Types of Cyberbullying Experienced on Facebook by Undergraduate Students in Kenyan Universities

Introduction

Cyberbullying is a form of harassment that occurs on social media platforms (Akinbogun, 2016). According to Akinbogun (2016), cyberbullying is common among adolescents, teenagers and young adults. Statistics on cyberbullying from Bullying Statistics (2015) indicate that most young adults have either been victims or perpetrators of online bullying. Actually, the statistics show that one in every three young adults has been cyberbullied. Chu (2021) explained that there have been cases of cyberbullying since the 1990s. This was made possible by the increase in Internet connections and computers. However, the majority of the reported cases happened in the 2000s. One of the commonly reported cases of cyberbullying occurred in 2006 when a teenage American girl, Megan Meier, committed suicide as a result of cyberbullying through a fake Myspace account by her neighbour (Cohen-Almagor, 2020). The bully was charged and found guilty. In 2008, another American teenager named Jessica Logan was cyberbullied through Myspace. Her boyfriend shared her nudes to other teenagers in at least seven high schools in Ohio. She was overwhelmed by the repercussions and hanged herself (Celizic, 2009). According to Bark (2021), cyberbullying increased in the 2000s because of the introduction of smartphones which increased people’s capacity to share content in social media platforms. Bark also asserted that the cyberbullying in today’s technologically superior world happens in a blink of an eye. This is because there are many platforms to share and re-share posts. Kwanya and Stilwell (2015) averred that communication on social media and the associated ills have been exacerbated by the fact that Internet speeds have also increased over time thereby making possible real-time processing of viral posts.

Many other cases of cyberbullying have been reported since. The majority of these have particularly been in learning institutions. For instance, a student at Rutgers University in the United States of America called Tyler Clementi committed suicide after his roommate shared a video on Twitter of him kissing a man (Pilkington, 2010). Tyler went on Facebook and posted that he will jump off the Washington Bridge and he made good his threat. Predictably, this was triggered by the negative comments he received after people realised from the video posted on Twitter that he was gay. Several studies have been conducted to highlight different cases of cyberbullying in universities (Martínez-Monteagudo et al., 2020; Faucher et al., 2014; Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). A study conducted by Finn (2004) found that about 15% of students in universities in the United States were cyberbullied. A similar study was replicated in 2012 which found that 43% of college students experienced cyberbullying (Lindsay & Krysik, 2012). That showed an increase of 28% which could be attributed to advancement in technology. In 2014, 24% of Canadian university students reported to have been cyberbullied (Faucher et al., 2014). Johnson, Haralson, Batts, Brown, Collins, Van Buren-Travis and Spencer (2016) asserted that the more advanced the technologies become, the more cases of cyberbullying rose. A study by Pena (2011) in Indiana State University found that 22% of the students had been cyberbullied while 42% knew someone who had been cyberbullied. Similarly, a study by MacDonald and Roberts-Pittman (2010) in Midwestern universities of the United States found that 38% of the students knew someone who had been cyberbullied while 22% had been bullied.

The rising cases of cyberbullying have not only been experienced in North America. Research conducted in South Africa found that 55% of students in Limpopo had experienced or were exposed to cyberbullying (Farhangpour et al., 2019). In Nigeria, more than 50% of university students knew someone who had been bullied online (Nwosu et al., 2018). Adebayo, Ninggal and Ajiboye (2019) also confirmed that cyberbullying was rampant in Nigerian universities. In Kenya, Ndiege, Okello and Wamuyu (2020) as well as Kwanya, Kogos, Kibe, Ogolla and Onsare (2021) acknowledged the high prevalence of cyberbullying in universities. This paper investigates the types of cyberbullying undergraduate students in Kenyan universities experience on Facebook.

Literature Review

This literature review distinguishes cyberbullying from the other forms of bullying; analyses the types of cyberbullying students experience on Facebook; and explores how university students use Facebook.

According to Erdur-Baker (2010), bullying is defined as an aggressive behaviour which is deliberately and repeatedly meted out particularly by the youth. It is generally accepted that physical bullying has extended to online platforms because of the large number of young people in cyberspace. Chudal, Tiiri, Brunstein Klomek, Ong, Fossum, Kaneko and Sourander (2021) asserted that cyberbullying is a harmful behaviour which is intentionally committed by the aggressor to show power and control over the victims. Anyone exposed to an aggressive online behaviour from a more powerful and dominating person can be perceived as a victim of cyberbullying (Young & Govender, 2018). Although the two forms of bullying are different, their consequences are similar. Anyone exposed to this hostile behaviour can experience adverse mental health challenges. If exposed to both at the same time, they may experience severe psychiatric problems (Chudal, et al., 2021; Görzig, 2014). Young and Govender (2018) opined that bullying is a prevalent universal problem that is a public concern mostly in schools and affects children. Wang et al. (2019) supported the view that bullying is a universal and serious problem that greatly affects the social, mental and academic lives of young people all over the world.

