Journal of Mental Health

ISSN: 0963-8237 (Print) 1360-0567 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ijmh20

Social media, cyber-aggression and student

mental health on a university campus

Faye Mishna, Cheryl Regehr, Ashley Lacombe-Duncan, Joanne Daciuk,

Gwendolyn Fearing & Melissa Van Wert

To cite this article: Faye Mishna, Cheryl Regehr, Ashley Lacombe-Duncan, Joanne
Daciuk, Gwendolyn Fearing & Melissa Van Wert (2018): Social media, cyber-aggression
and student mental health on a university campus, Journal of Mental Health, DOI:
10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607

Published online: 15 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ijmh20
 http://tandfonline.com/ijmh
ISSN: 0963-8237 (print), 1360-0567 (electronic)

J Ment Health, Early Online: 1–8

ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Social media, cyber-aggression and student mental health on a

university campus
Faye Mishna, Cheryl Regehr, Ashley Lacombe-Duncan, Joanne Daciuk, Gwendolyn Fearing, and Melissa Van Wert

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract Keywords
Aim: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) offer immense benefits for university Cyber-aggression, college students, university
students including enhancing engagement and connections with others and promoting self- students, social media, information and
directed and interactive learning. Perceived anonymity and the absence of social cues, communication technologies, mental
however, may contribute to risk of interpersonal aggression. While extensive research examines health
bullying in child and adolescent educational settings, this study addresses a gap regarding
post-secondary environments. History
Methods: An internet-based survey was provided to 5004 university students to examine the
nature, extent and consequences of cyber-aggression. The survey received a response from Received 27 June 2017
1350 students, a response rate of 28.5%. To enable further exploration, nine focus groups and Revised 10 December 2017
eight individual interviews were conducted. Accepted 20 December 2017
Results: This exploratory study found one quarter of respondents had a private video or photo Published online 13 February 2018
shared without their permission and 28% were sent angry, vulgar, threatening or intimating
messages. Perpetrators were most likely to be a friend (50%), another student (20%) or an
intimate partner (18%). Focus group data revealed risks of ICTs and the need for resources and
support to address students’ wellbeing in the context of cyber-aggression.
Conclusion: Cyber-aggression is experienced by a significant minority of university students,
impacting their sense of wellbeing and mental health.

Introduction
completely remove (boyd, 2007). ICTs are changing the
University students spend a significant amount of time online way post-secondary students socialize and engage in mean-
and typically communicate via text messaging and social ingful positive relationships and have also created new ways
media multiple times per day (Bennett et al., 2011; Whittaker for individuals to engage in aggressive behavior.
& Kowalski, 2015). Social media applications (‘‘apps’’) have Cyber-aggression is defined as intentional harm carried out
not only experienced a burgeoning popularity on university through electronic means to an individual or a group of
campuses across North America (Whittaker & Kowalski, individuals of any age, who perceive(s) such acts as offensive,
2015), but are also commonly developed by current or recent derogatory, harmful or unwanted (Grigg, 2010). It includes
university students (e.g. Facebook, Snapchat, Yik Yak and hostile behaviors such as name-calling, threatening, stalking,
Instagram; Colao, 2014; Kokkinos et al., 2014). The explosion sexual harassment and revealing of personal information
of information and communication technologies (ICTs) use has (Bennett et al., 2011; Wright & Li, 2013). A characterizing
changed the nature of relating to friends, family, colleagues and feature of cyberbullying is the repeated nature of the behavior
others, with several intrinsic features of new technologies (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). Most studies on university students,
influencing the nature and outcomes of social interactions. however, utilize the terms cyberbullying and cyber-aggression
While the benefits of ICTs for university students include interchangeably, referring to a range of non-repeated acts as
enhanced engagement and connections with others and cyberbullying. As such, the remainder of this literature review
promotion of self-directed and interactive learning, ICT utilizes these terms interchangeably.
environments typically offer fewer social cues than face-to- The university campus is one setting in which cyber-
face environments. ICT users often have lower inhibition and aggression may occur; students spend a significant amount of
greater spontaneity and a sense of perceived anonymity (Ang time using ICTs to complete school work and build and
& Goh, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Further, online maintain relationships, while often being subject to less
content is searchable, replicable, visible to a potentially restrictive monitoring than they experienced in middle or high
limitless audience and difficult if not impossible to school (Kokkinos et al, 2014; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015).
Prevalence estimates for cyber victimization, most specific-
Correspondence: Faye Mishna, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social
Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON, ally cyberbullying, among university/college students range
M5S 1V4, Canada. E-mail: f.mishna@utoronto.ca from 10.0 to 55.3% (Cunningham et al., 2015; Faucher et al.,
2 F. Mishna et al. J Ment Health, Early Online: 1–8

