Bullying Goes Tweeting Sample Essay

I. Introduction
A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Bullying is defined as a specific type of repeated aggression in which the behaviour is intended to harm or upset and there is an instability of power ( Nansel. et. Al. . 2001. as cited in Montes & A ; Halterman 2007 ) or a ‘‘victim–perpetrator’’ dimension ( Einarsen and Skogstad. 1996 ; Keashly. 1998. as cited in LaVan & A ; Martin. 2008 ) and which are unwanted by the victim. which may be done intentionally. or unconsciously. but clearly cause humiliation. discourtesy. hurt. may interfere with occupation public presentation. and/or cause an unpleasant working environment ( Einarsen. 1999. as cited in Heames & A ; Harvey. 2006 ) .

Most of the clip. intimidation can be categorized into three: physical. emotional. and verbal intimidation. Physical strong-arming normally involves behaviours that deliberately inflict bodily harm like hitting. forcing. punching. and kicking ( Wilson. 2011 ) . The 2nd type. emotional intimidation. refers to the instances where a individual is made to experience stray and ridiculed mostly through mechanism such as badgering. shouting. mocking and ignoring ; this is a instance where the intimidation does non needfully hold a physical constituent and for that ground it is sometimes harder to descry or rectify ( Anonymous. 2006 ) . The last type. verbal intimidation. is name-calling. doing violative comments. or jesting about a person’s faith. gender. ethnicity. socioeconomic position. or the manner they look ( Time for Tolerance. n. d. ) .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

However. because of the fast development of engineering. a new signifier of intimidation has risen. and it is in the signifier of cyber intimidation. Viewed as an extension of traditional intimidation. this sort of intimidation is besides aggressive and is typically insistent ( Agatston. n. d. ) . There is still power instability. but cyber bullying’s has more to make with the ability to make such a broad audience and humiliate. cause fright. or virtually destruct the repute of another with a individual chink of a mouse or the send button on a nomadic phone. in contrast to traditional intimidation where the power instability may affect a pupil who is older. bigger. stronger. or more popular picking on a young person who is younger. weaker. or who has fewer friends ( Agatston. n. d. ) . Cyber intimidation can be done through electronic mail. instant messaging ( IMing ) . chat room exchanges. Web site stations. or digital messages or images send to a cellular phone or personal digital helper ( Kowalski et al. 2008. as cited in Olweus. 2011 ) .

One of the most used agencies of cyber intimidation is through societal networking sites. In fact. 32 % of online teens have experienced some signifiers of on-line torment like holding received baleful messages. being victims of dispersed rumours. and being embarrassed because of person posting a image of them online without permission. One of the societal networking sites that is a possible land for this offense is Twitter. As NewsBlaze LLC ( n. d. ) explains it. chirrup is a societal networking and microblogging service that allows you answer the inquiry. “What are you making? ”by directing short text messages 140 characters in length. called “tweets” . to your friends. or “followers. ” It became existing in 2006 and was founded by Evan Williams. Jack Dorsey. and Biz Stone. Since so. it has become a hit worldwide.

Cyber strong-arming Acts of the Apostless can be linked to the different characteristics of the societal networking site. Besides. there must be a ground on why cyber toughs choose Twitter as the locale for these Acts of the Apostless. The most basic of which is the “tweet” . It is the most cardinal unit of the site. these are updates sent and read by Twitter users. Its 140-character allowable besides makes it a sort of “microblogging” . Just like SMS phones. it besides has the “message” characteristic. The “mention” characteristic allows you to include the history names of other Twitter users. You can besides answer to their references by snaping the “reply” button on the underside of the tweets. The “retweet” characteristic will let you to direct to your followings the tweets of other Twitter users irrespective of whether they are being followed or non. The “search” saloon will let you to look for other Twitter users by typing their name. Another map of the “search” is by typing a word or phrase. tweets with those words will be shown to you. Because of these alone characteristics. the research workers will analyze whether these Twitter services can be accounted to the prevalence of cyber strong-arming Acts of the Apostless in the said site.