As explained earlier, traditional bullying is physical and occurs where the bully and the victim are in a close proximity. However, in recent times, cyberbullying has emerged strongly. Predictably, there is scanty literature on cyberbullying to elucidate its nature compared to the physical bullying (Kwanya et al., 2021). Therefore, scholars rely on the characteristics of traditional bullying to unravel cyberbullying and the factors contributing to it. Wang et al. (2019) also averred that cyberbullying sometimes overlaps with traditional bullying. Nonetheless, Chudal et al. (2021) differentiated traditional bullying from cyberbullying by explaining that the latter occurs through the application of technology. Despite these distinctions, Erdur-Baker (2010) opined that cyberbullying is an extension of traditional bullying since cyberbullying emanates from traditional bullying and the two cannot be differentiated since they are significantly correlated. Kwanya et al. (2021) state three attributes which distinguish physical bullying from cyberbullying: 1) in traditional bullying, the victim knows who the perpetrator is; 2) there is a physical power imbalance between the bully and the victim; and 3) the bullying occurs within the school compound. Conversely cyberbullying thrives on anonymity afforded by the Internet. Similarly, given the diversity of audiences on the Internet, it is not possible to supervise activities on it.

Types of cyberbullying

There are different types of cyberbullying that may be experienced by students in cyberspace. Notar, Padgett and Roden (2013) identified these to include harassment, impersonation, cyberstalking, trolling, outing, sex-texting and flaming. Kwanya et al. (2021) and Jun (2020) add other types of cyberbullying which include the use of offensive remarks on someone’s digital profile or about someone online; defamation; and posting someone’s private information or photos without their consent and sextortion. Earlier, Aune (2009) argued that the forms of cyberbullying that victims can encounter went beyond just name-calling to include flaming, cyberstalking, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, trickery, exclusion and cyber-threats. Walker, Beth and Steven (2011) also identified the forms of cyberbullying that people may experience as threats from bullies, being insulted, having their privacy violated, and having someone share embarrassing content about them, especially photos, and having their password stolen.

Peled (2019) explained that if someone has been flamed, cyberstalked, denigrated, masqueraded, tricked or outed, excluded from social groupings, impersonated, trolled, dissed, cat-fished, blackmailed or sex-texted online, then the person has experienced cyberbullying. Abaido (2020) concurred and asserted that being flamed, harassed, cyberstalked, denigrated or put-down, masqueraded, outed and tricked, excluded, impersonated and sex-texted are the most common types of bullying that a victim is likely to experience online. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that cyberbullying commonly occurs in the form of body shaming, catfishing, cyberstalking, exposure, flaming, impersonation, revenge porn, sextortion, trolling, outing and exclusion, among others. These types or forms of cyberbullying appear to be universal in occurrence, nature and effects. 

Presence on and usage of Facebook by university students

Joan (2015) explained that Facebook was established as a student’s networking site which was originally targeting Harvard University students. Its focus changed the following year when it began to accommodate the general public. Since then, it has grown to be the most popular social networking site among undergraduate students (Jafarkarimi et al., 2016; Milošević et al., 2015). With the advancement and increasing uptake of technology, many undergraduate students find themselves spending countless hours using digital technology like mobile phones which increases their chances of being cyberbullied on social sites (Johnson et al., 2016). Abaido (2020) argued that online technologies appeal to users, especially on popular social media sites like Facebook, due to the various conveniences such sites offer. As such, it is common to find young adults, particularly students, on the Internet engaged on one or more social sites. Online social sites like Facebook are favourites of young adults especially undergraduate students in universities (Kwanya et al., 2021). Yang and Brown (2015) acknowledged that there is a widespread use of social media sites and that Facebook topped the list of the most preferred platforms by undergraduate students.

Abaido (2020) opined that the social interactions among undergraduate students, active communication between the students and their colleagues and university administration, and social engagements like being members of a club in the university, were some of the reasons why students used Facebook. In addition, Yang and Brown (2015) posited that undergraduate students use social media networks, like Facebook, to engage in social relationships especially if they were separated physically from their partners. Kwanya et al. (2021) in their study on cyberbullying among undergraduate students in Kenyan universities found that dating, business, academics, and politics were some of the main uses of Facebook by undergraduate students. On the other hand, Peled (2019) argued that the use of the Internet and social sites like Facebook among undergraduate students was motivated by a variety of gratifications including recreation, communication, online gaming, academic engagement like conducting research, and social communication.

Rationale and Context of Study

Kenya has developed in terms of technological advancements in the past decades (Parsitau, 2020). Currently, Kenya is ranked second in Africa, after South Africa, on innovation and technology (WIPO, 2021). The uptake of the Internet in Kenya currently stands at 51 million users (Mariwa, 2019). This has been due to better infrastructure and cheap smart phones. The increased Internet connectivity has led to a widespread use of social media platforms for communication and other purposes (Parsitau, 2020). According to Writer (2015), a high percentage (90%) of Kenyans use social media platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, daily. This growing use of the Internet and innovation technologies has led to a proliferation of cyberbullying in Kenya. In fact, Kenyans were ranked as the worst bullies on Twitter in 2020 as Kenyans on Twitter (KOT) attacked anyone for anything (Nobless & Pathologist, 2021). The cyberbullying has been meted on different people, be they politicians, clergy, academicians or media personalities (Parsitau, 2020). For example, KOT trolled the country’s former Chief Justice, David Maraga, and former President Uhuru Kenyatta so much that the latter closed his social media accounts.