2014; Kraft & Wang, 2010; Wensley & Campbell, 2012; number of students by campus, level and year of study
Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015). According to one study, 55% received the invitation to participate in the survey. A total of
of undergraduate students reported witnessing cyberbullying 1414 students responded (28.5% response rate) of whom 1350
(Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015) and in another, 100% of male completed the survey.
respondents knew someone who had been cyberbullied The survey inquired about victimization, witnessing and
(Walker et al., 2011). Prevalence estimates for admitting to perpetration of cyber-aggression including: (i) frequency, (ii)
have perpetrated cyberbullying range from 2.6% of women by whom and (iii) student response. It further inquired about
and 9.2% of men (Wensley & Campbell, 2012) to 14.0% participant sociodemographics and knowledge of cyber-
overall (Kokkinos et al., 2014; Lembrechts, 2012; Whittaker aggression policies/prevention efforts at the university. Skip
& Kowalski, 2015). logic was employed, prompting participants to answer
The online environment provides a new platform for questions only if they reported experiencing, perpetrating
misogyny and gender-based aggression (Bartow, 2009), and/or witnessing cyber-aggression. At the end of the survey,
including sexual harassment, coercion to elicit sexual cooper- participants had the option to enter a raffle for one of two iPad
ation (Barak, 2005) and intimate partner violence mini 4 s (approximately $505 CAD). Winners were selected
(DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993; Wenker & Gorchynski, 2004). using a random number generator. The survey was adminis-
For example, the non-consensual production and/or distribu- tered via the Baseline Tool (through Campus Labs/Higher
tion of sexual images may occur in the context of violent One), a secure survey tool used by the university.
relationships as tools to threaten and control current or former
partners and also in the context of relationship breakdown Focus group data collection
(commonly referred to as ‘‘revenge porn’’; Henry & Powell, At the end of the survey, students were asked to provide their
2015). The harm associated with these experiences is often email address if they were interested in being contacted to
trivialized (Citron, 2009; Citron & Franks, 2014). participate in a focus group about their online/social media
College/university students who report being cyberbullied experiences. Focus groups were stratified by campus location
are more likely to experience depression, generalized anxiety, (Campus 1, 2 and 3) to ensure representation of students from
phobic anxiety and paranoia compared to their peers (Aricak, each campus. Focus groups were 60 to 90 min in neutral
2009; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012), lower levels of academic locations. They were co-led by a facilitator (university staff
commitment, difficulties in interpersonal relationships member) experienced in dealing with emotional matters and a
(Faucher et al., 2014; Kokkinos et al., 2014), and higher trained PhD level research assistant. When only one student
levels of suicidal ideation, planning, and attempts (Schenk & who had signed up for a focus group appeared, we proceeded
Fremouw, 2012). Victimization is associated with negative with individual interviews with the consent of the attending
coping strategies, such as alcohol consumption, among both participant. This resulted in eight individual interviews.
male (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012) and female students Open-ended questions were asked about ICT usage, cyber-
(Bennett et al., 2011). The aim of this study was to further aggression and resources and supports. Before the end of each
examine the nature, extent and mental health consequences of focus group, students were provided with an on-campus
cyber-aggression in a Canadian university population. resource information sheet outlining services available to
students.
Methods
Study design and sample Quantitative and qualitative data analyses

A mixed-methods approach was employed, drawing on Quantitative data were analyzed using univariate statistics
quantitative cross-sectional survey data and qualitative focus (e.g. means, standard deviations for continuous variables and
group data, to address limitations inherent in mono-method frequencies for categorical variables) to summarize variables
approaches (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The quantita- and bivariate statistics (chi-square or t-tests) to determine
tive data provide results that may be generalizable across the significant associations between (a) experiencing cyber-
university setting while the qualitative data provide richly aggression within the past six months (yes vs. no), (b) the
contextual information to inform a deep understanding of cumulative number of cyber-aggression acts endorsed, (c)
cyber-aggression experiences among students on a university identifying a mental health consequence of cyber- aggression
campus. The study inclusion criteria were: (1) current and d) sociodemographic characteristics (gender, disability,
enrolment as an undergraduate or graduate student at the ethnicity, citizenship, campus and student level). All analyses
University and (2) a minimum age of 17 years. The study was were conducted using IBM SPSS 24 (IBM Corp, 2016).
approved by the University Research Ethics Board. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analyzed
using thematic analysis techniques congruent with a grounded
theory approach whereby transcribed interviews were coded
Survey data collection
line-by-line, followed by categorization of codes and theme
An internet-based survey was developed through a robust generation using open, axial and selective coding until data
review of the literature. A stratified random sample of saturation was reached, permitting rich understanding of
undergraduate (4009) and graduate (995) students (5004, participant experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The
total; approximately 6% of students) was selected between transcripts were coded using NVivo (QSR International Pty
December 2015 and April 2016. A random sample of degree- Ltd), data analysis software for qualitative research. To ensure
seeking students was selected to ensure that a proportionate trustworthiness, a second coder (trained in qualitative data
DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607 Cyber-aggression and student mental health 3

