Post on 04-Nov-2015
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
The Relationships Among and Between Psychosocial Variables and Cyber bullying in School-
Age Children
By
Krista Bergman
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
CALGARY, ALBERTA
NOVEMBER, 2012
Krista Bergman 2012
ii
ABSTRACT
The present study examined the relationship between cyber bullying and psychosocial
variables, including parenting styles, and coping strategies. A sample of Canadian students from
junior high schools in the Calgary area (N = 125) ages 11 to 15 years (boys= 42, girls = 82,
unknown sex = 1) completed online self-report questionnaires on cyber bullying, parenting
styles, and coping strategies. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics, t-tests, and analyses of
variances of the variables related to parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber victims were
calculated. Results from the quantitative analyses revealed that cyber victims reported
significantly lower levels of parental autonomy than their non-cyber victim peers, but did not
significantly differ on levels of parental warmth. In terms of coping strategies, cyber victims
reported significantly higher levels of avoidance coping strategies than their non-cyber victim
peers. In addition, females reported significantly higher levels of parental warmth and avoidance
coping strategies than males. Significant, positive correlations between age and parental
autonomy were found for both the cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups, but no significant
relationships were found between grade and each of the six dependent variables (Warm
Involvement, Psychological Autonomy, Active Coping, Distraction Coping, Avoidance Coping,
and Support Coping).
This study contributes to the understanding of cyber bullying by highlighting the
importance of parenting style and the ways children cope with cyber bullying. Empirical and
applied implications from this research are suggested and discussed.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to several individuals who supported me
in the completion of this thesis. First, I would like to my supervisor, Dr. Jac Andrews, who has
guided me down this fulfilling path and provided me with many opportunities to learn and grow.
Second, I would like to thank Dr. Tak Fung, who was more than generous with his time
and expertise as a statistical consultant. My sincerest thanks to my committee members, Dr.
David Nordstokke and Mike Boyes whose knowledge, advice, and kind words during stressful
times got me through many obstacles.
Third, I wish to thank the administrators, teachers, and students who gave their time to
participate in this study. Without their cooperation and involvement, this research could not have
taken place.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for the love and support I have
received over the past two years. In particular, I would like to thank my parents who were always
there to provide support. Without all of your encouragement and understanding, I could not have
completed this journey.
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to the many influential educators in my life that helped me to achieve my
goals, especially my mom. Thanks for always being there to give me advice!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 The Nature of the Relationship Between Cyber victims and Parenting Styles ............................... 2
The Nature of the Relationship Between Cyber victims and Coping Styles .................................. 3 Purpose of the Current Research ..................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 6 Definition of Cyber bullying ........................................................................................................... 6
Types of Cyber bullying ................................................................................................................. 8 Direct and Indirect Cyber bullying ......................................................................................... 8 Direct Cyber bullying Behaviours .......................................................................................... 8 Indirect Cyber bullying Behaviours ...................................................................................... 10
Traditional Bullying ...................................................................................................................... 11 Forms of Traditional Bullying ...................................................................................................... 12
Direct bullying ...................................................................................................................... 12 Indirect bullying .................................................................................................................... 13
Similarities between Traditional and Cyber bullying ................................................................... 13 Differences between Traditional and Cyber bullying ................................................................... 14
Overview of Cyber bullying Victimization .................................................................................. 16 Characteristics of Cyber victims ........................................................................................... 16
Cyber bullying Victimization and Demographic Factors ............................................................. 17 Prevalence of Cyber bullying and Victimization .................................................................. 17 The Role of Age in Cyber bullying Victimization ................................................................ 21 The Role of Gender in Cyber bullying Victimization .......................................................... 23 Outcomes Associated with Cyber bullying Victimization .................................................... 25
Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying ............................................................................................. 27 Baumrinds Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 27 Maccoby and Martins Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 29
vi
Overview of Parenting Styles and Traditional Bullying ....................................................... 32 Empirical Review of Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying Victimization ........................... 32 Measurement of Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying Victims ............................................ 35
Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying .......................................................................................... 38 Theoretical Models ............................................................................................................... 39 Overview of traditional Bullying and Coping Strategies ...................................................... 40 Empirical Review of Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying Victimization ......................... 41 Measurement of Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying Victims ......................................... 48
Overview of Cyber-victimization, Parenting Styles, and Coping Strategies ................................ 48 Delineation of the Research Problem ........................................................................................... 51
Present Study ................................................................................................................................ 51 Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS .................................................................................................. 56 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 56
Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................................... 56 Measures and Procedures .............................................................................................................. 57
Cyber-victimization .............................................................................................................. 57 Parenting Styles .................................................................................................................... 59 Coping Strategies .................................................................................................................. 61
Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 63
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 64 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 67 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 67
Overview of Findings ................................................................................................................... 67 Preliminary Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 68
Demographic Description of the Sample .............................................................................. 68 Description of Variables ....................................................................................................... 69 Analysis of Variance ............................................................................................................. 70
Results for Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 71
Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................... 76 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 77
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 77 Overview of Findings ................................................................................................................... 77
Discussion Relative to the Primary Questions ............................................................................... 77 Theoretical Implications of the Study ........................................................................................... 83
vii
Practical Implications of the Study ............................................................................................... 88 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................ 92
Variables ............................................................................................................................... 92 Sample ................................................................................................................................... 93 Instruments ............................................................................................................................ 94 Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 96 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 96
Future Research ............................................................................................................................ 96
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 100 References ................................................................................................................................... 102
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Demographic Characteristics for the Sample of 12- to 15- Year Old Children TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics of Variables TABLE 3: Means, Standard Deviations for Variables and Grade 7, 8, 9 Students
ix
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Administrator Information Letter APPENDIX B: Parental Consent Form APPENDIX C: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX D: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX E: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX F: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX G: Child Assent Form
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Bullying among school-aged children is a phenomenon that has been examined since the
early 1970s (Olweus, 1993). However, with an increase in technological access and knowledge
among children and teenagers, a recent form of traditional bullying has emerged in which
individuals use electronic communication to deliberately harass and insult others (Kowalski et
al., 2007). Cyber bullying is considered to be an international problem as research findings from
around the world have reported on the nature and severity of cyber bullying experiences among
youth (Mura, Topcy, Erdur-Baker, & Diamantini, 2011). For example, research in Canada (Li,
2006), the United States, Australia, England (Smith, Mandavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006), Belgium
(Vandebosch,Van Cleemput, Mortelmans, & Walrave, 2006), Turkey (Erdur-Baker, 2010), Sweden (Slonje
& Smith, 2008), and Italy (Saputo & Pisano, 2008) clearly suggests that cyber bullying is an
alarming issue across various age groups regardless of cultural background (Mura, Topcy, Erdur-
Baker, & Diamantini, 2011). Given that this phenomenon is in its relative infancy and
technological advancements are changing rapidly, it is difficult to determine trends in prevalence
rates of cyber-victimization. To date, published research studies have noted several
methodological problems such as non-standardized definitions of the term cyber bullying and
cyber-victimization, the variability of measurement tools used, (the time frame of the measured
cyber bullying acts, and the specificity of the asked items (Tokunaga, 2010; Mura, Topcy, Erdur-
Baker, & Diamantini, 2011).