Ndiege et al. (2020) asserted that Kenyan university students experienced cyberbullying in different ways. They found that 76% of their respondents had experienced cyberbullying in the form of victimisation. In addition, Makori and Agufana (2020) found that institutions of higher learning in Kenya had reported cases of cyberbullying. Their results indicated that victims of cyberbullying tended to either drop out of school or exhibit poor academic performance. Most of the cyberbullying cases inevitably occurred on Facebook because it is one of the most preferred social media platforms (Kwanya et al., 2021). The availability and easy access to information technology devices such as mobile phones and affordability of Internet access by the youth in Kenya has led to a heavy use of social media and hence increased their vulnerability to cyberbullying (Parsitau, 2020). Kwanya et al. (2021) asserted that in spite of Kenya being among the countries with a high number of social media users in Africa, it lagged behind in terms of research on cyberbullying. This is concerning because cases of cyberbullying in Kenyan universities are reported to be on the increase.

There is no study that has discussed the types of cyberbullying that undergraduate students in Kenyan universities experience. This study investigated how cyberbullying manifests itself among these students. The specific objectives of the study were to determine the students’ presence on Facebook, establish how undergraduate students in Kenya use Facebook, identify the types of cyberbullying experienced by undergraduate students in Kenya, and recommend strategies to deal with these types of cyberbullying as a means of making Facebook safer for undergraduate students in Kenya. 

Methodology of the Study

Cyberbullying is a curious social and behavioural ill that society needs to understand and effectively manage. Thus, to adequately achieve this feat, this study applied a mixed methods research approach. Kwanya (2022) and Creswell (2021) define mixed methods research as the approach which collects, analyses and interprets both qualitative and quantitative data to unravel issues under research. Bryman (2006) argued that using mixed methods enables researchers to triangulate both data and methods to generate wholesome results. In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously as the research specifically used the convergent parallel mixed methods research design. This approach was deemed ideal, because as Bian (2018) suggested, the convergent parallel design mixed methods provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem by collecting and merging quantitative and qualitative data. Bian (2018) further suggested that studies applying mixed methods research explored convergence, divergence, contradictions, or relationships between the two sets of data.

The population of study consisted of students and deans of students from 49 chartered universities in Kenya. The total population of undergraduate students was 600 and 10,000, 610,563 while that of the deans of students was 49. The study used stratified and information-oriented sampling techniques to select the actual participants in the study. The universities were first stratified as private and public. From the strata, the researchers purposively selected 16 public and 8 private universities. From the selected universities, the researchers further used information-oriented purposive sampling to select class representatives of all academic programmes offered in the selected universities to serve as the actual respondents in the study. The class representatives were considered as holding the collective views of the students on the types of cyberbullying experienced among them.

Census was used to select all the deans of students from all the selected 24 universities. Thus, the actual sample size consisted of 24 deans of students and 4470 class representatives. The study used questionnaires, interviews and focus group discussions to collect data from the sample population. Data from the students was collected using semi-structured questionnaires and focus group discussions while interviews were used for deans of students. Questionnaires, focus group discussion guides and interview schedules were the tools used to collect the data. Quantitative data was analysed statistically using STATA version 17 while qualitative data was analysed thematically using Atlas.ti version 9. Data visualisation was done through tables and word clouds.

Research data reliability and validity considerations are essential when designing research instruments so as to enhance consistency, dependability and replicability of the study (Golafshani, 2003; Drost, 2011; Kubai, 2019). Validity and reliability ensure that the study is dependable. This study used test-retest piloting as a way of measuring reliability. The data collection tools were administered to respondents with similar characteristics with those of the sample population to test their usability. The pilot test generated data which was used to refine the data collection tools. Validity was achieved through construct, face and criterion validity.

Findings of the Study

The study targeted a total of 4794 respondents. Out of these, 24 were deans of students while 4770 were class representatives. The response rate for the deans of students was 24 (100%) while questionnaires from class representatives were 3020 (63%). All the 24 focus group discussions were conducted in the selected universities giving a response rate of 100%. With reference to Mugenda and Mugenda (2012) who stated that any response rate that is at least 50% is useful, the data collected was considered adequate for analysis.

Presence of undergraduate students on Facebook

Most of the questionnaire respondents 2877 (96.1%) reported that they were on Facebook with only 116 (3.9%) indicating that they were not on Facebook. A slightly higher proportion of female 61 (5.9%) versus 55 (2.8%) male respondents reported that they were not on Facebook. The distribution of the number of friends on Facebook did not vary much between the male and female participants. Table 1 gives the data on the presence of undergraduate students on Facebook.

