Security Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 844–858 | Cite as

One step forward, two steps back: Cyberbullying within social networking sites

  • Jordana N Navarro
  • Shelly Clevenger
  • Maddie E Beasley
  • Lindsey K Jackson
Original Article


Although public awareness of cyberbullying has increased, evidence suggests the social problem has not abated. While past studies have highlighted numerous factors that affect risks of experiencing cyberbullying in general, few studies have focused on identifying risk factors within social networking sites (SNS). Moreover, even fewer studies have utilized a theoretical perspective to frame and ground findings. Therefore, using data collected as part of the Pew Internet Project, and Routine Activities Theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) as a theoretical framework, this study fills a substantial void in the literature by reviewing what activities within SNS affect the risk of experiencing cyberbullying.


cyberbullying social networking sites routine activities theory adolescence bullying 


  1. Ackers, M.J. (2012) Cyberbullying: Through the eyes of children and young people. Educational Psychology in Practice 28(2): 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beran, T. and Li, Q. (2005) Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32(3): 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossler, A.M. and Holt, T.J. (2009) On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 3(1): 400–420.Google Scholar
  4. Bossler, A.M., Holt, T.J. and May, D.C. (2012) Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society 44(4): 500–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D. and Kift, S. (2012) Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 17(3–4): 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44(4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felson, M. (2006) Crime and Nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  8. Gomez-Garibello, C., Shariff, S., McConnell, M. and Talwar, V. (2012) Adolescents’ evaluation of cyberbullying events. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 58(3): 474–477.Google Scholar
  9. Henson, B., Reyns, B.W. and Fisher, B.S. (2013) Fear of crime online? Examining the effect of risk, previous victimization, and exposure on fear of online interpersonal victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(4): 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Higgins, G.E. (2004) Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior 26(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J.W. (2008) Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior 29(2): 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hollis, M.E., Felson, M. and Welsh, B.C. (2013) The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention & Community Safety 15(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt, T.J. and Bossler, A.M. (2008) Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior 30(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, L.M., Mitchell, K.J. and Finkelhor, D. (2012) Trends in youth internet victimization: Findings from three youth internet safety surveys 2000–2010. Journal of Adolescent Health 50(2): 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kwan, G.C.E. and Skoric, M.M. (2013) Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in school. Computers in Human Behavior 29(1): 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li, Q. (2010) Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students’ behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &Trauma 19: 372–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcum, C. (2014) CybercrimeFrederick, MD: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar
  18. Marcum, C.D., Higgins, G.E. and Ricketts, M.L. (2010) Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior 31(5): 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcum, C.D. (2008) Identifying potential factors of adolescent online victimization for high school seniors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 2(2): 346–67.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, R., Guntupalli, N.T. and Lee, T. (2010) Parental regulation and online activities: Examining factors that influence a youth’s potential to become a victim of online harassment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 4(1–2): 685–698.Google Scholar
  21. Mustaine, E.E. and Tewksbury, R. (2009) Transforming potential offenders into motivated ones: Are sex offenders tempted by alcohol and pornography? Deviant Behavior 30(7): 561–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Navarro, J.N. and Jasinski, J.L. (2012) Going cyber: Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum 32(1): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Navarro, J.N. and Jasinski, J.L. (2013) Why girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women & Criminal Justice 23(4): 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Navarro, J.N. and Jasinski, J.L. (2014) Identity theft. In: C.D. Marcum and G.E. Higgins (eds.) Social Networking as a Criminal Enterprise. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  25. Olweus, D. (2012) Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9(5): 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patchin, J.W. and Hinduja, S. (2011) Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society 43(2): 727–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pew Research Center. (2011a) Teens & digital citizenship survey 2011 [Data file and code book]., accessed 4 November 2014.
  28. Pew Research Center. (2011b) Teens & digital citizenship survey 2011 [survey instrument]., accessed 4 November 2014.
  29. Randa, R. (2013) The influence of the cyber-social environment on fear of victimization: Cyberbullying and school. Security Journal 26(4): 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reyns, B.W. (2013) Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50(2): 216–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reyns, B.W., Henson, B. and Fisher, B.S. (2011) Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle – Routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(11): 1149–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seiler, S.J. and Navarro, J.N. (2014) Bullying on the pixel playground: Investigating risk factors of cyberbullying at the intersection of children’s online-offline social lives. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 8(4).Google Scholar
  33. Sengupta, A. and Chaudhuri, A. (2011) Are social networking sites a source of online harassment for teens? Evidence from survey data. Children and Youth Services Review 33(2): 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slonje, R. and Smith, P.K. (2008) Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49(2): 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tokunaga, R.S. (2010) Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 26(3): 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tomşa, R., Jenaro, C., Campbell, M. and Neacşu, D. (2013) Student’s experiences with traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Findings from a romanian sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 78: 586–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yar, M. (2005) The novelty of ‘cybercrime’an assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology 2(4): 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jordana N Navarro
    • 1
  • Shelly Clevenger
    • 2
  • Maddie E Beasley
    • 1
  • Lindsey K Jackson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Political Science, Tennessee Technological UniversityCookevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Justice Sciences, Illinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations