://www.zaw3.co.za/index.php/ZA-WWW/2011/
paper/viewFile/423/131

Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188. Retrieved
from http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182

Du Preez, L. (2012). A legal approach to cyber bullying in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on
Mapping the Global Future: Evolution Through Innovation And Excellence. Global Business and Technology Association and EBSCO
Publishing. Retrieved from http://gbata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/GBATA_2012_Readings_Book.pdf

Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Haddon, L., & Livingstone, S. (2012). EU kids online: National perspectives. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political
Science. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/PerspectivesReport.pdf

Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008). Comparing children’s online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national
comparisons for EU Kids Online. EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.
ac.uk/21656/

Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520. Retrieved
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/01411920902989227/abstract

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711-722. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10964-012-9902-4

Jackson, L.A., Samona, R., Moomaw, J., Ramsay, L., Murray, C., Smith, A., & Murray, L. (2007). What children do on the Internet:
Domains visited and their relationship to socio-demographic characteristics and academic performance. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
10(2), 182-190. Retrieved from http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2006.9970

Kopecky, K., Szotkowski, R., & Krejci, V. (2012). The risks of Internet communication 3. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69,
1348-1357. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812055322

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
102
Kruger, M.M. (2011). Bullying in secondary schools: Teachers’ perspectives and experiences. Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and sexting. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-
media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Teens_and_Sexting.pdf

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Pew
Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_
and_Young_Adults_Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf

Lin, C.A., & Atkin, D.J. (Eds.). (2014). Communication technology and social change: Theory and implications. New York: Routledge.

Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills and
Internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309-329. Retrieved from http://nms.sagepub.com/content/12/2/309

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. EU
Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/

Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. (2013). In their own words: What bothers children online?. European Journal of
Communication, 29(3), 271-288. Retrieved from http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/29/3/271

Lorenz, B., Kikkas, K., & Laanpere, M. (2012). Comparing children’s e-safety strategies with guidelines offered by adults. The Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 10(3), 326-338. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ985434

Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011). The drama! Teen conflict, gossip, and bullying in networked publics. In Decade in Internet time:
symposium on the dynamics of the Internet and society. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926349

Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740909001200

Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school Students.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 362-374. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x/abstract

Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2013). Children’s use of online technologies in Europe: A review of the European evidence base.
EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50228/

Oosterwyk, G., & Parker, M. (2010). Investigating bullying via the mobile web in Cape Town schools. Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Conference on World Wide Web Applications. Retrieved from http://www.zaw3.co.za/index.php/ZA-WWW/2010/paper/view/239

Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 614–621. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x/abstract

Pawelczyk, J., Pakula, L., & Sunderland, J. (2014). Issues of power in relation to gender and sexuality in the EFL classroom – An
overview. Journal of Gender and Power, 1(1), 49-66.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Sussex: Pearson Education Limited.

Sharples, M., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Logan, K. (2009). E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11-16. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(1), 70-84. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00304.x/abstract

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x/abstract

Shipton, L. (2011). Improving e-safety in primary schools: a guidance document. Centre for Education and Inclusion Research, Sheffield
Hallam University. Retrieved from http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/improving-esafety-in-primary.pdf

Staksrud, E., & Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and online risk: Powerless victims or resourceful participants?. Information,
Communication & Society, 12(3), 364-387. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13691180802635455

Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(3), 277-287. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756320900185X

Vickery, J.R. (2012). Worth the risk: The role of regulations and norms in shaping teens’ digital media practices. PhD dissertation,
University of Texas.

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
103
Wang, J., Iannotti, R.J., & Nansel, T.R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and
cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1054139X09001384

Wang, J., Nansel, T.R., & Iannotti, R.J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415-417. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X10003435

West, D. (2015). An investigation into the prevalence of cyberbullying among students aged 16-19 in post-compulsory education. Research
in Post-Compulsory Education, 20(1), 96-112. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13596748.2015.993879

Williams, K.R., & Guerra, N.G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14-S21.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X0700362X

Zhong, Z.J. (2011). From access to usage: The divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents. Computers & Education, 56(3), 736-
746. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131510003015

The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC), Issue 15, 2015
104