Table 1. FB Presence of undergraduate students on Facebook

Source: Researchers (2021)

Unfriending of undergraduate students on Facebook

A total of 2142 (74.6%) of the participants had unfriended someone on Facebook with a slightly higher percentage being males (75.6%) compared to females (74.1%). The most common reason for unfriending someone on Facebook was losing touch with the person 2004 (94.2%). Another major reason for unfriending was personal fallout as indicated by 1840 (86.6%) of the respondents. Safety was also a reason reported by most students, with 1092 (78.0%) and 508 (70.2%) of males and females respectively stating that they did not feel safe with the person(s) they unfriended. Table 2 shows the data.

Table 2. Unfriending on Facebook among undergraduate students

Source: Researchers (2021)

The respondents were also asked to indicate if they had been unfriended on Facebook. The responses indicated that 26% of the males reported to have been unfriended on Facebook compared to 17% of the females. The main reasons for being unfriended on Facebook were personal fallout, relationship issues, cleaning friends lists, personal reasons, and personal differences. From the focus group discussions, it emerged that social media platforms like Facebook are arenas for people to create friendships and relationships-based networks. If there is a fall-out between people, it is inevitable that these connections will be severed as well. Table 3 shows the reasons for being unfriended on Facebook.     

Table 3. Reasons for being unfriended on Facebook

Source: Researchers (2021)

The most dominant reasons given for having been unfriended, as depicted in Table 3, was personal fallout as indicated in the 62 occurrences. This was followed by relationships at 22, and cleaning friends list at 16. The other notable reasons were personal reasons (10), personal differences (10), and personal issues (10). The least given reasons were online conflict (2), personal life (2), and relationship break (2).

Facebook groups used by students

It emerged that students belong to many groups online. The main groups were the student association groups (referred to as comrades’ forums for the different universities), political forums, sports forums (Manchester United fans), alumni groups, and varied social groups. Figure 1 represents this data.

Source: Researchers (2021)

Figure 1. Facebook groups that students belong to

Overall, about a third of the respondents reported to have been unable to join Facebook groups. Over half (60.0%) of the participants reported to have ever left a Facebook group, with a higher percentage (63.9%) of males having left a Facebook group compared to 52.0% among females. The most common reason for leaving a Facebook group was fallout, with 97.7% of the participants admitting to having had a fallout with the members. A high proportion of male students (13.5%) reported to have been removed from a Facebook group compared to 7.7% among female students. Table 4 documents this information.

Table 4. Facebook groups dynamics

Source: Researchers (2021)

For some of the reasons, students were removed from Facebook groups included the decision of administrators who removed them from the groups, fallout between members of the groups or administrators or lack of a participation ideology.  Ideological and political differences were also part of the reasons for respondents being removed form groups. Figure 2 visualises these.

Source: Researchers (2021)

Figure 2. Reasons for being removed from groups on Facebook

Uses of Facebook by students

Most students who responded to the survey reported that dating, business, academics, and politics were some of their main uses of Facebook. Dating (93.6%) was the most common use of Facebook among the participants with entertainment (26.3%) being the least common. Dating is a sensitive issue among undergraduate students in universities in Kenya. The advent of mobile technology and social media sites has made dating more of an online affair as opposed to being physical. It also cuts across barriers and distance making it a popular way of socialising among the youngsters. Strangely, a higher percentage of females (80.2%) used Facebook for politics, compared to males (56.2%). Table 5 presents this data.

Table 5. Major use of FB among undergraduate students

Source: Researchers (2021)

Types of cyberbullying among undergraduate students

The majority of the students who experienced cyberbullying were either shamed 1312 (45.6%) or impersonated 1283 (44.6%). Cyberbullying through impersonation was higher among males 888 (46.6%) compared to females 395 (40.7%) while shaming was higher among female students 50.6% compared to males 43.1%. This was closely followed by blackmail 756(39.4%) and exposure 377(37.2%). Vigilantism and warning wars forms of cyberbullying were experienced more among male students (16.6%) as compared to females (7.2%) and 18.9% males and 12.6% respectively. Cyberstalking was higher among female 417(43.0%) respondents as compared to male 635(33.3%) respondents. Table 6 presents this data.

Table 6. Types of cyberbullying among undergraduate students

Source: Researchers (2021)

Participants in the focus group discussions narrated some of the experiences they had with varied forms of cyberbullying. Their responses are reported hereunder as verbatim statements.

Body shaming

“Was body-shamed that am dark coloured.”

“Meme created of me about my complexion.”

“Because I am a university student leader, I have been abused and bullied. I don’t have a beard so they said I’m ladylike. They keep saying I’m a girl and men approach me on Facebook.”

“I was body-shamed that my legs do not look exactly the same.”

“Somebody asked why I need a water bottle when I can comfortably carry water on my collarbone.”

Catfishing

“I was chatting people on Facebook thinking they were girls and a boy showed up for the date.”

Cyberstalking

“People were sending nudes to me on Instagram.”

“Account was hacked, and the person started posting nudes to my account.”

“Someone stalked me online. I have blocked their account about seven times, but they still come back.”

“I put up a picture and somebody began pestering me in the inbox.”

“Posted a picture of my mother and people began saying she’s beautiful and they wanted her.”

“Cyberstalked by a witch doctor.”