analysis) coded nine transcripts, independently. Peer debrief- Quantifying social media use and cyber-aggression on
ing and support (PDS; Padgett, 2008) occurred throughout the a university campus
process between the coders and senior author. PDS involved
Table 2 depicts the frequency of experiencing, perpetrating
review of the codebook and themes and was used to discuss
and witnessing six cyber-aggression events one and two or
coding disagreements to arrive at a consensus.
more times. One quarter of respondents had a private video or
photo of them shared one or more times without their
Results
permission and 28% were sent an angry, rude, vulgar,
Participant characteristics threatening or intimidating message online or through text
Participant characteristics for survey respondents (n ¼ 1350) message. Nineteen percent had been excluded in a purposely
can be found in Table 1. Focus group and interview hurtful way and 14% had false rumors spread about them
participants included male (n ¼ 9) and female (n ¼ 22) online or by text. Fewer respondents mentioned someone
students, representing two of the three campuses (Campus impersonating them (9%) or publicly posting a hurtful
1; n ¼ 24 and Campus 2; n ¼ 7) and undergraduate (n ¼ 28) comment (9%). Just under half reported experiencing another
and graduate (n ¼ 3) students. The survey respondents ranged negative online experience.
in age from 17 to 62 years. The mean age was 20.9 (standard Fewer respondents reported perpetrating cyber-aggression.
deviation(SD): 3.9) years for undergraduates and 28.4 years About 20% sent angry, rude vulgar, threatening or intimating
(SD: 6.9) for graduate students. The majority of respondents messages one or more times, 15% had shared a private video
were female, 60.6 and 38.5% were male. Almost one quarter or photo of someone without permission and 10% had
(23.3%) reported one or more disability. One third (31.5%) excluded someone in a purposely hurtful way. Over 1/3
identified as White, followed by Chinese (24.7%), South reported having seen or heard each of: the sharing of a private
Asian (16.7%) and Black (4.1%). Almost 80% were Canadian video or photo without permission; someone receiving an
citizens, 8.4% were permanent residents of Canada and 11.9% angry, rude vulgar, threatening or intimating message; public
were citizens of another country. posting of hurtful comments and other negative online
experiences.
Bivariate analyses were conducted to determine whether
Table 1. Participant characteristics (n ¼ 1350). sociodemographic factors were associated with experiencing
any type of cyber-aggression and cumulative number of
Characteristica n % Mean SD
cyber-aggression acts endorsed (Table 3). A higher proportion
Age 22.3 5.4 of students with the following sociodemographic character-
Gender (n ¼ 1342)
Female 813 60.6% istics reported experiencing any type of cyber-aggression:
Male 517 38.5% South Asian (compared with those of White, Chinese or other
Trans person or agender 12 0.8% ethnicity); students at one of the two smaller campuses
person or other (compared with main campus); undergraduate students
Sexual orientation (n ¼ 1321)
Heterosexual/straight 1185 89.7 (compared with graduate students) and students who reported
Gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer 117 8.9 having a disability (compared with those reporting no
Asexual or other sexual orientation 19 1.4 disability), respectively (p50.05). These students reported
Disability experiencing a higher mean number of cyber-aggression
Any disabilityb 314 23.3
No disability reported 1036 76.7 items, as did male students (p50.001).
Race/ethnicityc Table 4 shows the relationship of perpetrator to the victim
White 425 31.5 and the victim response, by type of cyber-aggression. Among
Chinese 334 24.7
the six acts explored, friends were most often the perpetrators.
South Asian 226 16.7
Black 55 4.1 Intimate partners were the second most often to share, without
Other ethnicity 310 23.0 permission, a private video or photo (15%). Participants
Citizenship status reported that it was most often another student at the
Canadian citizen 1077 79.8
Non-citizens (Canadian permanent 273 20.2
University who was not a friend, who excluded them in a
resident, student visa or purposely hurtful way (22%) and/or spread false rumors about
non-immigrant visa) them online or by text (31.3%). A friend was reported most
Campus likely and an anonymous person was second most likely, to
Campus 1 884 65.5
Campus 2 263 19.5 send rude or intimidating messages, to impersonate partici-
Campus 3 203 15.0 pants or to publicly post a hurtful comment about them. Most
Level of study (n ¼ 1317) participants ignored the cyber-aggressive acts, followed by
Undergraduate 1093 83.1 telling a friend and an intimate partner. Few participants
Graduate 224 17.0
reported telling a parent, another family member or a
a
n ¼ 1350 unless otherwise stated. university staff member.
SD: standard deviation. In response to an open-ended question about the impact of
b
Any disability includes: hearing, sight, speech, mobility, learning,
mental health, other or a combination.
experiencing cyber-aggression, participants made a total
c
Only the four most commonly reported race/ethnicities are present in of 1669 comments. One-third identified impact related to
this table; Other ethnicity includes: Indigenous, Filipino, Latin mental health, including feeling ‘‘emotional impact/stress
American, Arab, West Asian (e.g. Iranian, Afghan), Korean, and anxiety’’ (18.5%), ‘‘scared or uncomfortable’’ (6.1%),
Japanese and Other.
4 F. Mishna et al. J Ment Health, Early Online: 1–8

Table 2. Frequency of experiencing (victimization), perpetuating or witnessing cyber aggression events within the past six months (n ¼ 1350).

