Identity Online: Bullying and Anonymity This essay explores the issue of cyber-bullying as part of online identity, considering the question of whether being anonymous when online allows bullying within online communities, such as those associated with academic institutions such as universities. Online resource will be used, including articles from e-journals and newspapers, to provide both an academic and a real life perspective on the issue. Bullying is defined as to “act the bully (towards); persecute, intimidate, oppress (physically or morally) by threats or superior force” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2003). However, this dictionary does not contain a definition of cyber-bullying, implying that the word was not in common usage at the time and the issue has evolved as a phenomenon since 2003. This would tie in with increased usage of the internet for such things as socialising using Twitter and Facebook, as well as more educational establishments using e-resources and virtual learning environments as part of their teaching. Recently, attention has focussed on the phenomenon of cyber-bulling following the deaths of two students who were apparently bullied online – Tyler Clementi committed suicide following the posting of videos online (Guardian 2010), and Phoebe Prince killed herself following months of cyber-bullying at school (McGreal 2010). Last year, the first person ever to be convicted of cyber-bullying was Keeley Houghton in August (Carter 2009). People are bullied for a variety of reasons, some relating to aspects of discrimination and others relating to simple disagreements over opinions. Various reports have stated that cyber-bullying is a major problem, linked to continuing inequality in the UK and requiring resolution (see, for example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report ‘How fair is Britain’ available for download at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/triennial-review/full-report-and-evidence-downloads/). And it is not just children and students who are targeted. Teachers are frequently targeted by students (when it is referred to as ‘cyber-stalking’ or ‘cyber-harassment’ to distinguish the age of the target [Meredith, 2010]). Cyber-bullying is even a political issue for the USA, with policies such as “Don’t ask, don’t tell” being challenged through the courts and the Senate (Guardian 2010). One of the problems associated with the internet is the ability to set up multiple user accounts with different names, none of which need to be the user’s real name. This provides a cloak of anonymity and the user can then target anyone they want to without fear of discovery. Ribeiro (2009 p.296) indicates that the user will create “characters who may or may not correspond with (parts of) the identity from the offline world”, providing scope to abandon such things as politeness and courtesy which would accompany face-to-face encounters. He also identifies a process of “controlled depersonalisation” (ibid, p. 297) which can allow a user to not only create alternate personas, but actively discard personal attributes and qualities to create a less human identity that can behave without reference to behaviours that would normally control behaviour to keep it within social norms. The reason he identifies behind why users would do this, is “because they can” (ibid, p.299). Gonzales and Hancock (2008) identify the phenomenon of self-presentation and its effects on how people interact both online and offline. Their research indicated that, when participants were asked to adopt a specific trait (either extroversion or introversion), only those who took part in the public online conference actually internalised the trait. It was not evident in private, offline, dialogue. This, they suggest, means that “identity shift took place” (ibid, p.167). They further conclude that, as the online language used was more definite and certain than that used offline, “audiences evoke a more committed form of self-presentation”(ibid). Thus ambivalent language is abandoned in favour of clear statements. If someone wasn’t sure about whether they liked a person or not, if they were asked online, they would more likely change their stance from undecided to a definite “yes” or “no”. This can therefore influence choice of language and the message conveyed, exaggerating real opinions because the exchange is online. The phenomenon of “flaming” (a hostile message or post) can be seen as potentially part of a bullying campaign against an individual, although it can also simply be a one-off response to extreme provocation. Within a group, whether on or offline, social and behavioural norms are created and these can affect communications. Douglas and McGarty (2001) considered flaming within a group setting, identifying how being a member of a group affected the communications both within the group and when communicating with those outside of the group. They linked this to whether or not the poster could be identified. Their findings were that “identifiability to an in-group audience was associated with higher levels of stereotype-consistent language when communicators described anonymous out-group targets” (ibid, p.399). The communicators needed the group to be able to express such views, again showing the “identity shift” mentioned by Gonzales and Hancock (2008). This would seem to explain some of the behaviour of the group of girls who bullied Phoebe Prince: the group provided legitimacy for the views they held about Phoebe and for the behaviours used against her. Bullying is an major problem. Dracic (2009 p.216) states that bullying is on the increase in all areas of life, but “the incidence of bullying behavior is on the rise, especially in schools”. She identifies victims of bullying as being those “with low self-esteem level, seemingly shy and withdrawn, often have speech impairment ... mental or physical disability, or belonging to some marginal or ethnical groups, to other race or sexual orientation, that feel physically weaker and have fewer friends” (ibid, p.217). Thus large sections of the population will be victims of bullying, by virtue of being “different” from what is believed to be the norm. The issue of cyber-bullying therefore increases discriminatory behaviour and victimisation/isolation of anyone who might be from these groups. There are significant consequences for those subjected to bullying, including “worse physical health in late adolescent age, with significant psychosocial consequences” (ibid).