Exposure

“Dated someone who later exposed our conversation on Facebook”.

“A guy exposed HIV status and nudes of an ex-boyfriend.”

“I had two girlfriends and they used to come to my house unannounced and someone outed me to one that I had another girlfriend. She threatened to leave me so I hacked her WhatsApp and I would delete her status and put up mine.”

“A friend had her photos shared during student elections through bloggers who demean opponents.”

“Someone shared my phone number without my consent.”

Flaming

“Threats where students even abuse lecturers on WhatsApp and issue threats to them.”

Impersonation

“Somebody hacked my brother’s account and impersonated him.”

“Somebody posed as the area MP’s representative, so I sent them money to activate bursaries.”

 “Someone took over my phone and account and began talking to my girlfriend, but my cop friends caught him.”

“She was a crush and I logged into her account using my phone and every time other men sent her messages; I would block and delete their messages.”

“Someone impersonated me using my name and photograph and committed a crime; the police came looking for me.”

Revenge porn

“A guy exposed HIV status and nudes of an ex-boyfriend.”

“I posted pornography as a form of revenge for a failed relationship.”

“A Mukorino [indigenous religious group known for strict decency and conservative dress codes] girl broke up with her boyfriend and he posted her nudes. It went extremely viral.”

Sextortion

“Somebody posted pornographic content on my account; so, I closed down my account.”

Trolling

“Anytime I post anything my father always will tell me, ‘Umeanza kijana?’ [Young man, you have begun misbehaving]”

“I posted something on Facebook and someone started to troll and abuse me.”

“As a class representative, I was trolled for agreeing to have a make-up class.”

“Bullied during election campaigns; I was trolled for wearing white attire; I have never worn white again.”

“Posted motivational items. Someone trolled me for that.”

“Danced at a religious crusade. Someone took a photo of me and created a meme and posted it on Facebook.”

“I was trolled on Facebook after a football match that the team I support lost.”

“I was vying, and someone said that I was a womaniser. It affected my reputation.”

“I made memes making fun of her because the guy she slept with was beaten for dating a friends’ girlfriend.”

The deans of students were also asked about the types of cyberbullying they observed occurring among their student communities. It emerged that the main type of cyberbullying students experienced was trolling, revenge pornography, impersonation and shaming (slut shaming and body shaming). Figure 3 visualises the findings.

Source: Researchers (2021)

Figure 3: Types of cyberbullying reported to deans of students

Discussion of the Findings

The findings of the study are discussed here under two major themes: presence on and uses of Facebook by students; and types of cyberbullying experienced by students on Facebook.

Presence on and uses of Facebook by students

The findings of the study confirmed that Facebook is a popular platform among undergraduate students. The data showed that 96 percent of the students surveyed were on Facebook. This data mirrors a global study by Johnson (2021) which states that Facebook is the most popular social media network in the world with 2.89 billion accounts. Tayo, Adebola and Yahya (2019) also found that social media platforms used by Nigerian undergraduates include WhatsApp (97%), Facebook (85%), Instagram (65%), YouTube (62%), Twitter (25%), LinkedIn (21%), Google Plus (15%), Snapchat (10%), and Skype (7%). Overall, while the Kenyan students in the current study ranked WhatsApp as their second most subscribed social media, their Nigerian counterparts ranked it first. A survey by Halaweh, Elbahi, Kamel, Kabha and Yousef (2020) involving 2100 undergraduate and postgraduate students drawn from 21 Egyptian universities found that most Egyptian university students are on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus, Instagram and LinkedIn. They further found that Facebook is the most popular social media network among Egyptian university students. This corresponds with the findings of the current study. Conversely, Auxier and Anderson (2022) suggests that a majority (71%) of 18-to-29-year-olds in America use Instagram or Snapchat (65%), while 55% use TikTok. Maybe American 18–to-19-year-olds prefer Instagram because as Cipolletta, Malighetti, Cenedese and Spoto (2020) argued, unlike Facebook that is geared towards building relationships, Instagram is built for self-promotion as its interface and allows its followers to like an image after which the number of ‘likes’ can be counted as popularity. Further, self-promotion, as Molinsky (2013) suggested, is a typical American culture because Americans are comfortable selling themselves and their accomplishments. Johnson (2021) avers that the most-used social media site among teenagers and young adults in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020 was YouTube. Maybe, as Molinsky (2013) suggested, unlike Americans that overtly self-promote, the British find self-promotion so taboo that it is often met with ridicule. Perhaps in their self-effacing nature, they prefer to watch on-goings than participate in them.