Previous research has addressed cyber bullying with respect to prevalence, frequency,
and negative outcomes (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Beran & Li, 2007; Ybarra, 2004; Tokunaga,
2010). In this regard, students who experience the negative outcomes of cyber bullying have
many similarities with traditional bullying victims (Tokunaga, 2010). For instance, children who
2
are victims of traditional bullying and cyber bullying report lower achievement scores (Holt,
Finkelhor, & Kantor, 2007). Victims are more likely to internalize their problems and show their
unhappiness, and less likely to participate in pro-social activities and behaviours (Tokunaga,
2010). Researchers have found that online victimization can result in a chronically victimized
individual to be emotionally distressed (Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2006).
Furthermore, cyber victims have reported elevated daily levels of anxiety (Nishina, Juvonen, &
Witkow, 2005; Ybarra et al., 2006), feelings of frustration and anger (Patchin and Hinduja,
2006), hurt and sadness (Beran & Li, 2007), and clinical symptoms of depression (Ybarra, 2004;
Ybarra et al., 2006). In addition, online victimization is also associated with feelings of
hopelessness, withdrawal, and low-self-esteem (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Strom & Strom,
2005).
To date, there has been an extensive focus in the cyber bullying literature on the feelings
of victims who have experienced negative cyber bullying outcomes; however, there is a paucity
of data regarding the enduring effects of cyber-victimization, making it difficult to judge the
long-term consequences of this problem (Hierman & Walrave, 2008). Considering the rapid
increase and serious consequences of cyber-victimization, it is also important to examine
interrelated factors. For example, if cyber-victimization is related to a variety of negative
consequences, it would seem important for researchers to investigate possible protective factors
(e.g., individual coping strategies) and social factors (parenting styles) associated with cyber
bullying in order to reduce the risk of becoming cyber victims (Baldry & Farrington, 2005).
1.1 The Nature of the Relationship between Cyber-victimization and Parenting Styles
The family may be one of the most important and influential variables in a childs
environment. The relationship between parents and children has been researched extensively in
3
relation to traditional bullying victimization (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998; Marchant, Paulson,
& Rothlisberg, 2001; Hines & Paulson, 2006; Baldry & Farrington, 1998; 2000; 2005). For
example, parenting quality (e.g., responsiveness and demandingness), family cohesion, family
structure, and parental monitoring have been shown to predict childrens bully status. Several
studies have found that bullies and victims had parents who lacked responsiveness toward their
children (Rigby, 1993; Baldry and Farrington, 1998; Smith and Binney, 1994). However, few
empirical studies have examined parenting styles in relation to cyber-victimization (Hay &
Meldrum, 2010; Vllink, Dehue, F. & Bolman, 2008; Dehue, Bolman, Vllink and Pouwelse,
2009). Hay and Meldrum (2010), found that exposure to authoritative parenting and high self-
control reduced the harmful effects of bullying victimization on self-harm and suicidal ideation.
Similarly, Dehue, Bolman, Vllink and Pouwelse (2009) investigated the influence of parenting
style on cyber bullying, noting that children who perceived their parents parenting style as
authoritative were cyberbullied less than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style. These
results are based on Dutch children and so the findings cannot be generalized to a Canadian
sample. Hence, further investigation of the relationship between parenting style and cyber
bullying victimization is warranted, particularly within Canada.
1.2 The Nature of the Relationship between Cyber-victimization and Coping Strategies
Coping strategies seem to play a vital role in the reduction of cyber-victimization
(Tokunaga, 2010; Price & Dalgleish, 2010). While research suggests that cyber victims use
various coping strategies to prevent future incidents or to reduce the effects of cyber bullying, the
frequency of particular coping strategies used by cyber victims are inconsistent across studies.
(Aricak et al., 2008; Riebel et al., 2008; Price & Dalgleish, 2010). A study conducted by Patchin
& Hinduja, (2006) investigated cyber victims use of coping strategies. They discovered that
4
when exposed to cyber-victimization, 25% of victims surveyed reported using passive strategies
by ignoring cyber bullying incidents (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In contrast, other studies
indicate that passive strategies are used more infrequently. Dehue et al. (2008) found that only
6.9% of cyber victims reported using passive coping strategies by ignoring the bully and
avoiding thinking about the problem. Therefore, the way in which children cope with the effects
of cyber bullying should be further investigated in order to better understand the specific nature
of the relationship between cyber bullying and coping strategies.
1.3 Purpose of the Current Research
The current study was designed to contribute to the empirical literature by examining the
relationships between and among cyber bullying, parenting styles, and coping strategies in
Canadian children and adolescents. As such, the primary objective of this study is to determine if
there are individual associations between cyber victims and parenting styles, and coping
strategies.
Research of this nature will potentially provide a more comprehensive explanation of the
possible protective factors such as coping strategies and parenting styles that may moderate the
negative outcomes for cyber-bully victims. The results are also expected to aid in the
identification of children who are most at-risk to becoming a victim of cyber bullying, and in our
understanding of factors associated with being a cyber victim. Additionally, a more thorough
understanding of factors associated with being a cyber victim might significantly impact
prevention and intervention efforts. Finally, the knowledge gained through research on the
interrelationship between cyber victims, parenting styles, and coping strategies may help mental
health professionals and parents to identify signs of being a cyber victim and will encourage
them to create a safe atmosphere in which cyber bullying victims can openly talk about cyber
5
bullying experiences. Therefore, an examination of the possible relationship between cyber
bullying victims, parenting styles, and coping strategies may help to reduce further incidents of
victimization.