Over the past few months. there has been noteworthy cyber strong-arming incidents against different personalities through the societal networking site Twitter. One of which was Christopher Lao. a UP Diliman Law pupil who gambled go throughing through a afloat street in Quezon City and ends up faulting everybody. except himself. for why his auto floated in the center of the street. He argues that no 1 informed him that the degree of H2O was capable of ensuing to such. His interview was shown in GMA and get downing so. he became the butt of all gags. degrading remarks. and negative reactions. These cyber intimidation Acts of the Apostless were all over the net and Twitter’s “trending” characteristic merely proved how fast-dispersing and widespread the issue is. Another similar case is that of James Soriano.

In his essay “Language. acquisition. individuality. privilege” . he regarded the Filipino as the linguistic communication of the streets. the “unprivileged” . This caused an on-line firestorm particularly on Twitter. where he. like Lao. was included in the trending subjects. Not merely were the cyber intimidation acts the lone things that circulated Twitter. but besides the article itself was passed to users through links in their tweets. Due to the nature of Twitter being a tool for turning issues into fast-dispersing and widespread 1s. and its alone characteristics that either weaken or worsen the issue at manus. the research workers believe that Twitter and its characteristics will be worthy of being studied.

B. RESEARCH PROBLEM and OBJECTIVES
The job that the research workers seek to reply utilizing this survey is: How do the characteristics of Twitter affect the prevalence of cyber intimidation in the said site?
The major aim of this survey is to cognize how characteristics of Twitter affect the prevalence of cyber intimidation in the said site. In relation to this. the research workers seek to cognize how prevailing intimidation is in Twitter and who are largely affected by the offense. They besides seek to cognize the different signifiers of cyber intimidation that occur in Twitter and place which of these happens the most frequent. The research workers will desire to associate the different characteristics of Twitter to the different signifiers of cyber intimidation. After placing the different signifiers of cyber intimidation that occur in chirrup and associating it to the characteristics of the site. the research workers will be able to reason about the effectivity of chirrup when it comes to supplying security steps

C. SIGNIFICANCE
Two of the chief intents of this survey is strong-arming bar and consciousness. The research workers believe that this survey will be able to enfeeble intimidation activity as they are well-aware that the “long-term psychological injury to victims” . including its contemplation to “self-esteem. depression. anxiousness. choler. school failure. school turning away. self-destruction and school violence” ( Willard. n. d. . p. 3 ) should be halted. The research workers besides found out that strong-arming is critical to one’s life. as what has been suggested. that “bullying may play a ( N ) of import function in adolescents’ life in many societies” ( Smith. et Al. . 1999. as cited in Li. 2007 ) .

One of the primary benefiters of this survey is the society. Since the chief sharers of cyber intimidation are from the community we are populating in. this survey will be of great aid to the society. A big part of this survey is intended for the benefit of the Twitter users itself. This survey will be able to go through to this portion of the society. non merely cyber intimidation in Twitter. but everything about cyber intimidation ; therefore. educating them. doing them cognizant. and giving them the whole position of cyber intimidation.

The Twitter direction will besides be a receiver of the benefits of this survey. Knowing which of their steps are applaudable. they will cognize how to better it more. In the same manner. the designation of the parts where they lack in action will give the direction an thought of what new step to implement.

The research workers believe that this survey will give an thought to policy-makers where to implement an action sing cyber intimidation. When cyber strong-arming state of affairss get out of Twitter’s manus. the policy-makers can ever make something and with this survey. what is taken for granted by Twitter or what is non given action is clarified and emphasized.

