by pagatston on July 29, 2012
The link between bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide has generated much attention, and a new term has even been coined to describe a death by suicide when bullying has played a role. The term is “bullycide,” and I heard it frequently at a national conference I attended recently that focused heavily on bullying. This term is misleading at best and harmful at worst. Here is why:
The term “bullycide” is inaccurate because it suggests that the person engaged in bullying (the bully) died by suicide. Yet it is primarily used to describe a death by suicide of someone who was bullied. So the term, standing alone, lacks sense and accuracy as it is frequently used.
More importantly, suicide prevention experts remind us that we need to be very careful about suicide in the media in order to avoid “suicide contagion.” Suicide contagion refers to in increase in deaths by suicide in the wake of high levels of media attention and very dramatic publicity after a completed suicide. It stands to reason that bullying prevention experts who provide simplistic causal messages regarding bullying and suicide may also be contributing to a contagion factor by suggesting that suicide is a direct and common reaction to bullying – particularly if these experts speak to youth.
The term “bullycide” also suggests that an individual died by suicide solely because he or she was bullied. While the research is clear that being bullied is a risk factor for suicide, it also suggests that a suicide is rarely the result of one factor and almost always is partly due to underlying mental health issues. Of course bullying has also been correlated with depression and anxiety, which can place an individual at greater risk of self-harm. Typically many complicated factors contribute to such a death. But the message that we want to portray to our youth is that help is available when faced with bullying or depression, rather than the notion that suicide is a common or normal reaction, or that it was the only way to escape abusive behavior.
Be especially careful about the issue of bullying and suicide if you are involved in bringing performances, movies, or plays to a youth audience as part of a bullying prevention program or awareness activity. Suicide prevention experts caution us to avoid presenting or describing the method of a suicide. Such descriptions may lead to imitation by vulnerable or “suicide receptive” individuals. Yet I have witnessed performances that share the method and and/or detailed descriptions of an attempted or completed suicide.
My point is not to minimize the impact of bullying. It can be devastating and lead to health, academic, and emotional consequences. But as I noted in my previous blog post, our messages to youth need to focus on hope, strength, and resiliency. Instead of presenting a play to students that dramatizes bullying and includes a death by suicide, let’s share stories, plays, and presentations that demonstrate reaching out for help and positive bystander behavior. After all, isn’t that the behavior we wish to see in our youth?
by pagatston on October 12, 2011
I am excited about the theme of this year’s International Bullying Prevention Association’s Conference: Bullying and Intolerance: “From Risk to Resiliency.” This year’s conference will take place, appropriately, in the city of New Orleans.
Much media attention has been given to the problem of bullying and suicide. Yet when the media covers the sad death of a young person by suicide, they seldom mention that suicide is typically a multifaceted issue involving treatable mental health issues, and that help is available. Members of the media can help us encourage help-seeking behavior and avoid contagion by following the NIMH guidelines for reporting on suicide.
Social norming theory posits that our messages to youth can norm positive or negative behavior. A positive social norming approach has been particularly effective in changing youth’s views that using alcohol or other drugs is a common behavior among their peers – which in turn leads to reduced alcohol and drug use among the youth population. Research is emerging that suggests that social norming strategies can have a positive effect in reducing bullying behavior among youth as well. (Craig and Perkins, 2011).
I have a particular interest in the concept of norming resiliency rather than cruel or destructive behavior with young people. While the research indicates that there is a relationship between being bullied and experiencing thoughts of suicide, research also suggests that to prevent suicide among youth we need to norm strength-based messages and help-seeking behaviors. I hope we can get more bullying prevention advocates speaking to suicide prevention advocates so that we can all learn to spread messages of resiliency rather than despair around this important issue. There will be a thought provoking panel at the IBPA conference this year on Social Norming that I will be a part of along with Anne Collier and Larry Magid of ConnectSafely, and Mark LoMurray from the Sources of Strength Suicide Prevention Program. Sources of Strength is making a very real difference in many schools across the country by using strength-based messages and breaking down barriers to help-seeking behavior among youth. I hope you can join us in New Orleans Nov. 6-8th to learn more about Mark’s efforts and the importance of norming resiliency among our youth.
by pagatston on February 13, 2011
In order to truly understand cyber bullying, it is important to understand traditional bullying. Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus found three key components to bullying behavior. Bullying behavior is aggressive, repetitive, and power-based. In other words, the person being targeted has a hard time defending him or herself. In many ways cyber bullying fits this definition. Certainly the behavior is aggressive in nature, designed to hurt the other person’s feelings or relationship with others, or even to frighten him or her. Cyber Bullying is usually repetitive, or by it’s very nature it can be viewed multiple times by the person who is targeted digitally. Granted a one-time nasty text message may not fit the definition of bullying behavior. But is cyber bullying power-based?
Ask those who are targeted by cyber bullying and they will often tell you that they have a hard time defending themselves because a humiliating message has spread and been viewed by many individuals. Sometimes the targeted individual is not sure who posted particular comments or set up a fake profile, so not knowing who their abuser is can also lead to a sense of powerlessness.
But there are also some unique features that we need to be aware of in regards to cyber bullying. In traditional bullying the identity of the perpetrator is usually known. We also deal with the phenomenon of disinhibition, where people say or do things online that they wouldn’t normally do because they feel invisible. Yet the data is not suggesting that we have a larger population of youth engaging in cyber bullying because of the disinhibition or the ability to be anonymous. However the research does suggest that a majority of youth who are cyber bullied are also experienced traditional bullying. In many instances the digital representation of bullying is making obvious the problems youth are experiencing in their relationships that may have been invisible in previous years. But the ability for an abuser to have a vast audience and for their digital abuse to intensify the pervasiveness of an experience of bullying is a significant issue and one that must be addressed in efforts at bullying prevention. I will be speaking about whole school approaches to address cyber bullying at the Celebration of Teaching and Learning Conference panel on cyber bullying March 19th in New York City. A blog that I wrote on the topic of “whole school approaches” can be found here.