1.4 Overview of the Thesis
Chapter two presents a review of the relevant background literature, including a detailed
discussion of cyber bullying, parenting styles and coping strategies. It concludes with an
overview of the current study and outlines the research questions and hypotheses. The methods
for this study are subsequently presented in chapter three. Chapter four provides the results of the
study in two sections: preliminary analyses and primary analyses. The fifth and final chapter
provides a discussion of the results and the research and theoretical and practical implications of
this research, as well as directions for future research.
6
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a background to the current study that presents
the current empirical/theoretical understandings of the relationship among and between parenting
styles, coping strategies and victims of cyber bullying. First, cyber bullying will be defined and
issues with respect to the definitions will be addressed. Second, traditional bullying will be
defined and the similarities and differences between cyber bullying and traditional bullying will
be discussed. Third, an overview of cyber-victimization will be reviewed, outlining the
characteristics of cyber victims. Fourth, research findings and understandings relative to
associated demographic factors such as prevalence, age, and gender with cyber bullying will be
examined. Fifth, the empirical and theoretical literature linking parenting styles with cyber
bullying victimization will be discussed. Sixth, empirical and theoretical literature that links
coping strategies with cyber bullying victimization will be examined. Finally, the research
questions and hypotheses of the current study will be presented.
2.1 The Definition of Cyber bullying
Researchers and scholars/practitioners have presented several cyber bullying definitions
in the literature, many of which have been adopted from traditional bullying definitions
(Tokunaga, 2010). The definition of cyber bullying has varied across studies, and is still debated
by researchers in the field (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011). Although a consensus has not been
reached, there is some agreement in the definition of cyber bullying. Across the definitions the
most important identifiers of cyber bullying include: an intentional, repeated, aggressive, hostile,
or harmful act that is carried out by the bully through any type of electronic device. Differences
across definitions have been with respect to the nature of the individuals involved (Besley,
7
2009, Smith et al., 2008), and aspects of the nature and scope of cyber bullying (i.e.,
intentionality and repetition of the act over time) (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008).
The term cyber bullying was coined by Canadian educator Bill Belsey and is defined (by
him) as the targeting of a child or adolescent by another youth using technology (e.g.,, e-mail,
cell phone and pager text messaging, instant messaging, defamatory web sites and polling sites)
for the purpose of intentionally humiliating, tormenting, threatening or harassing the individual.
Strom and Strom (2005) stated that cyber harassment involves using an electronic medium to
threaten or harm others. E- mail, chat rooms, cell phones, instant messaging, pagers, text
messaging, and online voting booths are tools used to inflict humiliation, fear, and a sense of
helplessness (p.21). Similarly, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) define cyber bullying as a means
of bullying in which peers use electronics to taunt, threaten, harass, and/or intimidate a peer
(p.565). A definition of cyber bullying has been provided by Beran and Li (2007), who provided
more context for the act of cyber bullying by referring to cyber bullying as an act of harassment
when a student, or several students, says mean and hurtful things or makes fun of another
student or calls him or her mean and hurtful names, completely ignores or excludes him or her
from their group of friends or leaves him or her out of things on purpose, tells lies or spreads
false rumors about him or her, sends mean notes and tries to make other students dislike him or
her, and other hurtful things like that. When we talk about harassment, these things happen
repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being harassed to defend him or herself. We also call
it harassment, when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we do not call
it harassment when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not harassment
when two students of about equal strength or power argue or fight (p.21). Importantly,
Kiriakidis & Kavoura (2010) notes that , cyber bullying is the exposure, repeatedly and over
8
time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other individuals (p.1173) and as
respectively suggested by Smith et al., (2008) and Hinduja and Patchin (2008), it is considered a
negative or hurtful repetitive behaviour, by the means of electronic communication tools, which
involve an imbalance of power with the less-powerful person or group being unfairly
attacked(p.1), and as intentional and repeated harm of others through the use of computers,
cell phones, and other electronic devices (p. 5).
In sum, the act of cyber bullying is viewed as a hostile and intentional, but not all
always including the repetition of the behavior. Moreover, it is assumed by some to be an act
where the behaviour is directed to one individual from another, while others view it as an act
that can be directed to an individual from another individual or a group (Kiriakidis & Kavoura,
2010, p.83).
2.2 Types of Cyber bullying
2.2.1Direct and indirect cyber bullying
Peer victimization (i.e., the targeting of bullying) can be categorized as either direct or
indirect. Direct forms of aggression (bullying) are defined as overt confrontational attacks, and
indirect forms of victimization (targets of bullying) are defined as covertly manipulative attacks
(Mynard & Joesph, 2000). However, these qualities and characteristics do not directly relate to
cyber victimization due to the anonymous nature of cyber bullying. Although cyber bullying
could be arguably similar to the traditional form of indirect bullying by way of manipulative
attacks, cyber bullying involves repeated psychological torment through electronic rather than
behavioral or relational means (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Ybarra, 2004). For example, cyber
bullying can be seen as more intrusive and pervasive than traditional bullying. In this regard,
victims can be reached through electronic means at any given time of the day, and therefore the
9
frequency and intensity of the bullying behaviors may result in stronger negative outcomes
(Tokunaga, 2010). Cyber-bullies in comparison to traditional bullies lack some boundaries and
are able to extend their aggression beyond the school grounds.
2.2.2 Direct cyber bullying behaviours
Direct bullying may include harassment, exclusion, and denigration (Willard, 2006).
Physical, verbal, non-verbal, and social forms of cyber bullying are classified as direct bullying
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Although there are no physical forms of cyber bullying,
such as hitting someone, there are types of Internet and mobile phone behaviours that are
classified as acts of property violation. For example, physical cyber bullying may be
characterized as deliberately sending a virus-infected file to another person (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2008). Direct bullying may also involve verbal bullying, where an individual uses the
Internet or mobile phone to insult or threaten the victim; or non-verbal bullying, where an
individual sends threatening or obscene pictures or illustrations. Furthermore, direct cyber
bullying can include social exclusion, where the victim is rejected from their peer group and left
out of technological communications (Willard, 2006).