Victimization Perpetration Witnessing

Two or Two or Two or
One time more times one time more times One time more times
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Shared a private video or photo through text message or online 115 (8.5) 217 (16.1) 67 (5.0) 120 (8.9) 151 (11.2) 361 (26.7)
(e.g. email or social media) without permission
Sent you angry, rude, vulgar, threatening or intimidating 144 (10.7) 239 (17.7) 99 (7.3) 140 (10.4) 122 (9.0) 366 (27.1)
messages over text message or online
Excluded by text message or online (e.g. left you out of a 125 (9.3) 125 (9.3) 76 (5.6) 50 (3.7) 111 (8.2) 159 (11.8)
message or event in a purposely hurtful way)
Impersonated by text message or online 66 (4.9) 48 (3.6) 50 (3.7) 37 (2.7) 89 (6.6) 111 (8.2)
Publicly posted a hurtful comment by text message or online 54 (4.0) 57 (4.2) 12 (0.9) 20 (1.5) 93 (6.9) 307 (22.7)
Spread false rumours by text message or online 89 (6.6) 90 (6.7) 20 (1.5) 15 (1.1) 58 (4.3) 141 (10.4)

Table 3. Bivariate associations between cyber-aggression experience, cumulative number of cyber-aggressive acts experienced, reporting mental health
consequences of cyber aggression and sociodemographic factors (n ¼ 1350).

Experienced Cumulative number Reported mental

any act of of cyber-aggression healtha consequences
cyber-aggression acts experienced of cyber-aggression
n (%) p valueb Mean (SD) p value n (%) p value
Gender 0.270 0.018 0.299
Male 297 (57.4) 1.12 (1.33) 240 (29.5)
Female 442 (54.4) 0.95 (1.17) 139 (26.9)
Disability 0.008 0.006 0.003
Any disabilityc 195 (62.1) 1.19 (1.36) 274 (26.4)
No disability reported 556 (53.7) 0.96 (1.20) 762 (21.1)
Race/ethnicityd 0.044 0.039 0.216
White 237 (55.8) 0.95 (1.14) 127 (29.9)
Chinese 167 (50.0) 0.93 (1.26) 80 (23.9)
South Asian 140 (61.9) 1.20 (1.34) 69 (30.5)
Other ethnicity 207 (56.7) 1.06 (1.27) 108 (29.6)
Campus 0.012 0.001 0.016
Campus 1 466 (52.7) 0.92 (1.17) 232 (26.2)
Campus 2 160 (60.8) 1.23 (1.43) 93 (35.3)
Campus 3 125 (61.6) 1.13 (1.26) 59 (29.1)
Level of study (n ¼ 1317) 0.009 50.001 0.575
Undergraduate 626 (57.3) 1.07 (1.28) 313 (28.6)
Graduate 107 (47.8) 0.77 (1.03) 60 (26.8)

SD: standard deviation.

a
Mental health (yes) variable derived by those reporting consequences of cyber-aggression related to mental health, including: feeling emotional
impact/stress and anxiety, scared or uncomfortable, insecurity/negative impact on self-esteem and mental/physical health impact.
b
p value calculated using chi-square and t-tests.
c
Any disability includes: hearing, sight, speech, mobility, learning, mental health, other or a combination.
d
Only the four most commonly reported race/ethnicities are present in this table; Other ethnicity includes: Indigenous, Filipino, Latin American, Arab,
West Asian (e.g. Iranian, Afghan), Korean, Japanese and Other.

‘‘insecurity/negative impact on self-esteem’’ (5.8%) and victimization identified cyber-aggression as increasingly

‘‘mental/physical health impact’’ (1.5%). Sociodemographic common, promoted by a sense of anonymity felt by the
characteristics associated with reporting mental health con- perpetrator. A participant identified certain groups as more
sequences of cyber-aggression included: reporting any dis- likely to be victims of cyber-aggression and ‘‘to be attacked,
ability (compared to no disability) and being on one of the like people of color, women or trans people.’’
two smaller campuses (compared with main campus),
respectively, p50.05 (Table 3).
Issues of consent
Qualitative themes: social media use and Participants indicated that the common practice of sexting
cyber-aggression on a university campus contributed to the risk that photos or explicit content would be
shared without consent. This was seen as a greater risk for
ICT as a means of attack
female students who were considered more likely to suffer
Risks and concerns associated with ICTs were identified, consequences such as damage to their reputation. Many
including cyber-aggression, which was referred to as an women participants indicated that they were therefore prudent
online ‘‘attack’’. Even participants who did not experience about not sending pictures of themselves to others.
DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607 Cyber-aggression and student mental health 5
Table 4. Relationship of perpetrator to victim of cyber aggression and victim response, by type of cyber aggression.