The finding on the popularity of Facebook is also echoed by Emara (2017) who opined that Facebook is today the most popular social networking site because it allows people to communicate ideas and express their opinions on different issues and, as such, the use of Facebook continues to grow and, thus, people’s interactions have significantly changed with the advent of social media sites. The findings of this study are also in agreement with a study by Owino, Cherotich, Karuri, Gitonga, Kimuya and Kaumbulu (2016) who indicated that Facebook is the most popular social media platform in use in Kenya (Ndavula & Mberia, 2012; Owiny et al., 2014; Kimemia & Mugambi, 2016; Kamau, 2017). Owino et al. (2016), however, indicated that Facebook usage is followed by Twitter. This contradicts the data found by the researchers which indicates that WhatsApp use is second to Facebook and not Twitter. The reason for current high use of WhatsApp, thereby putting it in second place as opposed to Twitter as cited by Owino et al. (2016) could be due to the unpopularity of WhatsApp in 2017 when their study was being conducted owing to it being a new entrant. However, WhatsApp is fast becoming a more reliable and ‘official’ communication channel within the workplaces including universities. Walton (2019) is in agreement with the respondents indicating that the three social media sites namely Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have different demographic appeal among users and that Facebook has a broad appeal for all age groups whereas users of Instagram are younger and Twitter is favoured by affluent college graduates. Although Facebook is not the only social media site, it is by far the most popular among students (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Junco, 2012).

From the findings, the most dominant use of Facebook was dating, social networking, and news. Dating was notably a common use of Facebook among both genders. Facebook was initially established to offer social relations and interactions among university students. Frequent use of Facebook plays a critical role in enhancing daily interactions between people globally which can result in establishment and development of strong of relationship (Dumrongsiri, 2017). This study also indicates that a higher percentage of females used Facebook for politics, compared to males. This study contradicts the findings of a study by Biernatowska, Balcerowska and Bereznowski (2017) which noted that females more frequently than males are addicted to Facebook where they spend more time posting public messages, photographs, chat, follow agendas, and for education purposes. In contrast, the current study reveals that men are more likely to use social media and the Internet for dating purposes, making new friends, playing games, discussing and learning about events.

Types of cyberbullying

The most commonly experienced types of cyberbullying were shaming, impersonation, blackmail, exposure, outing, cyberstalking, trolling, catfishing, revenge porn, exclusion, warning wars and vigilantism.

Shaming

The findings of the study showed that shaming was the most prevalent type of cyberbullying experienced on Facebook by the students with nearly half the respondents, 45.6% (1,312), having experienced it. Interviews with the deans of students also indicated that shaming was one of the prominent cases of cyberbullying reported to their offices. This was reflected in the group discussions where a female participant shared experiences of being shamed because of her complexion. Another was shamed for a physical disability that made her legs to be of unequal length. These findings are consistent with other research on cyberbullying which found that women or girls are shamed online for their looks or sexuality. This is referred to as body shaming and slut-shaming respectively (Webb, 2015). Saxena, Mathur and Jain (2020) found that men are shamed for not appearing masculine enough. This is linked to what is termed as the Adonis Complex that emphasises an unattainable muscular and fit physique as the ideal body type for men (Pope et al., 2000). Overall, although men face their share of shaming, women or girls, face the brunt of body shaming with most women being shamed for being fat or overweight, fashion sense or perceived lack thereof or having a dark complexion (Stacey, 2017; Schlüter et al., 2021).

Impersonation

The findings from this study showed that 44.6% of the students had experienced impersonation on Facebook. From the focus group discussions, it emerged that most cases of impersonation occurred when cyberbullies gained access or hacked into their victims’ social media accounts. Some participants in focus group discussions also admitted to impersonating others online by gaining access to their Facebook accounts because the victims forgot to log out of their accounts on shared devices and so they were able to access their information and post on their profiles. Another form of impersonation occurs when the bully uses the victims’ images or names, sets up fake accounts and masquerades as the victim (Luik & Naruskov, 2018). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) classify impersonation as a fairly serious form of cyberbullying because once a bully impersonates a victim, they can ruin the victim’s relationship with others, thereby damaging their reputation or getting them in trouble with the law (Hollá, 2014). Taking into consideration that a sizable number of students use Facebook for business purposes, being impersonated can ruin not just their social lives but their business reputations as well. 

Blackmail

Also referred to as extortion, blackmail is where a cyberbully threatens to release potentially embarrassing information about the victim unless a demand is met (Kanwal & Jami, 2019). The findings showed that 39.4% of the respondents experienced blackmail on Facebook. A variation of blackmail as a form of cyberbullying is sextortion. This is where a bully threatens to expose or share sexual images or videos of the victim unless certain demands are met. These demands may include demands for money, more explicit images or other favours (Patchin & Hinduja, 2020). From the study, sextortion was indicated as a form of cyberbullying by respondents in the focus group discussions. The seemingly low occurrence of sextortion can be attributed to the fact that most victims of sextortion do not report the crime because of shame and guilt. Often, they will report it when they are no longer able to pay the extortionist or if the extortionist goes ahead and releases the explicit materials regardless of payment by the victim. Wolak and Finkelhor (2016) stated that only 20% of the victim’s reported sextortion and they did this only after the images had been posted online

Exposure and outing

Exposure as a form of cyberbullying occurs when a bully exposes information about a victim without their consent or knowledge. This may take the form of sharing the address or contacts of the victim on a public platform or other sensitive information such as their health information. Outing is similar to exposure and only differs in that the information being shared is about the sexual orientation of the victim. It is usually targeted at persons identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or having queer (LGBTQ) sexual orientation. The findings of this study showed that 37.2% of the respondents experienced exposure of their information online while only 15.9% have experienced outing. There is a dearth of data to support this finding from other research as the majority of studies on cyberbullying did not include exposure as a form of cyberbullying but rather discussed the exposure of victims and bystanders to cyberbullying online (Kashy-Rosenbaum & Aizenkot, 2020).