The behaviours most commonly associated with direct cyber bullying take on multiple
forms of harassment, denigration, exclusion and ostracism, and cyber-stalking.
Harassment in the cyber world can take the form of repeatedly sending emails containing
derogatory words that are intended to emotionally upset the victim (Hines, 2011). This form of
harassment has a clearly identifiable victim and perpetrator (Kowalski et al., 2008).
Denigration is posting hurtful lies about another person online (Kowalski, 2009). This
can occur through posting untrue stories about an individual, or forwarding modified pictures of
another person on a social networking site, personal web pages, and on blogs (Hines, 2011).
10
Often, the victim is not able to delete this information, because he/she does not have access to
the site where it was initially posted.
Cyber stalking is defined as information about another that is derogatory and untrue
(Kowalski et al., 2008, p. 48). This is a more extreme form of harassment that is centered more
on threats than insults.
Exclusion and ostracism can be carried out through the use of a computer by blocking or
removing an individual from a chat room, Internet group, or social media website (Kowalski,
2009). Online exclusion is often perceived rather than real (Kowalski et al., 2008). Individuals
may think a slightly delayed response is a social exclusion due to the nature of electronic media
as a form of instant communication. This type of direct bullying has been found to be very
impactful; individuals who were exposed to exclusion and ostracism for a short period of time
have reported decreases in mood, self-concept, and lower levels of belonging (Williams, 2001).
Happy slapping is the most recent trend in aggressive behavior connected to cyber
bullying and occurs when the aggressor randomly chooses someone to slap or hit, while friends
record the abuse of their cell phone video cameras (Hines, 2011). This footage is then posted on
an online video-sharing site (e.g., YouTube).
2.2.3 Indirect cyber bullying behaviours
Rather than direct bullying behaviours toward a victim, cyber bullies may engage in
indirect bullying. Indirect bullying occurs most often with girls than boys (Kowalski & Limber,
2007). As previously noted, this is consistent with gender differences in traditional bullying as
girls often rely on indirect forms of aggression. Researchers suggest that the Internet gives girls
the opportunity to establish and maintain relationships without worrying how other individuals
may be judging their physical characteristics (Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002). The behaviours
11
most commonly associated with indirect cyber bullying include flaming, impersonation, outing
and trickery.
Flaming is the act of exchanging negative emails between two or more people,
forwarding inappropriate photos, participating in teasing online or excluding or isolating others
(Willard, 2007). Characteristics of flaming can include using capital letters, numerous
punctuation marks, and derogatory words (Turnage, 2008). These angry messages usually take
place in public places such as on the Internet rather than through email or text messaging.
Impersonation is when an aggressor poses as the victim and spreads inappropriate, cruel,
or negative information to others, acting as though the victim were sharing these thoughts
(Kowalski et al., 2008). For instance, this can be carried out by stealing the victims passwords
for their personal accounts. The aggressor then has access to changing information on social
networking sites or sending out emails from the victims account. Impersonation is relatively
easy to engage in due to the anonymity of the Internet, and it is often impossible to retrace who
has posted information and whether or not it is accurate (Hines, 2011).
Outing and trickery involves sharing a victims personal information with others electronically
(Kowalski, 2009). Outing can occur when an individual intentionally shares the victims personal
information without his or her permission. For example, a bully might receive a personal email
with private information intended only for him or her, and then forward it to a larger audience
through email, text message, chat room, or web page (Brewer, 2011). Trickery occurs when a
victim is purposely tricked into sharing private information that is then shared with a larger
audience without that persons permission.
12
2.3 Traditional Bullying
Bullying has been investigated in schools by researchers across the world for over thirty
years. Olweus (1978) first labeled bullying as mobbing, but later adapted his original
definition to a person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly over time, to
negative actions on the past of one or more other students (Olweus, 1993, p. 9). He defined
negative actions as intentional attempts to injure or humiliate an individual by physical, verbal,
or psychological means (Olweus, 1993). Furthermore, Olweus thought that bullying can occur
without provocation and does not have to involve violence to be considered bullying. In later
years, Olweus extended his views regarding bullying by suggesting that bullying occurred when
other students say mean and hurtful things or make fun of another person and call him or her
mean and hurtful names; completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or
leave him or her out of things on purpose; hit, kick, push, shove around, or threaten him or her;
tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes and try to make other
students dislike him or her and do other hurtful things like that. (p. 246).
Different terms are used when defining bullying. For example, in American literature, the
term victimization is used, whereas Canadian researchers use intimidation or harassment
(Smith et al. 2002). Regardless of the term used, most bullying definitions include the following
components: 1) an imbalance of power; 2) malicious intent; 3) harm directed at victims; 4)
physical pain or humiliation; and 5) a sense of enjoyment (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1998; Solberg
& Olweus, 2003).
2.4. Forms of Traditional Bullying
2.4.1 Direct bullying
13
Physical and verbal forms of bullying are called direct aggression (Olweus, 1993) or
overt aggression (Crick, 1995). Direct, overt aggression involves face-to-face contact between
the bully and the victim and may include physical bullying such as hitting, punching, kicking,
biting, holding, hostile gesturing, and scratching (Ma, 2002). Direct or overt bullying, whether
physical or verbal, is intended to gain power, status, or possessions. Strategies may include
threatening to withdraw from a friendship (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
2.4.2 Indirect bullying
Indirect bullying includes behaviours such as ignoring and gossiping, usually involving a
third party (Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005). Indirect bullying is also referred to as relational
bullying, as it is intended to damage a social relationship (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Here,
verbal assaults against a victim are shared among peers rather than directed at the victim. For
example, verbal assaults may include threatening, humiliating, degrading, teasing, name-
calling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, staring, sticking out the tongue, eye-rolling, silent
treatment, manipulating friendship, and ostracizing (Ma, 2002, p. 63). Verbal aggression may
also include negative comments, intimidating phone calls to the victim (Macklem, 2003) and e-
mail messages, although most researchers classify it as written messages, including graffiti and
note passing (Ma, 2002). Indirect bullying occurs most often in school, as opposed to at home or
on the way to or from school (Ma, 2002).
