There is an abundance of literature demonstrating negative outcomes for youth related to cyberbullying. A review of the literature has revealed that cyberbullying can be detrimental to the health of adolescents and is considered an emerging public health concern (Nixon, 2014). The compromised health conditions tied to cyberbullying are related to the emotional, social, behavioral, and even physical domains of a youth’s life. As a result of cybervictimization, youth may experience numerous emotional challenges including: increased anger and sadness (Beran and Li, 2005; Patchin and Hinduja, 2006), depression (Campbell et al., 2012; Bonanno and Hymel, 2013; Chang et al., 2013), and anxiety (Wigderson and Lynch, 2013). Youth also tend to experience negative social consequences from victimization, such as increased social anxiety (Juvonen and Gross, 2008; Dempsey et al., 2009), increased loneliness (Devine and Lloyd, 2012; Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2012) as well as problems with peers and having fewer friendships overall (Price and Dalgleish, 2010; Jackson and Cohen, 2012). In addition, youth may experience behavioral changes as a result of cybervictimization. Research demonstrates that young people who are perpetually victimized in the cyber world are at risk for increased violent behaviors at school, delinquency, and substance use (Hinduja and Patchin, 2007, 2008; Ybarra et al., 2007; Goebert et al., 2011). Unfortunately, cybervictimization has also been shown to increase suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviors (Hinduja and Patchin, 2010; Bonanno and Hymel, 2013; Litwiller and Brausch, 2013). With the potential for such grave consequences of cybervictimization, educators and healthcare professionals should be aware of prevention and intervention efforts that may reduce cyberbullying behaviors among youth.

Several isolated components of anti-bullying and/or anti-cyberbullying programs have demonstrated the ability to reduce rates of bullying and victimization by approximately 20% (Ttofi and Farrington, 2011). Research has shown that some program components and protective factors seem to be the most influential in reducing bullying and victimization. Parental engagement and parenting strategies have consistently demonstrated an important role in the reduction of bullying and victimization. For example, in a review of parental roles and cyberbullying among youth, Elsaesser et al. (2017) found certain mediation strategies for controlling Internet and technology use were more effective than merely placing blanket restrictions on youth. When youth are involved in creating the rules about Internet and technology use, rates of cyberbullying and cybervictimization tend to decrease. In contrast, parents who are more controlling and restrictive about Internet and technology use only lead to minimal reductions in cyberbullying and cybervictimization. These findings may highlight the issue of ideal parenting approaches in relation to youth cyberbullying, as parents who exert high warmth and control (i.e., authoritative parenting) are associated with lower rates of cyberbullying perpetration compared to parents who exert low warmth and high control (i.e., authoritarian parenting; Elsaesser et al., 2017). Additionally, program intervention strategies that target parents are some of the most effective approaches to combat bullying (Ttofi and Farrington, 2011; Roberto et al., 2017) and scholars have recommended it is important to continue targeting parents in order to reduce bullying (Hutson et al., 2018).

Other intervention strategies used to reduce bullying and cyberbullying have been investigated. Project-based learning strategies to raise awareness of cyberbullying have shown positive outcomes, such as increased vocabulary, knowledge, and awareness of the consequences of online behaviors (Chen, 2018). Additionally, anti-cyberbullying messaging and policy/practices that help persuade young people to safely use the Internet and seek social support for cyberbullying issues have shown reductions in cyberbullying rates and susceptibility to cyberbullying (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2012; Savage et al., 2017). Other strategies to reduce cyberbullying behaviors include school-based approaches focused on traditional bullying. Although traditional bullying and cyberbullying may be defined differently (Selkie et al., 2016), some researchers have found that general bullying prevention programs have been effective in reducing cyberbullying and cybervictimization as well (Gradinger et al., 2015). For example, based on a meta-analysis of anti-bullying programming, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) found incorporating disciplinary methods (e.g., deprivation of special privileges, stern discussions with bullies), teacher training, classroom management, and cooperative group work was effective in reducing traditional bullying perpetration and victimization. Some of these methods outlined by Ttofi and Farrington (2011), such as disciplinary action and teacher training, could be applied to a school-based cyberbullying prevention/intervention strategy, but have yet to be comprehensively investigated.