Shared a Rude or Posted a Other

private intimidating Excluded by hurtful Spread negative
video or photo messages text message or Impersonated comment false rumors experience
(n ¼ 332) (n ¼ 383) online (n ¼ 250) (n ¼ 114) (n ¼ 111) (n ¼ 179) (n ¼ 605)
%a % % % % % %
Perpetrator relationship to victim
Friend 76.8 35.4 75.2 50.0 38.7 49.7 43.5
Intimate partner 15.4 17.8 5.2 9.6 4.5 8.9 16.4
Another student (not a friend) 9.6 12.8 22.4 11.4 18.0 31.3 22.6
Anonymous person 6.9 30.3 5.2 27.2 26.1 16.2 25.1
Other 6.3 18.0 3.6 2.6 15.3 8.9 11.1
Victim response
Told a friend 23.8 34.7 37.6 19.3 34.2 47.5 46.1
Told an intimate partner 9.9 14.9 14.0 11.4 11.7 14.0 15.4
Told a university staff memberb 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.8 3.6 3.9 1.0
Told a parent 3.3 7.3 6.8 7.0 9.0 8.4 14.7
Told a family member (not a parent) 3.0 7.3 9.2 5.3 4.5 4.5 7.6
Did it back 3.0 14.6 4.4 7.0 9.0 4.5 4.8
Made light of the situation 38.0 31.6 24.8 40.4 38.7 26.8 24.0
Ignored the situation 36.4 47.5 51.2 27.2 36.0 42.5 43.0
Other 10.2 12.5 3.6 12.3 11.7 7.8 12.6
a
Including professor, staff/formal service such as health center and administration.
b
Responses not mutually exclusive, add to4100%.

I think if I honestly asked my male friends if they have ever Discussion

received a photo from someone . . . from the person who
This is among the first studies in Canada to document
wasn’t in that photo, like from a friend or something, they
victimization, perpetration and witnessing of cyber-aggres-
would have to say yes.
sive acts among undergraduate and graduate university
A second concern entailed receiving unsolicited nude students. Thirty percent of students had experienced one
pictures or sexually explicit content. Finally, some partici- form of cyber-aggression in the past six months, one-fifth
pants expressed concern about having a picture taken in a reported perpetuating one form of cyber-aggression and one-
social setting without consent, which is posted on social fifth reported witnessing one. Furthermore, the frequency
media, again without their permission. within which cyber-aggression occurs may be indicative that
some students are experiencing cyberbullying, characterized
Mental Health Consequences. Students described the mental by its repetitive nature. Material such as texts, emails or
health consequences of cyber-aggression as cumulative. One pictures can be viewed far and wide and distributed not only
aspect of this related to students who are repeatedly targeted, by the perpetrator but also by anyone with access (Campbell,
a second to students with pre-existing mental health 2005; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Frequencies of specific acts of
challenges. cyber-aggression varied greatly. Given that we measured
victimization, perpetration and witnessing across a wide range
It builds over time and then they’re not sharing it with of cyber-aggression acts, it is impossible to directly compare
someone it can affect their grades, it can affect their mental these frequencies with other studies conducted among
health, it can affect their relationship. university students (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2015; Faucher
et al., 2014; Kraft & Wang, 2010). Nevertheless, our findings
If you have an existing issue [mental health] and then you
confirm those of other studies indicating that cyber-aggres-
also have some kind of cyber-aggression towards you, then
sion occurs frequently within a university context and
it all becomes so much more. There’s definitely a need for
underscore the need for further research to fully conceptualize
more immediate help.
cyber-aggression.
Consistent with research conducted with youth (Bailey
et al., 2013), students in the focus groups and interviews
Resources/support. Participants voiced concern that many identified the non-consensual sharing of images as a major
students are uninformed about cyber-aggression resources and concern, particularly for women. The images typically include
policies on campus, which they believed contributes to under sexually explicit material, which may be sent consensually but
reporting incidents. This finding is consistent with the survey then shared without consent and/or received without consent.
results. Participants stated that student mental health is Since sexting – situations in which an individual sends or
affected by cyber-aggression and noted the importance of receives intimate text messages, images or videos via ICTs
accessible services to address cyber-aggression and conse- (Jewell & Brown, 2013) – has become normative in many
quent mental health challenges. Participants recommended relationships, with prevalence estimates ranging from 10 to
that education on cyber-aggression resources and policies be 50% (Jewell & Brown, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2012), it is
offered. imperative to pay attention to this finding. A qualitative study
6 F. Mishna et al. J Ment Health, Early Online: 1–8