2.5. Similarities between Traditional and Cyber bullying
Research examining cyber bullying and traditional bullying has identified three main
similarities. First, the act is aggressive and intended to harm an individual (Kowalski, Limber,
Zane, & Hassenfeldt, 2008). Although cyber bullying does not take the form of physical
aggression, such as hitting someone, there are types of Internet and mobile phone behaviours that
14
are classified as acts of property violation. For example, physical cyber bullying may be
characterized as deliberately sending a virus-infected file to another person (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009).
Second, the act of cyber bullying is often repeated (Kowalski et al., 2008).
Communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone, text messages, instant messaging,
personal Web sites, and blogs are repeatedly carried out to harass the victims (Aricak et al.,
2008). These actions are similar to traditional bullying in the sense that the victim is repeatedly
overtime, exposed to negative actions on the part of one or more other bystanders.
Third, there is often an imbalance of power (Kowalski et al., 2008). Power can be
identified as authority, control, and influence over another person, and this power is differential
between the bully and victim. Most often, the cyber bully claims more power over the cyber
victim, by having more access to technology than the victim, providing them with greater
opportunities to bully, and by instilling fear in the victim to not report the incident or retaliate
against the cyberbully (Hines, 2011).
2.6 Differences between Traditional and Cyber bullying
Although many similarities between traditional bullying and cyber bullying exist, there
are ways in which they differ as well. First, with traditional bullying, verbal and physical actions
expose the identity of the bully to the victim (Hines, 2011). Cyber bullies can hide behind their
anonymity and cannot see the victims emotional reactions, which could lead them to realize the
pain they are causing (Kowalski &Limber, 2007). Disturbingly, victims often are not aware of
the identity of the perpetrators. Li (2005) revealed that 41% did not know the identity of their
perpetrators, whereas Kowalski and Witte (2006) found that 74% of the time the victims of cyber
bullying did not know the bully. The fear of unknown perpetrators can be psychologically
15
devastating for victims and is also socially detrimental to all students including victims,
bystanders and perpetrators (Olweus, 2001; DiGuillio, 2001).
Second, due to the fact that cyber bullies can be anonymous and there is no supervision in
cyberspace, they do not fear being observed and getting punished (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). As
a result, cyber bullies often go to extremes when tormenting their victims (Hines, 2011). Some
researchers report that because cyber bullies cannot see the emotional impact of the victims
reactions, the bullys self-regulatory process is often disregarded. This eliminates the visual
images of the victims emotions and allows them to take their actions further than if they were
engaged in face-to-face contact with the victim (Kowalski, 2009). In addition, the cyber bully
has limited external sources of reinforcement, and therefore may have to rely on his or her own
reactions to their acts (Dooley et al., 2009). Therefore, it is possible that the reward for cyber
bullies may be larger than for face-to face bullies because cyber bullys must rely on the
expectation for how the victim will react, whereas traditional bullies see how the target person is
reacting in person (Dooley et al., 2009).
Third, cyber victims are not able to escape their cyber bullies after school. In terms of the
offenders, cyber bullies can extend their aggression beyond the school grounds and impact the
lives of victims at any time of day and in any environment (Tokunaga, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja,
2006). Therefore, there are no possibilities for the victims to face their perpetrators even if they
want to (Tokunaga, 2010). Unlike traditional bullying that usually occurs solely in or around the
school, cyber bullying can occur for days in the cyber victims homes (Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007). This form of aggression is becoming an increasing problem among school-age children as
they are often anonymous, and are unaware of the distress their behavior may cause (Strom &
Strom, 2005).
16
Fourth, the decision to not report incidents of victimization differs for traditional bullying
and cyber bullying. Traditional bullying victims often do not report bullying because they are
fearful of being further victimized and because they do not trust adults to effectively intervene
(Kowalski, 2009; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992). Victims of cyber bullying also rarely report
incidents of victimization because they believe that learning how to effectively manage problems
arising from the use of communication technologies is a skill they must acquire without the help
of their parents (Juvoven & Gross, 2008). Also, victims believe that if they notify an authority
figure, their freedoms may be limited (Tokunaga, 2010). Children fear that their Internet
privileges will be lost, and therefore instead of informing parents, cyber bullying victims are
more likely to consult with friends (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Aricak et al., 2008;
Dehue et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Here, victims are more fearful about losing
possessions such as cell phones, and Internet access, than the termination of the victimization
incident.
2.7. Overview of Cyber bullying Victimization
There is a noticeable scarcity of research on cyber bullying victimization despite the
increasing number of incidents and their dangerous outcomes for these individuals (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006). For example, it has been reported that a vast number of negative outcomes have
been linked to cyber bullying victimization including school problems (Ericson, 2001), suicidal
ideation, eating disorders, chronic illness (Borg, 1998; Rigby, 2003; Roland, 2002; Striegel-
Moore, Dohm, Pike, Wilfey, and Fairburn, 2002), and depression (Roland 2002; Hawker and
Boulton, 2000). This suggests that being the target of cyber bullying can have a detrimental
impact on ones developmental and psychosocial well-being (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Cyber
17
bullying is a new form of peer maltreatment that is an emerging health problem and therefore
warrants attention and further research (Campfield, 2006).
2.7.1. Characteristics of cyber victims
Researchers have found that victimization begins to increase at early adolescence and
decrease at the age of 16 or 17 years old. In addition, cyber victims spend more time online than
their peers (Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Juvoven and Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008;
Vandebosch et al., 2006; Lenhart, 2007).Van den Eijnden et al., (2006) found that youth who use
communication technologies as a function to connect with others more often than their peers,
have a higher risk of becoming a victim (Bauwens et al., 2009; Lenhart, 2007).