Although prevention and intervention efforts that aim to reduce traditional bullying have been on the rise throughout the last decade, more evidence is needed to ascertain if those same principles can be applied to cyberbullying prevention and intervention. While there is considerable overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, some research suggests that negative outcomes of cybervictimization have been significant even while controlling for involvement in traditional victimization (Perren et al., 2010). This indicates a need for cyberbullying-specific prevention and/or intervention efforts, but scholars note that these efforts have not been well-researched to date (Tanrikulu, 2018). Two recent systematic reviews have investigated the components of intervention programs and methods for cyberbullying specifically (Hutson et al., 2018; Tanrikulu, 2018). According to Hutson et al. (2018), the most commonly implemented program components include: improving digital citizenship, collaboration, communication and social skills, empathy training, education on cyberbullying, enhancing coping skills, and peer mentoring. However, Tanrikulu (2018) found that the program duration, instruments to measure cyberbullying, and theoretical program bases varied widely with no clear pattern of common program components. Such wide variation among programming makes it difficult to compare and determine which programs are most effective. While some approaches for cyberbullying prevention and intervention currently exist, research in cyberbullying prevention and intervention is inconsistent in terms of implementation and evidence.

As Ioannou et al. (2018) indicated, cyberbullying research is dominated by self-reported measurement, which can enhance issues of social desirability, personal interpretation, and a divergence between reported behavior and actual behavior (Coughlan et al., 2009). Qualitative research in this domain would allow for a more holistic understanding of the experience and perception of key stakeholders involved in the cyberbullying world (Tracy, 2013). While purely qualitative methods in cyberbullying research are increasing, many studies focus on the youth perspective of perceptions and the experiences of cyberbullying itself (e.g., Vandebosch and Van Cleemput, 2008; Evans et al., 2016; Ghazali et al., 2017; Chia-Wen et al., 2019). Critical key informants and stakeholders who have experience managing cyberbullying issues on a regular basis may be the key to adequately addressing, designing, and implementing prevention strategies to reduce cyberbullying. Ioannou et al. (2018) offered practical suggestions for future work in cyberbullying research that highlighted the currently non-existent collaboration and dialog between multiple communities with stake in the cyberbullying world. These groups may include experts from computer science, psychology, and sociology to better shed light on the complex issue of cyberbullying. Additionally, much of the current research that qualitatively consults individuals that are not adolescents include mainly parents, school administrators, and teachers (e.g., Noah, 2012; Ragain, 2014; Young et al., 2017). The potential for unique and vital perspectives to exist outside of the view of parents, teachers, and youth warrants more exploration (Pennell et al., 2020). Furthermore, investigating this issue through the lens of multiple experiences allows for a more holistic understanding, as Couvillon and Ilieva (2011) emphasized: “cyberbullying intervention requires the joint efforts of everyone who shares concerns about the safety and children of youth” (p. 98).

As much of the cyberbullying research has been conducted in the absence of theory (Tokunaga, 2010), our research was guided by the theoretical framework of the I³ Model (Finkel, 2014). The I³ Model is a process-oriented metatheory of aggression that has the potential to explain how cyberbullying behaviors continue to occur and has been successfully applied in recent cyberbullying queries (Wong et al., 2018). This framework is useful in cyberbullying research as it illuminates how non-aggressive interactions may become aggressive based on three interrelated processes: inhibiting forces, impelling forces, and instigating triggers. Inhibiting forces are factors that decrease the likelihood of an aggressive response (e.g., ability to exercise adequate self-control in response to aggression). Impelling forces are influences that determine the overall strength of the response (e.g., the belief that the perpetrator is truly anonymous). Finally, instigating triggers are the situations that increase the likelihood of an aggressive response (e.g., experience as prior victim of cyberbullying). The I³ Model posits that if instigation and impellence are heightened and inhibition is decreased, aggressive responses will surface. Therefore, in terms of prevention and intervention, it is pertinent to understand what potential inhibiting forces are recommended to reduce cyberbullying among youth.

The primary purpose of this research was to capture a holistic understanding of potential youth cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies that are suggested by key stakeholders. To achieve this, we aimed to incorporate multiple unique, but vital, voices within the cyberbullying world that have yet to be demonstrated in formal research. Key voices need to be stakeholders who have both direct youth connections (school administrators, guidance counselors, consultants, student support professionals), and indirect youth connections (school resource police officers, bullying educators, and cyberbullying researchers). Through the lens of the I³ Model, this study examined stakeholder suggestions that serve as inhibiting forces and may reduce cyberbullying. Potential barriers to the prevention and intervention of cyberbullying issues are also explored.

