In order to understand the pervasive social, psychologic, and cultural impact of the Internet on the lives of individuals, it is important to obtain a brief glimpse of Internet and digital technology usage and consumption. According to the U.S. Census, 85.3% of all households in the United States had some sort of Internet subscription in 2018 [41]. Access to broadband Internet has increased over the years, but the adoption rate has leveled off, mainly due to the increasing use of smartphones. In 2021, 77% of households in the U.S. had broadband Internet [6]. In addition, 85% of households that included minor children had an Internet subscription, versus 73% of those without a minor living in the home [7]. In 2021, 93% of American adults use the Internet [6]. Among adults, individuals 18 to 29 years of age are the most likely to utilize the Internet (100%), while adults 65 years of age and older are the least likely (75%) [6]. Among adolescents 13 to 17 years of age, 97% report using the Internet daily, including 46% who indicate they are online "almost constantly" [111]. In addition, 35% of teens say they are connected to some form of social media platform "almost constantly" [111]. There is no doubt that Internet technology has become a ubiquitous part of the American landscape. Although data published in the last several years is among the most current, the Internet landscape changes so rapidly that obtaining accurate data is nearly impossible.

Although the use of the Internet and digital technology is growing and changing rapidly, it is important to remember that there is also the digital divide. The term "digital divide" refers to the social inclusion/exclusion and equality/inequality of Internet access, which is influenced by socioeconomic differences among various groups, including racial/ethnic minorities [16]. Extent of access can be categorized based on three factors: access to the Internet, frequency of Internet use, and scope of Internet use [17]. Socioeconomic status plays a role in each of these factors, as it is necessary to have the economic resources to purchase a computer or digital device, to pay for service, and to allot time to use the Internet recreationally [17]. Although structural factors are key determinants to the digital divide, digital literacy, which is related to level of education, also plays a role [163]. According to 2015 U.S. Census data, the Internet access racial gap has decreased. The percentage of African Americans with Internet access at home increased from 56.9% in 2012 to 64.9% and the proportion of Hispanics who reported home access increased from 58.3% in 2012 to 70.9%; this is compared with 79.3% of whites with home access in 2015 [7]. Data from the Pew Research Center show that 80% of white households have Internet broadband while only 71% and 65% of African American and Hispanic households, respectively, have broadband Internet [6]. This divide does not expand to include Asian Americans, who have greater access to the Internet at home (88.5%) than whites [7]. The growing use of cell phones/smartphones and mobile devices to access the Internet may be responsible for closing this gap. In 2019, ethnic minorities are higher users of smartphones as their only access to the Internet, with 23% of African Americans and 25% of Latinos having only smartphone Internet access, compared with 12% of white users [8]. They also appear to take fuller advantage of their cell phone features compared to white cell phone users [7]. Among those with a household income of $25,000 or less, 11% access the Internet through a smartphone [41]. An estimated 43% of adults who fall in the lower income bracket do not have broadband Internet and 41% do not own a laptop or a desktop computer [202].

In general, stalking typically involves two or more unwanted contacts. The mechanisms of stalking may be classified into four different categories [19]:

Examples of cyberstalking include but are not limited to [19,133,204]:

There are many different forms of online, digital, and electronic mediums that are used to bully or harass someone. The most common mediums include social media sites, e-mail, text, and instant messaging [24,25,136]. In a 2016 nationally representative sample of 4,500 students 12 to 17 years of age, 34% of students indicated that they were a victim of cyberbullying at some point, with 17% of the incidents occurring within the previous 30 days. It was reported that the incident was usually through social media and included mean, hurtful comments or spreading of rumors [18].

Persons engaged in online gaming may harass other players regarding their performance, extending bullying to other aspects of their online persona or block them from participating in future games [166]. There are several online games (e.g., Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends) with an interactive component, allowing players to have discussions and interactions in game. When someone harasses an individual when playing games in the cyber world, this is called "griefing" [100]. In a 2015 study of 2,315 Taiwanese high school students, online game use predicted cyberbullying victimization and perpetration [137]. In a 2019 study, 6% to 21% of participants reported engaging in cyberbullying and 6% to 31% reported being victims of cyberbullying on online gaming platforms in the past six months [166]. In one study, being male and viewing violent content in online games were predictive of being both a victim and a perpetrator of cyberbullying in online game settings [207]. Spending long hours playing online games was also a risk factor of being bullied online but not of bullying others.