Individuals who are traditional bully victims and youth who cyber bully others, have an
increased risk of becoming victims of cyber bullying (Van den Eijnden et al., 2006). Several
studies confirm these findings (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). For example, Raskauskas and Stoltz
(2007) surveyed 84 adolescents between 13 and 18 years old and found that those who were
traditional victims were also cyber victims. This link is evidenced in a study conducted by
Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007) who surveyed a national representative sample and found
that 36 % of children who had experienced traditional peer victimization had also experienced
cyber bullying. Similarly, Juvoven & Gross (2008) found that 85% of children and adolescents
who are victimized electronically are also victims at school. These studies indicate that
traditional bullying is sometimes used in conjunction with cyber bullying in order to maximize
the effect of harmful behaviors toward the bullying victim.
In addition to the primary characteristics discussed above, demographic characteristics
such as prevalence, age, sex, and outcomes of cyber victims will be described next.
18
2.8. Cyber bullying Victimization and Demographic Factors
2.8.1 Prevalence of cyber bullying and victimization
Researchers have conducted many studies in the past decade to examine the prevalence
of cyber bullying among youth (e.g., Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li,
2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). However, due to the fact that many victims
of cyber-bullying decline to report their victimization, the statistics noting the frequency of
cyber-bullying victimization may not be an accurate and true representation of the exact
prevalence of cyber-bullying among middle school students (Keith & Martin, 2005). As a result,
the actual prevalence rate may be much higher than what has been reported in the research
literature (Hines, 2011). Additional concerns within the research on cyber bullying victimization
include how victimization experiences are defined and the time frame in which cyber
victimization experiences are measured (Campfield, 2006). The methodology varies greatly
among studies, which makes it difficult to compare prevalence rates across studies. A large
number of studies have been conducted to explore the prevalence of cyber bullying and
victimization. Results of the analysis of over thirty studies on the prevalence of cyber bullying
and cyber victimization are presented below.
The prevalence rates of cyber bullying victimization ranged from 4.8% (Sourander et al.,
2010) and 72% (Juvonen and Gross, 2008). Percentages reported by researchers stating incidents
of cyber bullying vary widely among studies (Aricak et al., 2008; Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja &
Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006, 2007, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Topu, Erdur-
Baker, & apa-Aydin, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008).
The first empirical study to examine cyber bullying was conducted by the National
Childrens Home (2002). Participants included 856 British children between the ages of 11 and
19
19, who responded to questions about cyber bullying victimization. Results from this study
revealed that 16% of participants reported being victimized over text messaging, 7% through
chat rooms, and 4% via email (National Childrens Home, 2002). The definition of cyber
bullying used in this study included only three forms of Internet communication (e.g., IM, SNS,
and blogs), which may have been a reflection of the limited technologies available at that time
(Brewer, 2011). Two years later, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) examined Internet aggressor/
targets and found that 19% of Internet users between 10 and 17 years old had been involved in
cyber bullying either as cyber bullies or cyber victims. Interestingly, 84% of cyber bullies knew
their victim personally, whereas only 31% of cyber victims knew their bullies (Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004).
A study conducted by Li (2007a) examined Canadian students at the middle school level
who completed a self-report questionnaire about their experiences with cyber bullying. Results
revealed that 24.9% of her sample (n= 177) reported being victims of cyber-bullying. Li (2007b)
studied a sample of grade seven students (n= 461) in Canada and China. Both groups of students
completed the same questionnaire and researchers found that one in three students were victims
of cyber bullying. In addition, over 40% of those victims had been cyber bullied more than three
times.
Similarly, Kowalski and Limber (2007) examined cyber bullying among middle-school
children in grades 6 to 8. A large sample (n=3,767) completed a paper and pencil questionnaire
that included measures from the Olweus Bully/ Victim Questionnaire asking explicitly about
cyber bullying. The findings revealed that 11% were cyber victims, 7% were cyber
bullies/victims, 4% were cyber bullies, and 78% had no incidents of any cyber bullying.
Compared with other empirical studies, this number is very low; however the researchers
20
acknowledged that this might be a result of using a 2-month metric rather than a one-year metric
used in similar studies (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). In contrast to this low number of reported
victims, results of Patchin and Hindujas study (2006) indicated a slight increase in the number
of participants reporting cyber bullying victimization (29%). Furthermore, they found that 11%
of respondents identified themselves as cyber bullies and 47% had witnessed some form of cyber
bullying. The most prevalent forms of cyber bullying took place via chat room, computer text
messaging, and email.
Depending on the definition used in a study, the prevalence rates differ. The first Youth
Internet Safety Survey (YISS), a national survey collected in 2000 showed only 6.5% of
participants in the study reported being a cyber bullying victim (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). The
Second Youth Internet Survey collected in 2004 (N= 1,500), examined the overall prevalence
rate of cyber bullying for participants between the ages of 10 and 17. Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, &
Finkelhor (2006) found that overall prevalence rate for cyber bullying to be 9%, which is an
increase in prevalence from the first. The rates between these studies may have varied because
the first study looked at only one dimension of cyber bullying: Internet harassment, with a two
item dichotomous choice measure (Tokunaga, 2010). In another study conducted by Juvoven and
Gross (2008) they found that approximately 72% of the 1217 year olds in their American
sample encountered cyber-bullying at least once in their life. It is suggested that this finding may
be inflated as a result of the definition used for bullying. In this study, bullying was replaced
with the term mean things, which resulted in a broader definition that could have led to over
reporting (Tokunaga, 2010).
Overall, the variability in the prevalence rates can be attributed to the use of varied
operational definitions and measurements of cyber bullying (David-Feron & Hertz, 2007).
21
Hence, it appears that future research should utilize a similar operational definition and similar
measurements. In addition, the majority of studies fail to provide information about the duration
and frequency of victimization incidents (Aricak et al., 2008), which would allow researchers to
gain a better understanding of cyber bullying and its effects (Tokunaga, 2010).
Although cyber bullying research is in its infancy, it is quite evident that this real and
existing phenomenon is increasing in frequency, making cyber bullying an issue of concern
(Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Public awareness of cyber-bullying has become quite evident
since cyber bullying incidents are continually reported all over the world (Li, 2007). For
example, In Australia, a 9-year-old female student received pornographic emails and when the
source was traced it was found that the sender was one of the girls classmates (Thorp, 2004).