To achieve depth and understanding of cyberbullying issues, qualitative data were collected from one-on-one semi-structured interviews (n = 16), as well as one focus group (n = 4). Participants were recruited from both urban and rural school districts in one Western Canadian province. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were employed to target key stakeholders with professional knowledge about cyberbullying. Targeting key stakeholders with professional knowledge allowed for their experiences to be deconstructed and interpreted for a better understanding of this complex phenomenon (Tracy, 2013). A trained graduate student with extensive experience in qualitative interviewing collected all data. The focus group and interviews included key stakeholders representing professions related to educational administration, psychological counseling, technology and bullying education consultation, policing, research, and social support services. Table 1 outlines the participants and occupation descriptors. Participant recruitment ceased when the research group observed redundant responses and perspectives, which indicated data saturation (Mills and Gay, 2016). Interviews were approximately 60 min in length and interview questions related to cyberbullying methods and motivations (e.g., what are the technological means through which adolescents are cyberbullying each other?), victim and perpetrator characteristics (e.g., are there particular reasons why certain adolescents are more likely to cyberbully and/or be cyberbullied?), how stakeholders currently viewed cyberbullying (e.g., how is cyberbullying similar or dissimilar to traditional bullying?), recommended prevention and intervention strategies to successfully mitigate cyberbullying issues (e.g., are you aware of alternate measures through which cyberbullying is being successfully addressed?), and any factors (e.g., institutional, legal) that stakeholders believed hindered the prevention and/or intervention of cyberbullying (e.g., are the school and justice systems equipped to properly prevent and/or intervene in instances of cyberbullying?). These questions were presented in a general way in order to allow for participants to deviate from the interview schedule and illuminate their experiences as they presented (Lee, 1999).

The data were imported and analyzed in NVivo 12 Pro. Upon verbatim transcription of the interviews, the data were reflexively thematically analyzed, where larger themes are subsequently broken down and refined into sub-themes that represent the message of the participants using six steps or phases: familiarizing self with data; coding; generating initial themes; developing/reviewing themes; refining, defining, naming themes; and writing it up (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2022). Multiple researchers conducted the analysis independently before jointly agreeing on the resulting themes. Regular meetings to discuss and refine emerging themes took place several times over the course of the analysis phase.

Several inhibiting forces were identified which were believed to decrease the likelihood of online aggression related to cyberbullying issues. First, participants suggested that educational efforts related to awareness of cyberbullying and consequences of perpetration were paramount. Digital citizenship programming for students and social skills (empathy, respect, conflict-management) training were also fundamental to decreasing online aggression. Additionally, providing remediation to youth who are in online conflict with one another was suggested as a highly effective form of intervention. Last, participants emphasized parental engagement with the technology used by their youth was also key in mitigating instances of cyberbullying.

All participants indicated that educational strategies are the foundation to decreasing cyberbullying issues among youth. The educational strategies include providing students’ awareness about cyberbullying and the potential legal consequences of cyberbullying perpetration, digital citizenship programming for youth, as well as social skills training in empathy, respect, and conflict management.

The majority of participants mentioned efforts to provide students restorative conferencing was an effective intervention/response to cyberbullying incidents. School counselors, student support professionals, and police officers were the most frequently involved in remediation between youth. Our participants described remediation for cyberbullying incidents as gathering all involved in the conflict, discussing the situation, and creating a peaceful plan to end the conflict. One police officer described why bringing students together during conflict is essential:

A student support professional also endorsed this strategy when discussing the most effective ways to intervene in cyberbullying issues: “A lot of the online stuff goes away when they [students] have a chance to be able to communicate and listen to the other person and have a chance to respond.” Similarly, a vice principal who did not have access to professional support for restorative conferencing described a similar process that their school implements in response to cyberbullying problems:

When cyberbullying instances occur, it was clear that our participants felt that the most effective form of intervention was mediating the conflict between students. However, another effective strategy to reduce cyberbullying involve parental engagement with technology used by their youth.