There are many different forms of cyberbullying, but some of the most commonly encountered are [28; 29; 102; 134; 140; 141; 142; 143; 168; 169; 209; 210]:

Estimates of cyberbullying victimization rates among adolescents range from 3% to 72% [155]. In a survey of Internet users 10 to 17 years of age, 19% indicated that they bullied someone via the Internet or were a victim themselves in the previous year [2]. In a 2007 study, 48.8% of adolescents disclosed being a victim of cyberbullying, with almost one-third having received an abusive text message [36]. On the other hand, 21.4% of adolescents in the study admitted to having bullied someone using technology, typically text messages. Other reported forms of cyberbullying included receiving threatening online messages, having e-mails forwarded to others without consent, having an embarrassing photo posted without consent, or being the target of a malicious rumor that was spread online [37]. Girls are generally more likely to be victims of harassment or abuse online compared to boys (38% vs. 26%). Furthermore, adolescents who use social networking sites are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying compared to those who do not use social networking sites (39% vs. 22%) [37]. Data obtained from ten studies conducted between 2007 and 2016 yielding a sample size of 20,000 youths throughout the United States indicate that 28% have experienced cyberbullying victimization and 16% disclosed to having cyberbullied someone [106]. In a separate 2016 study, 34% of adolescents disclosed being a victim of cyberbullying at some point, with 17% of the incidents occurring within the previous 30 days [18]. In a 2018 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 59% of adolescents in the United States reported they had directly experienced at least one type of cyberbullying [172]. Almost one-third stated they had someone spread false rumors about them online. One study found a lifetime prevalence cyberbullying victimization of 9.6% for young adolescents and 1.1% for cyberbullying perpetration [214]. A separate study found higher prevalence rates, with one-fifth of the study sample disclosing to having been a victim, perpetrator, or witness of cyberbullying [215]. Again, the differences in these prevalence rates are due to differences in definitions and measures of cyberbullying.

In studies of children and adolescents 10 to 17 years of age, boys have been found more likely to be perpetrators of cyberbullying [46,51]. Female teen perpetrators tend to spread rumors online, while male adolescent cyberbullies tend to post photos or videos that are hurtful to the victim [116]. Age also seems to be correlated with cyberbullying, as it increases with age to a certain point [52]. The peak frequency in cyberbullying tends to occur between 13 and 15 years of age—spiking in the 8th grade and declining in the 11th grade [30,53]. This seems to be confirmed in a 2023 study that found the prevalence of cyberbullying experiences decreased from middle to late childhood, and then increased again in early adolescence [222]. It appears that younger children are more likely to be bullies in the traditional sense (offline), but older youths are more likely to be bullies online; however, it is not clear what dynamics explain this difference [46,52]. In part, it may be correlated with increased access to the Internet and cell phones with less parental supervision as children age. In addition, having been a victim of cyberbullying is a strong predictor for becoming a perpetrator [181,182,183].

In general, girls and women tend to be the victims of cyberbullying, especially specific types of bullying. For example, girls are more likely to have had a rumor spread online about them than boys [37].

Cyberbully victims also tend to be victims in other areas of their lives, such as traditional bullying. Not surprisingly, victims of cyberbullying tend to use the Internet more and in riskier ways than non-victims [52,184]. A study of 935 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age found that those with active profiles on social networking sites were more likely to experience online bullying than those without profiles [56]. Similarly, adolescents who are daily users of the Internet and who use social networking sites such Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are more likely to report having been harassed online [37]. Individuals who used webcams at least once or twice a week or who used message boards most days of the week were 1.75 times and 1.67 times more likely, respectively, to report having been cyberbullied repeatedly in the past year [57].Those who have created online content, such as developing their own blogs, building websites for themselves or for others, uploading photos, or posting to community boards, are more likely to experience online harassment compared to those who do not create their own content [37]. This is not surprising, as motivated perpetrators will seek out contact and other personal information online to be used to harass their victims [56].

A meta-analysis found that victims of cyberbullying tended to be female and to experience high levels of depression, stress, and/or loneliness [160]. They also tend to have low self-esteem, lower levels of empathy, and more anxiety [171]. In addition, they tended to experience other forms of victimization offline, were frequent Internet users, had problem behaviors, lived in a negative family environment, and were less committed to school. A 2020 Chinese study found that cyberbully victims are more often male and younger [185]. They are more likely to experience parental conflict and have higher deviant peer affiliations. In a 2021 study, those at low risk for cyberbully victimization were more likely to be satisfied in school, have high self-esteem and self-control, and have good parental and friendship supports [223].

Signs that youths may be victims or perpetrators of bullying on the Internet have been identified. Parents, counselors, and other health professionals should be aware of [78,79,144,188,226]:

Strain theory was introduced by Robert Merton in the early 1930s in his study of wealth. He asserted that whenever a gap or discrepancy between individuals' aspirations and reality exists, frustration will ensue, and individuals will be more likely use illegitimate means to accomplish their goals [58]. In the 1990s, Agnew expanded this theory to apply more broadly to economic aspirations. Agnew argued that people who experience strain are more likely to experience frustration or anger and are then more vulnerable to engaging in criminal or deviant behavior [59]. Sources of strain could stem from three sources: positively valued goals that are not achieved; loss of positively valued stimuli (e.g., loss of a job, loss of a romantic relationship); and presentation of negative stimuli (e.g., history of family violence) [59]. Although social institutions or persons (e.g., parents) can prevent deviant behavior, it is argued that repeated strains could weaken the bonds of these social control mechanisms [119]. It is important to note that strain and deviance are not causal; deviant behavior is a coping mechanism when strain develops [59].