Another example is seen with a 15 year old boy from Quebec who made a Star Wars video that
was leaked onto the internet by a few of his classmates without his permission. This boy was so
humiliated that he had to seek counseling and eventually dropped out of school, filing a law suit
against his perpetrators (Snider & Borel, 2004). Although only a few cases are mentioned here,
numerous accounts of cyber-bullying have been featured and highlighted in the media. This has
proven to caregivers, educators, and politicians that cyber-bullying has no boundaries and is a
growing social concern due to the advances in the accessibility children and adolescents have to
technology (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch 2011). These studies suggest that cyber
bullying has a high rate of occurrence. As the use of technology continues to grow at a rapid
pace, it can be predicted that children and adolescents will find themselves increasingly at risk of
becoming victims of cyber bullying.
Despite the public concern associated with the increasing occurrence of cyber
victimization and the research attention that focuses on the prevalence and frequency of cyber
22
bullying among specific groups (Tokunaga, 2010), it is deemed important to investigate cyber
victimization and the possible psychosocial effects it has on youth (Campfield, 2006).
2.8.2 The role of age in cyber bullying victimization
Cyber bullying is not limited to school aged children and may emerge from elementary
years to college (Tokunaga, 2010). The exploration of whether age is a predictor of cyber
bullying victimization is common in the literature, with the majority of studies demonstrating the
lack of association between age and cyber-victimization (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009;
Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Varjas,
Henrich, & Meyers, 2009; Wolak et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004). On the other hand, some studies
have found a significant relationship (Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski &
Limber, 2007; Slonje & Smith, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008; Ybarra et al., 2007). Mixed
findings result from the diverse age range included in the samples (Tokunaga, 2010).
Studies that use smaller ranges of grade levels such as Kowalski and Limber (2007) and
Ybarra et al. (2006) have demonstrated positive relationships between age and frequency of
cyber bullying victimization. They studied 11-14 year olds and 10-15 year olds, and found a
positive correlation between age and frequency of victimization. Other trends are seen in studies
conducted by Dehue et al. (2008) and Slonje and Smith (2007) who surveyed a sample of 12-20
year olds and found an inverse relationship between age and victimization (Tokunaga, 2010).
Williams and Guerra (2007) followed students longitudinally in grade 5, 8, and 11, and found
that children in grade five experience the least amount of victimization (4.5%), whereas children
in grade 8 experience the highest levels (12.9%), and drops among high school students (9.9%).
A series of studies have examined the relationship between age and being a cyber victim,
and found that the chances of being a victim increases as children grow older (Kowalski &
23
Limber, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In contrast, Slonje and Smith (2007) found lower rates
of cyber bullying victimization for older students (15 and 18 years old) than for younger students
(12-15 years old), whereas others did not find a relationship between age and being a cyber bully
victim (Smith et al., 2006, 2008).
In general, the data suggests that the mixed findings may be explained by a possible
curvilinear relationship between age and frequency of cyber bullying victimization (Tokunaga,
2010). Based on the review of literature, it appears that the highest rates of victimization occur in
grade 7 and 8 children. Although several studies reported insignificant age differences, this could
be a result of not using samples with diverse age groups (Didden et al., 2009; Juvoven & Gross,
2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Wolak et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004). Therefore,
researchers must use caution when interpreting results from these studies, because victimization
does not occur uniformly across age groups (Tokunaga, 2010). Conclusions cannot be made until
there is more longitudinal research conducted in the form of large scale surveys at a national
level, including youth of different cultures and origins, and both male and female participants of
a wide age range (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010).
2.8.3 The role of gender in cyber bullying victimization
Similar to age differences in cyber bullying victimization, studies that examine sex
differences yield inconsistent findings (Tokunaga, 2010). Most of the literature suggests that one
sex is not targeted in victimization more than the other (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009;
Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Li, 2006, 2007a; Patchin
& Hinduja, 2006; Topcu et al., 2008; Varjas et al., 2009; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wolak et al.,
2007; Ybarra, 2004; Ybarra et al., 2007). Although, some studies have found that sex is in fact a
predictor for cyber bullying victimization and suggest that girls are the victims of cyber bullying
24
more often than boys (Dehue et al., 2006; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Kowalski and Limber,
2007; Schrock and Boyd, 2010; Smith, et al., 2006 & 2008; Vandebosch et al., 2006).
A study on cyber bullying in schools, conducted by Li (2006) examined male and female
students (N=264) in grades 7-9 and found that they were almost identical in reporting cyber
bullying victimization (25% and 25.6%). Results also revealed that no significant gender
difference was found in frequencies of cyber bullying and no significant gender difference was
found in students beliefs about adult involvement in stopping cyber bullying (p.164).
Furthermore, studies conducted by Patchin and Hinjuda (2006) and Slonje and Smith (2008)
have found equal risks for boys and girls of becoming a cyber bully victim.
Some researchers suggest that girls are the victims of cyber bullying more often than
boys. Li (2007) found significant gender differences with girls being more likely to report
instances of cyber bullying. Similarly, Smith et al., (2006) found that girls were more likely than
boys to be cyber bully victims, especially by text messages and phone calls. Similar findings
were also revealed in a study conducted by Kowalski and Limber (2007) who found that girls
were more likely to be cyber bully victims than boys.
The findings that girls are cyber bullied more than boys are opposite to what is known
about gender differences in traditional bullying studies. In traditional bullying literature, boys are
more likely to be involved as bullies and victims than girls (Boulton & Underwood, 1992;
Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982; OMoore & Hillery, 1989). A reasonable
explanation as to why female students are more likely to be cyber bullying victims is that girls
tend to have more close-knit relationships/friendships and therefore more readily exchange
intimate details and personal secrets whereas boys socialize in larger groups and share fewer
details (Dooley et al., 2009 p.186). In addition, females are more likely to be victims of bullying
25
experiences that involve psychological torment (Stephenson & Smith, 1989), which is often
carried out in cyber bullying. Still, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the literature
related to the relationship between gender and cyber bullying victimization, as the majority of
data indicate that males and females are equally represented among victims (Tokunaga, 2010).