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking refers to the use of technology to repeatedly harass or pester an individual with content that is often inappropriate or disturbing and leaves the victim feeling distressed and anxious (Hinduja & Hopper, 2019). It is characterised by persistent communication even after the victim has explicitly refused or rejected past communication from the bully. The findings from the respondents showed that 36.6% of the students had experienced cyberstalking. Experiences of cyberstalking were also narrated during the FGDs with participants narrating experiences where they received persistent unsolicited communication despite having blocked the offenders. Alkawaz, Rajandran and Abdullah (2020) conducted a study on Facebook use and e-stalking and found out that 83% of their respondents posted identifying information on their Facebook accounts which included their real names; 75% shared their dates of birth; 69% uploaded their real profile pictures; and 67% shared the names of the universities they were currently enrolled in. Additionally, 64% had used the Facebook location tagging feature and 20% of their respondents hand their privacy settings set to public. The vast amount of personal information uploaded by users on the Facebook makes the vulnerable to being stalked both online and offline. 

Trolling and flaming

Tolling occurs when an individual makes deliberate attempts to provoke reactions from others, often by sharing inflammatory comments. Flaming, on the other hand, is similar to trolling and only differs in that it involves posting insults, profanity and abuse as responses in online discussions (Golf-Papez & Veer, 2017). The quantitative data of this study showed that 31.8% of the respondents have experienced trolling on Facebook. Only 15.8% of the respondents had experienced flaming. Lewis (2021) opined that Facebook algorithms deliver the highest returns when content excites extreme emotions such as anger which often leads to more engagement on a page. The algorithms, therefore, reward rather than punish trolling on the platform. Students are exposed to trolling and flaming in the groups that they join. A majority of students’ groups discuss politics, sports, and campus life. These are topics that can be highly emotive and discussions on the same are likely to degenerate into insults and name calling. Group discussions also provide opportune platforms for trolls to cause dissention by starting controversial topics. It is therefore not surprising that 97% of the students who left a Facebook group did so because they had a fallout with members on the group and 52.4% of them stated that they were uncomfortable with the discussions being held in the groups.

Catfishing

This occurs when an individual misrepresents themselves in their online dating profiles. The catfishes create fake accounts on Facebook and use them to approach their victims. Pseudo accounts enable individuals to lie about their gender, age and appearance. This latter comes to light when the victim meets them in real life (Lauckner et al., 2019). The findings of this study showed that only 23.4% of the respondents had been subjected to catfishing on Facebook. The study also found that most (93%) respondents used social media for dating. This finding lends credibility to the occurrence of catfishing because it happens in the context of online romantic relationships. An earlier study by Toma and Hancock (2010) on the prevalence of catfishing found that 80% of the respondents who used online dating sites put content on their profiles that was contrary to their observable characteristics. Catfishing and sextortion are linked with extortionists creating fake personas and fake accounts which they use to entice victims once the victims take the bait they are persuade or pressured into sharing intimate information with the catfish and latter blackmailed. 

Revenge porn

This involves the sharing of explicit images of former lovers online without their consent or knowledge as a way of getting back at them for a failed relationship (Tungate, 2014). The quantitative findings of the study showed that 20.6% of the respondents in the study had experienced revenge pornography on Facebook. Interview with deans of students also revealed that cases of revenge pornography were among the cyberbullying cases reported to their offices. This could be attributed to the grave consequences of revenge pornography on a victim’s reputation and their mental health. Therefore, they are driven to report its occurrence to the authorities. Additionally, unlike sextortion where the demands are made prior to sharing images online, with revenge pornography the aim is to hurt the ex-partner and not to extort them (Bates, 2017). Branch, Hilinski-Rosick, Johnson and Solano (2017) conducted a study among college students in the United States and found that 10% of their respondents had experienced revenge pornography. Revenge pornography is also linked to sexting which is the sending of sexual messages as well as nude photos or videos to intimate partners. In cases of revenge pornography, the bully shares these sexts online to shame or denigrate their former partner. Englander and McCoy (2017) in a study of sex-texting and revenge pornography among 1,320 adolescents in Massachusetts, noted that 27% of the teens admitted to sexting. 

Exclusion

Exclusion as a form of cyberbullying occurs when individuals are ignored in online forums or groups. The findings of this study showed that 19.4% of the respondents experienced exclusion on Facebook. Related findings showed that 31.9% of the respondents were unable to join a Facebook group while 11.6% had been removed from a Facebook group. The main reason for being removed from Facebook groups was a fallout with the administrators of the group or for holding differing ideologies. Facebook group administrators have the powers to admit users into a group or block them from the group. They are also able to moderate content and delete comments made on the group page. Some administrators abuse these powers and are dictatorial in the group, banning or excluding those who do not agree with them (Raquel, 2018). Prior to this study, there had been little literature on exclusion as a form of cyberbullying. No distinction had been made between exclusion and the other forms of cyberbullying in the existing literature (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Hollá, 2014).