Not merely is strong-arming bar the of import consideration of this survey. but besides strong-arming instruction. This duty lies on the custodies of the academia. As the chief beginning of pedagogues. the academia is one of the receivers of the information that is gathered in this survey. They will hold the cognition of what to learn in order for the community to understand what cyber intimidation is all approximately. where it happens. how it can be prevented and what the community can make about it.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The rating of the characteristics of Twitter that make it a locale for cyber intimidation being the chief concern of this survey. this reappraisal of related literature provides surveies sing a. ) cyber intimidation and surveies about it. b. ) different signifiers of cyber intimidation that can happen in Twitter. and c. ) Twitter security over the old ages

A. Cyber intimidation
One noteworthy similarity between a batch of surveies about cyber intimidation is their concentration in one profession. the pupils. This is peculiarly because pupils have the most entree to engineerings used in cyber intimidation. like the Internet. nomadic phones. and the likes. Another thing is that aside from the working force. pupils have the most interaction with people ; therefore. more opportunity of holding miscommunications or misinterpretations. which is one of the root causes of non merely cyber strong-arming. but besides traditional intimidation. As what Bhat ( 2008 ) stated in her article Cyber Bullying: Overview and Strategies for School Counsellors. Guidance Officers. and All School Personnel. cyber intimidation or strong-arming via information and communications engineering tools such as the cyberspace and nomadic phones is a job of turning concern with school-aged pupils. Although. of class. cyber intimidation does non ever take topographic point in the school premises. “detrimental effects are experienced by victims of cyber intimidation in schools” ( Bhat. 2008. p. 53 ) .

Belsey ( n. d. ) . president of Bullying. org Canada. even invented a term that will mention to the cyber technology-users of this clip. the “Always On” coevals. He differentiated that while the grownups see the Internet as a resource or a “place they can travel to” to function their demands. the Always On coevals don’t think of it as being separate from their lives. progressively it is a normal and “natural part” of their universe. Belsey ( n. d. ) . out of the nine advices in his “An ounce of bar. a word of advice for Netizens” . four of which are centered to the pupils. while two more usage pupils as illustration. In add-on to what Bhat stated. he said that cyber intimidation is frequently outside of the legal range of school and school boards as this behavior frequently happens outside of school on place computing machines or via nomadic phones. “It used to be that school and place were the topographic points where childs went on-line and grownups had some control over when and where they went online. but no more“ ( Belsey. n. d. ) .

On the micro degree. Li ( 2007 ) specified which pupil degree contains the most prevalence of cyber intimidation. “School intimidation has been widely recognised as a serious job and it is peculiarly relentless and acute during junior high and in-between school periods” ( National Center for Educational-Statistics. 1995. as cited in Li. 2007 ) .

In relation to this. a figure of surveies have been utilizing pupils as the indexs of how prevailing traditional and cyber intimidation is. One survey conducted a study utilizing pupils in London aged 11-16 and found out that 22 % have been cyberbullied at least one time and 6. 6 % more than one time ( Smith. Mahdavi. Carvalho. & A ; Tippett. 2006 ) . A survey conducted in the United Kingdom. about has the same consequence. that 20 % of pupils from 11-19 have been cyberbullied ( NCH. 2002. as cited in Bhat. 2008 ) . On a similar survey in the Unites States. nevertheless. in-between school pupils being the respondents of the survey. merely 18 % of the sample was reported holding been cyberbullied ( Kowalski & A ; Limber. 2005. as cited in Bhat. 2008 ) .

The research workers found out the grounds why cyber toughs choose Twitter as the site to acquire involved in. Its second-rate security has attracted toughs. more peculiarly. hackers. On the macro degree. it has been found out that surveies about cyber intimidation has concentrated on the pupils. Several suggestions were besides included in this reappraisal of related literature on how the security steps of Twitter. non merely against cyber intimidation. can be improved.

B. Different signifiers of cyber intimidation
Sheridan ( 2010 ) lists some of the types of cyber intimidation which the research workers have filtered to merely those possible to happen in Twitter.