of young adults aged 18 to 40 years (n ¼ 40) found that knowledge among university students (n ¼ 121), of options for
sexting occurred across contexts of casual sexual, dating and responding to cyberbullying at the institutional level.
intimate relationships, with varied motivations (e.g. sexual Faucher et al. (2015) reviewed policies potentially relevant
arousal, flirtation or humor; Burkett, 2015). The study to the handling of cyberbullying in 74 Canadian universities,
corroborated our findings and points to the need to separate noting that they fall into three clusters: codes of conduct and
consensual sexting from experiences that involve violations of discipline; policies related to the use of electronic commu-
privacy, trust and consent (Burkett, 2015). Education on these nications and policies related to harassment and discrimin-
differences is needed among students and university ation. Despite the potential relevance however, only one-third
administration. of the policies reviewed specifically referenced ‘‘cyber’’
The findings that students with a disability and South behaviors, suggesting that existing policies do not fully reflect
Asian students were more likely than other students to report the current experiences of students. The authors note that
experiencing any type of cyber-aggression, requires further refining these policies requires careful consideration of the
investigation. One element that is not clear is whether the nature of universities and the possible values in tension that
aggression is perpetrated by those within subgroups of can emerge. Education and awareness are perhaps the most
students or by others. On one hand, according to our focus important avenues for addressing safety and aggression in the
group analysis, ICT use enables youth in marginalized cyber world. Research has found that a large majority of
communities to connect and find a community. Several college students expressed interest in receiving education on
studies support this finding, demonstrating that the online this issue (Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). Zalaquett & Chatters
environment fosters community connection and empower- (2014) highlight the need for education on not only
ment for youth who experience marginalization, including cyberbullying but also on the promotion of healthy commu-
indigenous youth (Rice et al., 2016), transgender youth of nication (p. 6). This recommendation corresponds to the
color (Singh, 2013) and urban sexual and gender minority understanding that bullying is a relationship issue, requiring
youth and young adults (Craig et al., 2015). Qualitative interventions that aim to improve relationships (Pepler, 2006).
studies, however, have also highlighted the risks of bias-based Acknowledging and addressing cyber-aggression is of
cyber-aggression for marginalized youth (Kosciw et al., 2010; utmost importance to enhance mental health and wellbeing
Rice et al., 2016). Bias-based cyberbullying is ‘‘a pattern of among university students. Similar to findings from a study of
behavior motivated by intolerance towards others due to real cyberbullying among students across four Canadian univer-
or perceived aspects of their identity’’ (Mishna and Van Wert, sities (n ¼ 1925; Faucher et al., 2014) and literature related to
2015, p. 38). It is critical to conduct further research with university students (Aricak, 2009; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012),
university students to better understand the risks and benefits participants identified the impact of cyber-aggression on
for specific groups of students, including racialized or ethnic student mental health and wellbeing, including fear, discom-
minority students and those with mental health issues fort, stress and anxiety. Our findings suggest these are not
(Hamilton et al., 2014). experienced equally among students – those with a disability
The second most frequent perpetrator for some acts of and those in a smaller campus community are more likely to
cyber-aggression was an intimate partner. This is consistent report negative mental health consequences. Our findings
with Marganski & Melander’s (2015) findings that 73% corroborate other research that a comprehensive approach
(n ¼ 540) of college students experienced cyber intimate may be beneficial to address cyber-aggression (Cunningham
partner aggression. Other studies have shown that these et al., 2015; Faucher et al., 2014). Moreover, programs should
experiences may be frequent; for example, Borrajo et al. take into account differing student needs based on socio-
(2015) found that cyber-dating abuse victims were victimized demographic and geographical characteristics.
an average of 23 times in the last six months. Most Students more frequently reported witnessing, rather than
universities provide services and education with respect to experiencing or perpetrating, each cyber-aggressive act,
sexual violence, which may overlap with intimate partner which corresponds to findings of other studies of university
violence (IPV). In addition, IPV-specific services such as students (Cunningham et al., 2015; Whittaker & Kowalski,
campus awareness campaigns, cyber-dating abuse prevention 2015) and children and youth (Mishna et al., 2010). These
programs and education on reporting incidences of abuse, results have implications for future research and underscore
help-seeking and technology safety are needed to prevent and the need to incorporate cyber-aggression into other bystander
support persons affected by intimate partner cyber-aggression education programs on university campuses (Grigg, 2010). A
and to mitigate in-person IPV (Borrajo et al., 2015; meta-analysis (n ¼ 12 874 students) found that school-based
Marganski & Melander, 2015). bullying prevention programs significantly increased bystan-
As with previous research on youth (Finkelhor et al., 2000; der intervention (Polanin et al., 2012). Universities could
Mishna et al., 2014) and with university students (Kraft & build on successful elements of school-based bullying
Wang, 2010), the findings suggest that students most often do prevention programs.
not report cyber-aggression, particularly not formally (e.g. to Recruitment and data collection strategies are limitations
their institution). This finding is consistent with results of other in this study. Despite a random sampling strategy, the
studies which show that college students, particularly men, do quantitative sample was slightly over-representative of
not disclose difficulties such as depression (Tang et al., 2014). female students (e.g. general university population is 55%
Our results also indicate that students are largely unaware of female; study sample is 60.6% female); it was, however,
resources related to cyber-aggression at the institution. representative with respect to age (University of Toronto,
Molluzzo & Lawler (2012) similarly identified a lack of 2015). Our qualitative sample recruitment was met with poor
DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2018.1437607 Cyber-aggression and student mental health 7

