Engl. transl.: Bullying and cyberbullying: victimisation, harassment, and harm. The need to intervene in the educational centre

This work focusses on cyberbullying, analysing the results of a survey administered to a representative sample of Spanish internet users aged between 9 and 16. The data show that harassment on digital devices is part of the climate of violence among pre-teenagers and teenagers, where face-to-face bullying is much higher than online bullying. Although bullying occurs in different ways, and these tend to overlap, the most frequent form is offline bullying. The prevalence of cyberbullying varies considerably by age, tending to increase as the subjects’ age increases, whereas offline bullying decreases among 15-16-year-olds. The boundary between victims and perpetrators is difficult to sketch in cyberbullying as three out of four children who admit having treated others in a hurtful or nasty way on the Internet or with mobile phones have themselves been treated in this way by others. The evidence regarding 13-14-year-olds is especially worrying as they are more involved in cyberbullying and a great many of them say they have felt very upset when victimized. The results display a need to prevent and deal with cyberbullying at school, as this is the most effective and equitable site for intervention.

This article focuses on cyberbullying, analysing the results of the survey administered to a representative sample of Spanish internet users aged between 9 and 16. Results show that harassment on digital devices is part of the climate of violence among pre-teenagers and teenagers, where face-to-face bullying is much higher than online bullying. The authors stress out that “online bullying, or cyberbullying is a form of bullying, which is superimposed on other already-existing types” (Garmendia, Jiménez & Larrañaga, 2019: 305). Results show that both types of bullying display an increasing trend, and so the prevalence of bullying in general —online and offline— has doubled compared to the year 2010: 15% of children and adolescents aged between 9 and 16 compared with 32% in 2015. Garmendia et al. (2019: 305) remark that “this notable increase in the incidence of bullying could relate to a greater ability to identify situations of abuse and bullying by people who suffer from it and to greater social awareness of it”. Differences by age group show a progression of violent online behaviour between peers: the frequency of cyberbullying increases with age unlike with face-to-face bullying. Therefore, a smaller number of aggressors bully and victimise a larger number of students in the later years of compulsory secondary education. Results show there is a significant association online between the roles of bully and victim. The authors clarify that the data do not allow knowing what the sequence is in the interplay between the two roles, if victimisation promotes bullying behaviour or if bullying behaviour leads to subsequent victimisation of the bullies. Nonetheless, Garmendiat et al. (2019: 306) clarify that “there is ample evidence from previous research to support this connection”. Regarding the incidence of harm, understood as a subjective experience, which can vary with each experience of bullying, the data show that the subjective perception of the harm caused by cyberbullying is more polarised than in the case of face-to-face bullying. Strong shaping by age is also observed: as the age of the victims increases, the proportion of severe harm falls, but this differs somewhat between face-to-face and online bullying. Garmendia et al. (2019) conclude that “the close association between the roles of bully and victim indicate that the school climate is affected by situations of violence, which arise in turn are fed by episodes of aggression, and in which those children who observe, suffer and/or reproduce it also participate” (pp. 306-307). The authors urge school intervention to protect victims and re-educate aggressors through as a unifying element, which is independent of each family´s starting regarding, for example, digital skills. The authors point out that while the Spanish ombudsman has recommended that educational centers have increasing intervention on bullying, working with families and counselors, and providing students with interpersonal relationship skills and communication strategies, reality differs greatly from what was suggested. Garmendia et al. (2019) claim that “the cuts resulting from the financial crisis have meant that many schools can no longer have a PTSC (Specialist Community Service Teacher), a figure supporting harmonious coexistence who in theory would be the person responsible for implementing protocols or plans against bullying in schools, something which, in light of the evidence shown here, is a grave error” (p. 307). While authors state that schools have a responsibility to act in the face of bullying, working alongside the parents to raise awareness and control the problem they also point out that “schools cannot tackle this social problem alone”, adding that “it is necessary to implement measures in the face of the social ills created by the Internet, and it calls for responsible cooperation between parents, schools, governments and institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the people in charge of social networks”, concluding that “intimidation is a problem, which affects and concerns us all, and so it must be approached in an interdisciplinary manner” (Garmendia et al. 2019: 308). [Translated by the coder]