Cyber Stalking – The transmittal of messages to intimidate and or endanger the victim ensuing in a kid to hold concerns about their personal safety and good being. Degradation – This would be the usage of rumours and baseless chitchat in an effort to interrupt up the friendly relationships the victim might hold with others or to damage the kid’s repute. Harassment – This is the changeless and grim sending of violative. insulting. rude and harassing messages over the cyberspace or cell phone to the Cyber Bullying Victim. Impersonation – The taking on of a false individuality pretense to be the victim and send or posts stuff to damage the child’s repute or acquire them into problem. Flaring – This a really aggressive and scratchy signifier of bullying used by the attacker utilizing vulgar and angry linguistic communication with the purpose to get down battles with the adolescent or preteen. Password Theft – Gaining entree to the child’s watchwords used on the cyberspace and uses it to log into the sites the kid has and locks them out. besides leting other to chop the history. Images or Photos – The poster of exposures or images that are found that might be abashing in nature or the creative activity or neutering of images to picture the male child or miss and cause humiliation.

C. Twitter security over the old ages
In a survey by Brodkin ( 2010 ) entitled Facebook vs. Twitter: Battle for Web users intensifies as Facebook fends off privateness ailments. he was able to nail what the job in Twitter’s security is. In a statement by Twitter. they said that tweets are intended to be read by the populace. Having said that. Twitter users have the option whether to allow person “follow” him/her. This is opposed to the really complicated privateness scenes provided by Facebook. In 2009. celebrated Chirrup users ( e. g. famous persons ) and even laminitiss of the societal networking site has experienced the failure in the security of Twitter. Hacking has been the major cause of this quandary. Schroeder ( 2009 ) in his Twitter’s Security Meltdown. gives the incrimination to Twitter. Harmonizing to him. “most facets of Twitter – user histories. admin histories. assorted personal histories of of import people in the company’s hierarchy. Evan Williams. are ( or at least. have been ) security Swiss cheese” . What he thought would be the solution of the job is the “they need to better their overall path record when it comes to security” .

While Schroeder’s statement has been all-blame-to-Twitter. the same incident has been elaborated in Lowensohn and McCarthy’s ( 2009 ) Lessons From Twitter’s Security Breach. Harmonizing to them. it is unjust that all incriminations are directed to Twitter. Over the old ages. sites have been linking themselves to other sites. For illustration. in Facebook. one has the option to link his history to his Twitter history ; one tweet in Twitter means one update in Facebook. This is what Lowensohn and McCarthy had reasoned. They added. “with the likes of e-mail contact importation and data-portability services like Facebook Connect now commonplace. a savvy hacker can hold entree to multiple histories merely by accessing one” . Following this. their solution lies on the custodies of users themselves. A good watchword. harmonizing to them. is of import. Aside from that. holding a good system provided by Twitter will do it difficult for people to merely acquire into others’ histories.

In a more recent survey by Wolfe ( 2011 ) . once more. hacked histories in Twitter have been the job. As an illustration. he used the Twitter history @ foxnewspolitics. hackers who are said to hold gotten in the history. tweeted about the decease of U. S. President Barack Obama. Harmonizing to research workers. the slack security of the said history is the ground why the hackers chose the history. Ina statement by Alex Halderman. a computing machine scientific discipline professor at the University of Michigan. taking security earnestly is the solution to forestalling these incidents from go oning.

III. FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
This portion of the survey aims to sketch a clear theoretical model. To get down with. theories are discussed that are used by the research workers to assist in their survey.

A. Social Dominance Theory

Formulated by Sidanius and Pratto. the Social Dominance Theory. which integrates constituents of psychological science. sociology and political scientific discipline. explores the manner psychological. intergroup and institutional procedures interact with one another to bring forth and keep these group-based. hierarchal societal constructions. ( Jost and Sidanius. 2004 ) It seeks to explicate bias and aggression among members of larger societies. may supply an account for the happening of equal aggression. ( Sanders and Phye. 2004 )

The theory discusses the several mechanisms by which hierarchies are developed and maintained ( Sidanius & A ; Pratto. 1999 ) . The phenomenon of strong-arming behaviour is more likely the consequence of dominant persons who embrace the myths that legitimize hierarchies. called a societal laterality orientation. Harmonizing to Sanders and Phye ( 2004 ) :

Human existences create societal laterality hierarchies. This sort of behaviour is being favored since clearly established hierarchies can function to minimise struggle or better be able to assail other groups. With this. human existences feel at easiness when hierarchies are established.