turnout, was predominantly female and did not include Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence
Vict, 26, 410–29.
representatives from one of the three campuses. Faucher Borrajo E, Gamez-Guadix M, Calvete E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse:
et al. (2014) found a comparable over-interest by female Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression.
students to participate in focus groups. Moreover, it could be Psychol Rep, 116, 565–85.
that those who had experiences with cyber-aggression were boyd D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of
networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham D, ed.
more likely to participate than students who had not had these
MacArthur foundation series on digital learning: Youth, identity, and
experiences, which may bias our results towards an over- digital media volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–42.
estimation of cyber-aggression. Burkett M. (2015). Sex(t) talk: A qualitative analysis of young
As this was an exploratory study of cyber-aggression on a adults’ negotiations of the pleasures and perils of sexting. Sex Cult,
university campus and an attempt was made to keep the 19, 835–63.
Campbell M. (2005). The impact of the mobile phone on young people’s
survey short in order to increase completion, we used a social life. Presented at the Social Change in the 21st Century
single-item question to assess mental health impacts of cyber- Conference, Queensland University of Technology.
aggression. Future studies should use validated measures of Citron DK. (2009). Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender
mental health and wellbeing applied in research among harassment. Mich Law Rev, 108, 373–415.
Citron DK, Franks MA. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake For
university students (e.g. the Patient Health Questionnaire for Law Rev, 49, 345–91.
depression and anxiety; Kroenke et al., 2003) to strengthen Colao JJ. (2014). The inside story of Snapchat: The inside story of
conclusions drawn. Some questions lacked the sensitivity to Snapchat: The world’s hottest app or a $3 billion disappearing act?
detect the severity of cyber-aggressive acts; for example, Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2014/01/06/the-
inside-story-of-snapchat-the-worlds-hottest-app-or-a-3-billion-dis-
sharing of a private video or photo may refer to material of a appearing-act/.
sexually explicit nature shared with a partner or pictures taken Corbin J, Strauss A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures,
during a social gathering and later published on social media canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol, 13, 3–21.
without permission. Future studies may discern between the Craig SL, McInroy LB, McCready LT, et al. (2015). Connecting without
fear: Clinical implications of the consumption of information and
types of material shared. Lastly, the nature of cyber-aggres- communication technologies by sexual minority youth and young
sion entails subjectivity and perception. adults. Clin Soc Work J, 43, 159–68.
Despite these limitations, this is one of the first Canadian Cunningham CE, Chen Y, Villancourt T, et al. (2015). Modeling the
studies of cyber-aggression among university students. anti-cyberbullying preferences of university students: Adaptive
choice-based conjoint analysis. Aggress Behav, 41, 369–85.
DeKeseredy W, Kelly K. (1993). The incidence and prevalence of
Conclusion woman abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships.
Can J Sociol, 18, 137–59.
New communication practices involving the use of ICT have Faucher C, Jackson M, Cassidy W. (2014). Cyberbullying among
many benefits for university students and also raise significant university students: Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives.
issues regarding cyber-aggression resulting in mental health Educ Res Int, 2014, 698545.
concerns. Despite similarities to the experiences of children Faucher C, Jackson M, Cassidy W. (2015). When online exchanges byte:
An examination of the policy environment governing cyberbullying at
and youth, some issues such as sexting are related to
the university level. CJHE, 45, 102–21.
developmental stage. Research is needed to differentiate Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, Wolak J. (2000). Online victimization: A report
normative actions online such as sexting from actions on the nation’s Youth. National Center for Missing & Exploited
constituting cyber-aggression such as non-consensual sharing Children. Available from: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/Youth Internet
of private images and to explore bias-based cyber-aggression info page.html.
Grigg DW. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of
with particular attention paid to more vulnerable groups. cyberbullying. Aust J Guid Couns, 20, 143–56.
Education for students about communicating with others Hamilton S, Lewis-Holmes E, Pinfold V, et al. (2014). Discrimination
online respectfully and responsibly (‘‘netiquette’’) may against people with a mental health diagnosis: Qualitative analysis of
mitigate a portion of the cyber-aggression incidents. reported experiences. JMH, 23, 88–93.
Henry N, Powell A. (2015). Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated
Universities are well situated to assume the lead in addressing sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Aust N Z J
this phenomenon and in promoting student safety and Criminol, 48, 104–18.
wellbeing in an online context. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard:
Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Declaration of interest IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0.
The authors have no financial interests to disclose. This work Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jewell JA, Brown CS. (2013). Sexting, catcalls, and butt slaps: How
is funded by the university. gender stereotypes and perceived group norms predict sexualized
behaviour. Sex Roles, 69, 594–604.
References Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. (2004). Mixed methods research: A
research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res, 33, 14–26.
Ang RP, Goh DH. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of Kokkinos CM, Antoniadou N, Markos A. (2014). Cyber-bullying: An
affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry Hum investigation of the psychological profile of university student
Dev, 41, 387–97. participants. J Appl Dev Psychol, 35, 204–14.
Aricak MT. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of Kosciw J, Greytak E, Diaz E, Bartkiewicz M. (2010). The 2009
cyberbullying among university students. EJER, 34, 167–84. National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay,
Barak A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Soc Sci Comput bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. Available
Rev, 23, 77–92.
from: https://www.google.ca/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s&source¼
Bartow A. (2009). Internet defamation as profit center: The monetization
web&cd¼1&cad¼rja&uact¼8&ved¼0ahUKEwil0b7Cxb_SAhUp1o
of online harassment. J Law Biosci, 32, 383–429.
MKHX4DAS0QFggaMAA&url¼https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glsen.org%
Bennett D, Guran EL, Ramos MC, Margolin G. (2011). College students
2Fdownload%2Ffile%2FNDIyMw%3D%3D&usg¼AFQjCNFGLRIO
electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships:
8 F. Mishna et al. J Ment Health, Early Online: 1–8