The following characteristics of the Internet may facilitate online disinhibition [60]:

In a 2009 study conducted by the Technology Safety Project of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a program designed to educate the community, domestic violence victims, and domestic violence advocates about the role of technology in domestic violence and promoting technology safety, one-quarter of the women had the browser history on their computer monitored, and 23.6% stated that they had received threatening e-mails repeatedly [71]. An additional 18% indicated that someone monitored their e-mails. However, a 2017 report by the National Network to End Domestic Violence notes that abusers often use electronic means to spy or eavesdrop on their victims. These researchers found that 97% of abusers used social media and other programs to stalk, harass, and control their victims, showing the growing use of technology in domestic violence and abuse [70].

Many psychosocial effects of cyberbullying have been noted in victims. Youths who experience bullying of any kind often face academic problems, perhaps in part because they are distressed and preoccupied. Teachers will often report that victims' grades drop precipitously, and some will have other academic problems, such as cutting classes, increased detentions, and carrying weapons to school [54,73]. This may be the result of no longer viewing school as a safe place. Poor academic performance and behavioral problems have been found to continue for years after experiences of cyberbullying [150]. Adult victims have reported sleep problems, job dissatisfaction, and health and mental health issues [165]. The most significant psychologic effects appear to be depression and anxiety [233]. Depression is also associated with cyberbullying victimization, with victims reporting increased sadness, anger, and anxiety [74,233]. These negative ramifications appear to apply in many countries and cultures [125]. Situational characteristics (e.g., level of social support, emotional intelligence, coping skills, empathy) can moderate psychosocial consequences [165]. Those with higher levels of interpersonal emotional competence are better able to ameliorate the psychologic distress of cyberbullying better than those with lower levels [195].

Parents, adolescents, and children should also be educated about the types of Internet behaviors that are considered risky, including [45; 95; 235]:

With this in mind, there are safety tips parents may implement in order to minimize the chances of online victimization of their child or children [78]:

Imparting social skills, such as fostering empathy and self-efficacy, is also an important theme in cyberbullying prevention [200]. Educators, parents, and practitioners often assume that adolescents and young adults understand and know how to extend empathy and fairness, but this is not always the case. These individuals may benefit from education on how to respond to cyberbullying in a non-aggressive, empathetic, and thoughtful manner [200]. Adolescents who intervened or who were merely bystanders in cyberbullying situations score high on empathic levels, but adolescents who score high on social self-efficacy are more likely to intervene compared to those who scored low on social self-efficacy, who were more likely to engage in passive bystanding behaviors [87]. Social self-efficacy is defined as one's perception of oneself and perceived competence in navigating social situations and being assertive and proactive in interpersonal relationships. In other words, regardless of adolescents' ability to empathize with victims, perceived ability to do something effective predicts whether they will intervene. Furthermore, adolescents benefit from training in how to help friends or what steps to take to intervene as a bystander [237]. Thus, adolescents who score low on self-efficacy may not necessarily know what they can do to help, may be afraid of retaliation, or may be afraid of doing the wrong thing and exacerbating the situation [87]. Therefore, adolescents should be taught assertiveness skills for a variety of situations in order to minimize the pressure to conform to group norms. For example, prevention programs that emphasize peer support, peer mediation, and peer mentoring might be beneficial [87]. For example, researchers who conducted a recent study with Turkish adolescents found that those adolescents who were less empathic were more at risk for engaging in cyberbullying. Their study results demonstrated that the combined effect of affective (i.e., experiencing someone else's feelings) and cognitive (i.e., taking another's perspective) empathy played a vital role in influencing adolescents' participation in cyberbullying. In an experimental study that used a cognitive-behavioral model for empathy training, at two-month follow-up, adolescents who participated in the training maintained increased empathy levels and had reduced cyberbullying perpetration and victimization experiences [238]. Consequently, some experts recommend empathy training in an attempt to reduce participation in cyberbullying [125]. Teaching both affective empathy ("My friend's negative feelings as a result of experiencing cyberbullying do affect me.") as well as cognitive empathy ("I can understand why my friend who experienced cyberbullying is upset.)" is vital [125].

The first stage involves assessing the client's level of danger. Depending upon the type of cyberbullying the victim experienced, the victim's level of distress may vary. Determine the severity of the distress and if the victim is at risk of hurting himself/herself. Equally important is assessing the victim's risk of being hurt by the perpetrator.

Finally, it is essential to follow-up with the victim. When the immediate stress from the crisis has stabilized, reinforce proactive techniques used by the victim to promote adaptation and coping [91]. It is important to reassure victims that fear is a normal response and the fear and anxiety experienced might last for a while, which is normal. Fear can be used in a positive manner to serve as a protective mechanism, ultimately empowering victims to be more proactive in taking online safety precautions [90]. When instances of cyberbullying occur, it is recommended that it is documented fully [129].