With this. it may be seen as that intimidation is an adaptative behaviour. Scholars such as Hawley ( 1999 ) . discloses that pupils tend to bully weaker pupils in order to increase their position.

Smith ( 2010 ) stated that:

The perceptual experience that cyber toughs have more power and more societal position than victims encourages others to give them higher societal position among equal groups. However. unlike many pupils cited within laterality theory. a cyber bully does non hold to be physically larger or stronger than the victim. Simply holding the proficient cognition needed to utilize engineering and voyage the Internet is adequate to go dominant in the practical universe.

B. General Strain Theory

The General Strain Theory focuses on the single effects of strain. and how it is that that strain so leads a individual towards delinquency and offense ( Cernkovich. Giordano & A ; Rudolph. 2000. as mentioned in Nash & A ; Anderson. 2002 ) . It can be explained in this nucleus thought: persons who experience strains or stressors frequently become disquieted and sometimes header with offense.

This theory besides provides a theoretical nexus between cyber intimidation. emphasis and negative behaviours among people ( Agnew. 2001 as mentioned in Smith. 2010 ) . It creates negative effects such as depression. unhappiness. etc. ( which. within the theory is identified as strains ) .

C. Social Cognitive theory

This theory states that people tend to act what they observe. Besides. societal cognitive theory involves the ways societal webs. like those found in the school scene and within on-line webs. may act upon strong-arming behaviours. ( Bandura. 2002 as mentioned in Smith. 2010 ) .

On-line interactions are dehumanized because users are merely depicted by names. embodiments or images ( Matei. 2010 ) . With this. cyber toughs may see the victims as merely objects on a screen. non worlds. Therefore. they tend to be barbarous and have the assurance to bully others.

The research workers have decided on concentrating the model with the factors that may take to cyberbullying. The research workers believe that with this model. they can be able to nail what kinds factors can besides lend to cyberbullying that they think can be prevented. This model besides helped in developing their attack on how they will carry on this survey.

Strains experienced. as discussed in the General Strain theory. are more at hazard to prosecute in delinquent behaviours ( such as cyberbullying ) . These strains may be caused by different factors such as the environment. media. etc. Being affected by other factors such as the ‘myths’ or stereotypes or functions set by the society may besides take to cyberbullying. With the benefit of being anon. . people tend to happen societal webs as the best mercantile establishments. Aside from that. the dehumanising consequence encourages the user to utilize the societal web than other locales or mediums. With these. the user eventually becomes a cyberbully.

IV. METHODOLOGY
A. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The research workers opt to utilize quantitative and qualitative research methods to obtain informations from the respondents. The quantitative method will be used to construction the demographics of the respondents. to cognize the Internet usage wonts of the respondents. and to cognize how much their satisfaction is in the different security steps provided by chirrup. The qualitative side will be used to acquire a more in-depth penetration from the respondents.

The research workers will utilize two data-gathering processs for the survey. These will be study and concentrate interview.
The study aims to cognize the profiles of the respondents and acquire a background on their “tweeting” wonts. Surveies with open-ended inquiries in surveies on strong-arming are quite common. However. the research workers experimented with the inquiries and added a new expression. Twitter. to its study. doing it hold an border. The study can merely make so much. Since it is merely on a piece of paper. this may restrict the respondent’s replies ; therefore. the usage of a qualitative method. concentrate interview. The focal point interview may counterbalance from the short replies expected from the study. Though this will supply a elaborate consequence from the respondents. it will besides be clip devouring. Another disadvantage of the interview is that it is face-to-face. This may endanger the dependability of the replies given by the respondent. With the study. the respondent may experience comfy to unwrap any information to the research workers. Though it may give the research workers to roll up informations since they are utilizing two methods. the research workers feel that it is necessary.

The clip range of the survey will be good for one semester. This survey does non necessitate a batch of clip and construing the informations collected can be done in a short span of clip. Another ground is that the determination of respondents will be an easy undertaking. Just login to Twitter and you will be able to interact with a batch of them.

B. CONCEPTS AND INDICATORS/VARIABLES AND MEASURES
With the model concentrating more on how cyberbullying occurred. the research workers were able to come up with the attack on the methodological analysis. With non merely internal factors being the cause of this sort of behaviour ( cyberbullying ) . the research workers have besides included to happen out what other factors are. particularly why these people use Twitter. Besides. the research workers want to happen out how much of this dehumanising consequence occurs in a individual and how much it aggravates their cyberbullying wonts. The research workers will besides be able to see how much of these different factors aggravate a user’s behavior and their different sorts of cyberbullying or twirping wonts.

To be able to further use the model. the research workers believe that they will merely be able to accomplish their aims by holding two sets of data-gathering.

C. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

The inquiries included in the study signifier are structured by the research workers. Included in the study are inquiries whether they have already experienced cyber intimidation and a likert graduated table to cognize how frequently the respondents are bullied ( or if non at all ) . The Likert graduated table will be five-level. including non at all. a few times. on a regular basis. most of the clip. and ever. Another graduated table of this sort will be used to place the degree of satisfaction Twitter users experience when utilizing the different characteristics of the societal networking site.

There will besides be an interview usher for the focal point interview portion. Questions will be structured by the research workers. Follow-up inquiries can besides be asked by the research workers in the existent interview procedure if necessary.

D. UNITS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING

Both methods that will be used in the survey will utilize a chance trying process. This will guarantee that there will be random and equal opportunity between the persons of the population. Random sampling will be the method for taking the respondents for both the study and the focal point interview.

The respondents of the survey will be Twitter users that are pupils. aged 15-24. Sysomos ( 2011 ) identified this age bracket to be holding the most users of the said societal networking site. accounting to 66 % .

The research workers opt to hold the respondents limited to Philippine ( every bit much as possible Metro Manila ) users of Twitter for easy data-gathering. With it merely limited to Philippine users. certain issues that have occurred merely in the state may be raised and easy verified. Another ground is that Social Media Today ( 2011 ) identified the urban countries as holding the plurarity of Twitter users.

E. DATA GATHERING/GENERATION

Surveies will be made and published online. Using one researcher’s Twitter history. links to the study will be sent through the “mention” characteristic or message of Twitter.
Randomly chosen Twitter users that are possible respondents of the focal point interview will be messaged through the societal networking site about our survey and invitation for them to be portion of it. If the Twitter users accept the invite. the topographic point and agenda will be negotiated and based on the free clip of both the research workers and the respondents. A voice-recording device and note-taking will be used by the research workers for documenting the interview.

F. DATA ANALYSIS
For the study portion. where the 1st Likert graduated table was used. the research workers will match how many of the respondents will reply 5. 4. 3. 2. and 1. For the staying two Likert graduated tables. it will be the same. merely it will be from 5 to 0. It will be tallied manually and a tabular array will be used for organisation. From the tabular array. the research workers will be able to cognize if ; foremost. how frequent the users log in in Twitter. second. how frequent the respondents are bullied. and last. how satisfied are the respondents of the different characteristics of Twitter.

The focal point interview will merely be used for extra information from the Twitter users that the study can non supply.

G. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
As discussed by the research workers in the old paragraphs. the study can merely suit short and fixed replies. therefore. will forestall any in-depth add-ons.
The focal point interview. on the other manus. since it is face-to-face. may ensue to the hazard of the respondents and can impact the dependability of the replies.