All participants identified parents as a significant resource to reduce and/or resolve cyberbullying conflicts between youth. Our participants were most likely to discuss parental involvement with technology, specifically, as a strategy to prevent or intervene in situations of cyberbullying. One student support professional described a common situation where parents may overestimate the maturity and responsibility of youth in relation to their technology use:

This student support professional conveyed that while parents have the best intentions, this inadvertent release of control tends to escalate and mismanage issues of cyberbullying. When asked about a recommended strategy for reducing cyberbullying, one police officer suggested, “Parental controls, parents taking more responsibility in their usage of their children’s usage online, them monitoring what’s being said, pictures being posted and shared, parents need to take a bigger role instead of just trusting their kids.” A similar sentiment was echoed by a different student support professional, when they described the importance of parents taking an active role of responsibility in their child’s technology use, “I think it’s important for parents to set boundaries. At a young age. In terms of having smartphones, in terms of having access to social media.” Parental involvement in youth’s use of technology was also discussed as a punitive strategy upon intervention. As one school counselor described” “Some of the parents then put some restrictions [on the offenders]: some lost their phones, their accounts, blah blah blah. So the parents took a more active role in what their kids were using their technology for.”

Although a comprehensive review by Tanrikulu (2018) was unable to discern a consistent pattern of cyberbullying prevention/intervention programs or components, the recommendations by key voices in this study were consistent. Education (awareness, digital citizenship training, and social skills training), restorative conferencing, and parental involvement with technology are fundamental pillars to reducing cyberbullying behaviors. Our research and others echo stakeholder emphasis of prevention through education. Broll and Huey (2015) interviewed 12 police officers (school resource officers and patrol officers) in Southwestern Ontario about their perspectives on cyberbullying issues. Similar to our research findings, the police officers’ emphasized education about safe and appropriate technology use and parental involvement/monitoring of technology are necessary to prevent cyberbullying. Additionally, when deliberating best practices to address cyberbullying issues among youth, it is uncommon to hear from the voices of outside or indirect stakeholders, such as the non-teaching student support professionals and police officers that are included in this study. Consulting these unique collaborators may continue to offer novel solutions to cyberbullying concerns. The implications of this research have the capacity to inform strategic programming efforts to include lessons on cyberbullying awareness, digital citizenship, knowledge of legal consequences for cyberbullying perpetration, and social skills training. This research can also better inform funding decisions for school districts. If restorative conferencing is the most effective tool to address cyberbullying issues between students, financial decisions to include a school support worker to offer these services may be vital. Last, this research illuminates important information for parents of youth who have access to technology. A recent review highlighted that less than half of the developed anti-cyberbullying programs incorporate educational content for parents, although such programs are among the most successful at reducing cyberbullying and cybervictimization (Hutson et al., 2018). In places where anti-cyberbullying education is unavailable to parents, our research suggests that merely empowering parents to take an active role in their youth’s online presence could potentially reduce and/or prevent cyberbullying incidents from occurring.

Although the results of this study provided suggestions and important implications, this study is not without limitations. This study brings a Canadian perspective to a research area that is predominantly American and European; however, the findings of this study are based on a sample from a limited geographical area (one province). Therefore, samples of key stakeholders in other parts of the country and/or world should be investigated before adopting these recommendations into practice. Additionally, the sample size is limited and therefore not completely representative of all key stakeholders who work with youth and schools. One future direction could be to use the results of this study to create a survey to confirm these findings with a broader sample. In addition, one of our main findings was that providing restorative conferencing for youth experiencing conflict can help reduce and/or resolve cyberbullying in schools. However, only some of the stakeholders in our sample had access to this type of a resource. Because restorative conferencing can occupy a great deal of time and financial resources and is typically supported by non-educative school personnel, not all schools will have the personnel, expertise, or funding to facilitate these types of conferences. Future research should continue to ask unique stakeholders (e.g., police officers, student and family support professionals) about other types of potential school supports available in their particular geographic area as the responses may provide different suggestions for solution. Last, while much of the cyberbullying literature remains atheoretical, this study is one of few to employ the I3 Model to target the inhibiting forces that reduce cyberbullying, specifically. Therefore, it is recommended that future research continue to apply the I3 Model to assess the overall utility of its use within cyberbullying research.