S9wgsqJq5FWDLc4t268Q&sig2¼bDydJHkw1CgZk3JF85g6Og& Rice ES, Haynes E, Royce P, Thompson SC. (2016). Social media and
bvm¼bv.148747831,d.amc. digital technology use among indigenous young people in Australia: A
Kraft EM, Wang J. (2010). An exploratory study of the literature review. Int J Equity Health, 15, 81.
cyberbullying and cyberstalking experiences and factors related Schenk AM, Fremouw WJ. (2012). Prevalence, psychological impact,
to victimization of students at a public liberal arts college. IJT, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students. J Sch
1, 74–91. Violence, 11, 21–37.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. (2003). The Patient Health Singh AA. (2013). Transgender youth of color and resilience:
Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Negotiating oppression and finding support. Sex Roles, 68, 690–702.
Care, 41, 1284–92. Slonje R, Smith PK. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of
Lembrechts L. (2012). Digital image bullying among school students in bullying? Scand J Psychol, 49, 147–54.
Belgium: An exploration of the characteristics of bullies and their Tang OT, Oliffe JL, Galdas PM, et al. (2014). College men’s
victims. IJCC, 6, 968. depression-related help-seeking: A gender analysis. J Ment Health,
Marganski A, Melander L. (2015). Intimate partner violence victimiza- 23, 219–24.
tion in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber Tokunaga RS. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical
aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization.
violence. J Interpers Violence, Available from: https://doi.org/ Comput Human Behav, 26, 277–87.
10.1177/0886260515614283 University of Toronto, Office of the Assistant Vice-President,
Mishna F, Cook C, Gadalla T, et al. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors Government, Institutional and Community Relations (2015). Facts
among middle and high school students. Am J Orthopsychiatry, 80, and Figures 2015 Report, University of Toronto. Available from:
362–74. https://www.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/Facts_Figures_2015_online_
Mishna F, Schwan K, Lefebrvre R, et al. (2014). Students in distress: entire_book.pdf.
Unanticipated findings in a cyber bullying study. Child Youth Serv Walker CM, Sockman BR, Koehn S. (2011). An exploratory study of
Rev, 44, 341–8. cyberbullying with undergraduate university students. TechTrends, 55,
Mishna F, Van Wert M. (2015). Bullying in Canada. Toronto: Oxford 31–8.
University Press. Wenker K, Gorchynski J. (2004). Intimate partner violence among
Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Jones LM, Wolak J. (2012). Prevalence women presenting to a university emergency department. Cal J Emerg
Med, 5, 34–9.
and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129,
Wensley K, Campbell M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosex-
13–20.
ual young university students’ involvement in traditional and
Molluzzo JC, Lawler J. (2012). A study of the perceptions of college
cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 15,
students on cyberbullying. ISEDJ, 10, 89–109.
649–54.
Padgett D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work
Whittaker E, Kowalski RM. (2015). Cyberbullying via social media.
research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications J Sch Violence, 14, 11–29.
Incorporation. Wright MF, Li Y. (2013). Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber-
Pepler D. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular Perspective. J Can aggression among young adults: A longitudinal investigation. Aggress
Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 15, 16–20. Behav, 39, 161–70.
Polanin JR, Espelage DL, Pigott TD. (2012). A meta-analysis of school- Zalaquett CP, Chatters SJ. (2014). Cyberbullying in college:
abused bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander interven- Frequency, characteristics, and practical implications. SAGE Open,
tion behavior. School Psych Rev, 41, 47–65. 4, doi: 10.1177/2158244014526721.