Bibliography

Anonymous. ( 2006 ) . Emotional intimidation. World Wide Web. typesofbullying. com. Retrieved September 13. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. typesofbullying. com/emotional_bullying/emotional_bullying. hypertext markup language Belsey. B. ( n. d. ) . Cyber intimidation: an emerging menace to the “always on” coevals. Bullying. org. Retrieved September 16. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. cyberbullying. ca/pdf/Cyberbullying_Article_by_Bill_Belsey. pdf Berarducci. L. ( 2009 ) Traditional strong-arming victimization and new cyberbullying behaviours. Retrieved September 25. 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //etd. ohiolink. edu/send-pdf. cgi/Berarducci % 20Lindsay % 20R. pdf? dayton1239916629 Bhat. C. ( 2008 ) . Cyber intimidation: overview and schemes for school counselors. counsel officers. and all school forces. Australian diary of counsel and guidance. 18. Retrieved September 15. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. atyponlink. com/AAP/doi/pdf/10. 1375/ajgc. 18. 1. 53? cookieSet=1 Brodkin. J. ( 2010 ) . Facebook vs. chirrup: conflict for web users intensifies as facebook fends offprivacy ailments. Network World. Retrieved September 28. 2011. from Proquest database Brown. K. . Jackson. M. . & A ; Cassidy. W. ( 2006 ) . Cyber-bullying: development policy to direct responses that are just and effectual in turn toing this societal signifier of intimidation. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. 57. Correa. F. ( 2011. August ) . Strong-arming linked to domestic force. intoxicant. drugs. Clinical Psychiatry News. 39. 8. Retrieved September 18. 2011. from Academic OneFile database Keith. S. & A ; Martin. M. ( n. d. ) Cyber-bullying: making a civilization of regard in a cyber universe. Crisis Prevention Institute. Retrieved September 16. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. crisisprevention. com/Resources/Knowledge-Base/Cyber-Bullying–Creating-a-Culture-of-Respect-in-a Field. E. ( n. d. ) . What is school strong-arming? . School Angels. Retrieved September 18. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //schoolangels. com. au/bm/resources/bullying/what-is-school-bullying-100
508. shtml Heames. J. & A ; Harvey. M. ( 2006 ) . Workplace intimidation: a cross-level appraisal. Management Decision. 44. 9. Retrieved September 16. 2011. from ProQuest database Jost. J. Sidanius. J. ( 2004 ) . Political Psychology: Cardinal Readings. 330 LaVan. H. & A ; Martin. M. ( 2008 ) . Strong-arming in the U. S. workplace: normative and process-oriented ethical attacks. Journal of Business Ethics. 83. Retrieved September 16. 2011. from ProQuest database Li. Q. ( 2007 ) . Strong-arming in the new resort area: research into cyberbullying and cyber exploitation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 23. Retrieved September 18. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ascilite. org. au/ajet/ajet23/li. hypertext markup language Lowensohn. J. & A ; McCarthy. C. ( 2009 ) . Lessons from twitter’s security breach. CNET. Retrieved September 25. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //news. cnet. com/8301-17939_109-102875582. hypertext markup language? tag=mncol ; tback # addcomm Matei. S. ( 2010 ) . Social cognitive theory. societal acquisition. self-efficacy and societal media. Retrieved September 25. 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //matei. org/ithink/2010/07/22/bandura-last-hurrah-an-integrated-social-psychological-theory-of-mass-communication-with-a-cognitive-twist/ McKay. R. . Ciocirlan. C. . & A ; Chung. E. ( 2010 ) . Thinking strategically about workplace intimidation in organisations. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 15. Retrieved September 15. 2011. from ProQuest database Montes. G. & A ; Halterman. J. ( 2007 ) . Strong-arming among kids with autism and the influence of comorbidity with attention deficit disorder: a population-based survey. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 7. Retrieved September 16. 2011. from ProQuest database Nash. M. & A ; Anderson. J. ( 2002 ) . General strain theory as an account for offense and aberrance. Criminology 101. Retrieved from September 25. 2011. from hypertext transfer protocol: //web. viu. ca/crim/student/nash. pdf Patchin. J. W. & A ; Hinduja. S. ( 2006 ) . Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary expression at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 4 ( 2 ) . 148-169. Patricia. A. ( n. d. ) . Cyber intimidation: what’s the large trade? . PureSight. Retrieved September 17.

2011. fromhttp: //www. puresight. com/Cyberbullying/cyber-bullying-whats-the-big-deal. hypertext markup language Olweus. ( 2011 ) . What is Cyber Bullying? . Olweus Strong-arming Prevention Program. Retrieved

x

Hi!
I'm Laurie!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out