Warning wars

Warning wars are a tactic used by online bullies who abuse the in-built security features of a social network platform to make false reports on a victim resulting in their account being closed or deactivated (Mueller, 2012). The findings of the study showed that 16.8% of the respondents have experienced warning wars on Facebook.  Warning wars are a particularly serious form of cyberbullying because they turn the social media platform service providers into unwitting accomplices to the cyberbullying (Gordon, 2021). To prevent this, Facebook moderators must go through each report on a flagged account before deciding to act on the content flagged. This may take time and action may be taken on the account between 24 hours or three days (Dwebb, 2021).

Vigilantism

Vigilantism is a form of cyberbullying where individuals perceived to have committed a social faux pas or crime are publicly harassed or derided and condemned. The study showed that 13.4% of the respondents in the study had experienced vigilantism online. There is a dearth of literature on vigilantism as a form of cyberbullying. However, Dunsby and Howes (2019) conducted a study which showed that 26% of their respondents had liked or shared posts that name and shame individuals. Another study by Chia (2019) indicated that the media plays a role in encouraging online vigilantism in the way they frame news stories about individuals’ wrongdoing. 

Conclusion

Thousands of undergraduate students in Kenyan universities are active on social media platforms. Their presence in cyberspace is bound to increase because of technological advancements, improved information and communication technology infrastructure, and ubiquity of e-learning as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. They interact socially and academically online. They date, trade, learn, network and politic online. The more present the students are in cyberspace, the more vulnerable they have become to cyberbullying which is essentially an extension of physical bullying they used to experience offline. The findings of this study demonstrate that cyberbullying is prevalent on social media platforms. Many of the students have experienced shaming, impersonation, blackmail, exposure, outing, cyberstalking, trolling, catfishing, revenge porn, exclusion, warning wars and vigilantism. Most of the cyberbullying incidents occur on Facebook because it is one of the popular social media popular with undergraduate students in universities. Given the growing significance of social media platforms in the academic and social lives of undergraduate students in Kenya, the platforms need to be made safer from any forms of harassment, including cyberbullying.

Recommendations

The following can be used to reduce the occurrence and consequences of various types of cyberbullying on Facebook among undergraduate students in Kenyan universities:

1.  University administrators, particularly deans of students, should create awareness about the different types of cyberbullying among their students. It is possible that actual and potential victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying may be unaware that what they are experiencing or meting is cyberbullying. This is most relevant especially when the less common forms of cyberbullying such as warning wars or vigilantism are experienced. It is also possible that some students are engaging in cyberbullying activities out of ignorance. Therefore, such an awareness would enable them to understand that their actions are harmful and criminal. This may help to lower incidents of cyberbullying. 
2. A majority of cyberbullying is relational in nature. It is, therefore, important that students choose their friends wisely. Additionally, they should not share their private information with people they do not fully trust as this can be used to hurt them latter. Similarly, they should not be quick to share intimate images, texts or any other private information with others as it is likely that this material may later be used to blackmail them or as revenge porn by either the same people or their accomplices.
3. Shaming is a major form of cyberbullying experienced by students. It is important that students be helped to develop high self-esteem and confidence so that they are not shaken by bullies who may criticise their looks or actions. In learning to accept themselves as they are, they will be able to easily deflect cyberbullying commentary and stand up for their friends and others who may be facing the same challenges. Deans of students, university counsellors, religious leaders, parents as well as students’ groups should initiate confidence building programmes to strengthen the students. These may include motivational talks and workshops, among other events.
4. Dating on social media is fraught with many challenges with catfishing being a main shortcoming of virtual relationships. Students should be advised to be vigilant with online relationships. For instance, they should make every effort to verify the identities and intentions of the individuals they are communicating with as early in the relationship as possible. This can be done through checking their social media history for consistency and also making arrangements to meet them in person early in the relationship.
5. Students should also be advised to be careful with their online security and ensure that they use strong passwords. This is because impersonation is a major form of cyberbullying. To reduce chances of this happening to them, good online security will limit the chance of their accounts being hacked and then being impersonated. Internet and other forms of digital literacy should be included in the various courses the students learn in the academic programmes.
6. Universities should develop elaborate but friendly support services for students who may from time to time fall victim to any types of cyberbullying. These services should be offered by both professional staff such as counsellors as well as volunteers such as peer educators. The services should be designed and delivered in ways which make it easy to identify, receive and attend to actual and potential victims of cyberbullying.

Ethical considerations

The authors have completely considered ethical issues, including informed consent, plagiarism, data fabrication, misconduct, and/or falsification, double publication and/or redundancy, submission, etc.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgement

This paper is a product of the “Pixels hurt more than sticks and stones: Confronting cyberbullying on Facebook” research project conducted by the Technical University of Kenya. This project was funded by an unrestricted gift from Facebook.