In early January 2010, Phoebe Prince, a high school student in Western Massachusetts committed suicide after allegedly being bullied on the internet. Unfortunately, this story is not unique. Megan Meier committed suicide in 2006 after a classmate’s mother posted demeaning comments, posing as a young boy on MySpace, and in 2007 at least four teen suicides were attributed to cyber bullying (Cyberbullying, 2006).
Gus A. Sayer, the superintendent of South Hadley High School where Prince attended, said this of the bullying:
“The real problem now is the texting stuff and the cyber-bullying; some kids can be very mean towards one another using that medium. Apparently the young woman had been subjected to taunting from her classmates, mostly through the Facebook and text messages…’’ (McCabe, 2010)
Statistics from the United States Department of Justice in 2006 said that one in seventeen children reported being threatened or harassed while using the internet (Web safety 4 kids statistics, 2006). Research from the National Crime Prevention Council in 2006 found that four in ten teens reported being cyber bullied, and that the majority of incidences were reported by females. These cases can range from a persistent unwanted chat buddy to threats of bodily harm (ncpc.org).These aggressive online acts are a 21st century problem that we have little experience with since the internet is relatively new.
Another term for aggressive acts online is flaming (Thurlow, 2004). As cyber bullying and flaming continue to become more prevalent, researchers and communication experts have struggled to develop a concrete theory as to why it is so easy for someone to guiltlessly act out online.
Some researchers and theorists believe that communication on the internet is not as rich as face to face communication; therefore it is not often accepted as “real” communication. Rather, it is seen as pseudo communication that has less rules and etiquette to follow. Some argue that the lawlessness of the internet encourages guiltless bullying and extreme acts towards others.
Other researchers say that there is no one approach to explain why flaming occurs. They claim you must look at each situation individually, using a interactional-normative approach. By looking at each situation individually, they can determine different responses and interpretations of the message. Communication theorists, Andrew Flanagan and Patrick O’Sullivan (2003) cite these problems with current theories in their work on the subject, (1) ambiguity in conceptual definitions of flaming, (2) an overemphasis on message content versus message context, (3) an assumption that flaming behavior lacks clear functional value, and (4) a narrow view of flaming behavior as a strictly online phenomenon.
They conclude that online behavior depends on what each person considers a norm for communication. Moreover, that the internet has developed its own set of norms separate from what we consider normality of a face to face conversation. Flanagan and O’Sullivan then say that, these interactional norms that we function under on the internet serve as a guide not just to the formation of messages but also their interpretation by the receiver (Flanagan, 2003). They conclude by defining flaming as this:
“A message in which the creator/sender intentionally violates (negotiated, evolving, and situated) interactional norms and is perceived as violating those norms by the receiver as well as by third-party observers” (Flannagan, 2003)
By defining the problem researchers hope to find a solution for flaming. Once they know what flaming is, they can work towards ending cyber bullying, flaming, and other aggressive online acts. Until then, teens and children of this generation will deal with these problems, and more stories like Megan Meiers, and Phoebe Prince are likely to emerge.
Gus A. Sayer, the superintendent of South Hadley High School where Prince attended, said this of the bullying:
“The real problem now is the texting stuff and the cyber-bullying; some kids can be very mean towards one another using that medium. Apparently the young woman had been subjected to taunting from her classmates, mostly through the Facebook and text messages…’’ (McCabe, 2010)
Statistics from the United States Department of Justice in 2006 said that one in seventeen children reported being threatened or harassed while using the internet (Web safety 4 kids statistics, 2006). Research from the National Crime Prevention Council in 2006 found that four in ten teens reported being cyber bullied, and that the majority of incidences were reported by females. These cases can range from a persistent unwanted chat buddy to threats of bodily harm (ncpc.org).These aggressive online acts are a 21st century problem that we have little experience with since the internet is relatively new.
Another term for aggressive acts online is flaming (Thurlow, 2004). As cyber bullying and flaming continue to become more prevalent, researchers and communication experts have struggled to develop a concrete theory as to why it is so easy for someone to guiltlessly act out online.
Some researchers and theorists believe that communication on the internet is not as rich as face to face communication; therefore it is not often accepted as “real” communication. Rather, it is seen as pseudo communication that has less rules and etiquette to follow. Some argue that the lawlessness of the internet encourages guiltless bullying and extreme acts towards others.
Other researchers say that there is no one approach to explain why flaming occurs. They claim you must look at each situation individually, using a interactional-normative approach. By looking at each situation individually, they can determine different responses and interpretations of the message. Communication theorists, Andrew Flanagan and Patrick O’Sullivan (2003) cite these problems with current theories in their work on the subject, (1) ambiguity in conceptual definitions of flaming, (2) an overemphasis on message content versus message context, (3) an assumption that flaming behavior lacks clear functional value, and (4) a narrow view of flaming behavior as a strictly online phenomenon.
They conclude that online behavior depends on what each person considers a norm for communication. Moreover, that the internet has developed its own set of norms separate from what we consider normality of a face to face conversation. Flanagan and O’Sullivan then say that, these interactional norms that we function under on the internet serve as a guide not just to the formation of messages but also their interpretation by the receiver (Flanagan, 2003). They conclude by defining flaming as this:
“A message in which the creator/sender intentionally violates (negotiated, evolving, and situated) interactional norms and is perceived as violating those norms by the receiver as well as by third-party observers” (Flannagan, 2003)
By defining the problem researchers hope to find a solution for flaming. Once they know what flaming is, they can work towards ending cyber bullying, flaming, and other aggressive online acts. Until then, teens and children of this generation will deal with these problems, and more stories like Megan Meiers, and Phoebe Prince are likely to emerge.
Works Cited
Cyberbullying. (2006, November). Retrieved from http://www.makeadifferenceforkids.org/cyberbullying.html
McCabe, K. (2010, January 24). Teen’s suicide prompts a look at bullying. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/01/24/teens_suicide_prompts_a_look_at_bullying/
O'Sullivan, P.B. (2003). An Interactional reconceptualization of "flaming" . New Media and Society, 5. Retrieved from http://my.ilstu.edu/~posull/flaming.htm
Teens and cyberbullying-national crime prevention council. (2007, February 28). Retrieved from http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/bullying/Teens%20and%20Cyberbullying%20Research%20Study.pdf
Thurlow, Crispin, Lengel, Laura, & Tomic, Alice. (2004). Computer mediated communication. Sage Publications Ltd.
Web safety 4 kids statistics. (2006, December). Retrieved from http://websafety4kids.org/Statistics.php
Cyberbullying. (2006, November). Retrieved from http://www.makeadifferenceforkids.org/cyberbullying.html
McCabe, K. (2010, January 24). Teen’s suicide prompts a look at bullying. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/01/24/teens_suicide_prompts_a_look_at_bullying/
O'Sullivan, P.B. (2003). An Interactional reconceptualization of "flaming" . New Media and Society, 5. Retrieved from http://my.ilstu.edu/~posull/flaming.htm
Teens and cyberbullying-national crime prevention council. (2007, February 28). Retrieved from http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/bullying/Teens%20and%20Cyberbullying%20Research%20Study.pdf
Thurlow, Crispin, Lengel, Laura, & Tomic, Alice. (2004). Computer mediated communication. Sage Publications Ltd.
Web safety 4 kids statistics. (2006, December). Retrieved from http://websafety4kids.org/Statistics.php
A very good article. Would definitely be useful for my research on flaming. Thank You.
ReplyDelete