2.8.4. Outcomes associated with cyber bullying victimization
Cyber bullying victimization has been linked to multiple maladaptive emotional,
psychological, and behavioural outcomes, including depression, school problems, and delinquent
behaviours (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Beran and Li (2005) investigated reactions to cyber
victimization, investigating the incidence of different emotions and the behaviours that followed
experiences with cyber harassment. Results indicate that cyber victims showed emotions such as
anger, sadness, anxiety, embarrassment, crying, fear, and self-blame (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
Other impacts include a decrease in academic performance, concentration, and absence from
school. Beran and Li (2007) found that students who were experiencing cyber bullying
victimization reported a sudden drop in their grades, increased absences and truancy, and
increased detentions and suspensions (Katzer et al., 2009). Cyberbully victims were also more
likely to bring a weapon to school (Ybarra et al., 2007) and report feeling that school is not a safe
environment (Varjas et al., 2009). The decrease in academic performance may be a result of the
victims inability to concentrate at school and the increased levels of frustration with the bullying
situation (Beran & Li, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Much like traditional bullying, cyber bully victims experience a wide range of psychiatric
and psychosomatic problems (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011). A study conducted by Sourander et al.,
(2010) found that adolescent victims experienced frequent psychosomatic problems, headaches,
26
sleep disorders, repeated stomach aches; a greater number of perceived problems; emotional and
peer related problems; and feeling insecure at school and neglected by teachers.
Victims of cyber bullying also experience suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Hinduja and
Patchin (2010) looked into the correlations between victims experiences with cyber bullying and
thoughts of suicide. They found that individuals who experiences traditional bullying or cyber
bullying victimization had more suicidal thoughts and were more likely to attempt suicide than
those who had not experienced such forms of peer aggression (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
Psychosocial problems and mood disorders are also associated with cyber bully victims.
For example, depression is associated with the intensity and frequency to which an individual
experiences victimization (Didden et al., 2009; Ybarra, 2004). In addition, social anxiety and low
levels of self-esteem have also been reported in victims of cyber bullying (Juvoven & Gross,
2008; Didden et al., 2009; Katzer et al., 2009). For example, Raskaukas and Stoltz (2007)
reported that 93% of cyber victims said cyber bullying affected them in a negative way, with the
majority of responses being that cyber bullying make them feel sad, hopeless, or depressed.
Another study conducted by Ybarra et al. (2006) found from those who were cyber bullied, 38%
said they were emotionally distressed, and reported feeling upset or afraid because of the cyber
bullying incident. These negative feelings victims experience can also influence the development
of social problems such as detachment, externalized hostility, and delinquency (Tokunaga,
2010). As a result, victims are forced to internalize their problems, feel unhappy, and are less
likely to participate in pro-social activities and behaviors.
In sum, the negative outcomes of cyber bullying overlap with those of traditional bully
victims. Aforementioned, similarities of cyber bullying victims include lower achievement
scores, adjustment problems, internalizing problems, mental health and social problems. These
27
negative outcomes range from trivial levels of distress to serious life problems depending on the
frequency, duration, and severity of the harassing acts (Tokunaga, 2010).
2.9. Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying
Two definitions of parenting styles are prevalent in the field which are those are those
developed by Baumrind (1967) and Maccoby and Martin (1983). The following section includes
a critical examination of the definition of parenting styles using Baumrinds Parenting Styles
Theory and the related model created by Maccoby and Martin (1983).
2.9.1Baumrinds theoretical framework
Baumrinds parenting styles theory is the most influential theory of parental behaviours,
and guides contemporary research in the field (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter,
1997). This theory laid the groundwork for using parenting styles in a typological approach when
categorizing different parenting behaviours and the socializing effects of the strategies parents
use when raising their children (Kennell, 1994). The typology approach focuses on the
configuration of different parenting practices and assumes that the impact of any one practice
depends on the arrangement of all others (Glasgow et al, 1997, p. 508). Researchers have
adopted the parenting styles typology approach in order to measure this diverse construct in a
consistent manner.
Baumrinds (1968) parenting style typologies identified three different patterns of
parental authority: 1) authoritarian (characterized by low levels of responsiveness to their childs
need and high levels of demandingness on the child), 2) authoritative (described as having high
levels of both responsiveness and demandingness), and permissive (reflected by high levels of
responsiveness and low levels of demandingness). Associated with each of Baurminds parenting
28
typologies are four child-rearing dimensions: parental control, parental maturity demands,
parent-child communication, and parental nurturance.
Parental control is defined as acts that shape the childs behavior and promote
internalization of parental standards. Parental maturity demands referred to pressures put on the
child to perform up to ability intellectually, socially and emotionally. Parent-child
communication referred to the extent the parent used reason to obtain compliance and asked the
childs opinions and feelings. Parental nurturance referred to the extent the parent expressed love
and warmth while carrying out care taking functions for the child (Kennell, 1994 p. 19). The
behaviours that are characteristic of authoritarian parents include having high levels of control
over the child, expecting the child to follow a strict set of rules with no flexibility, and
demanding obedience from the child (Chen, Chen, & Zheng, 2011). In contrast, authoritative
parenting involves acceptance of the child, good supervision, and an emphasis on independence.
These parents encourage their children to say what they think, but provide support and firm
guidance, enabling them to develop well-formed personal and social skills (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Furthermore, permissive parenting involves having little control
over the child, enforcing few demands on the child, and providing copious levels of warmth and
flexibility and freedom (Chen et al., 2011).
Several aspects to Baumrinds conceptualization and theory of parenting styles set her
apart from earlier researchers. First, Baumrinds model was not linear. Rather than defining
parenting style with exact dimensions of parental control behavior, it was defined as fitting one
of three types of parental control patterns (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kennall, 1994). Control
can be defined as the parents attempt to integrate the child into the family and society by
demanding behavioral compliance (Kennall, 1994 p. 20). In terms of parenting styles,
29
authoritative parents carry out control in a nurturing way using clear communication,
authoritarian parents carry out control with little nurturance and unclear communication, and
permissive parents carry out low levels of control and less nurturance and communication
(Kennall, 1994).
Second, Baumrind used the configurational approach to define parenting style (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). Baumrind argued that any singular aspect of parenting is dependent on the
configuration of all other aspects (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Third, Baumrinds theory
separated parenting behaviours from child characteristics (Darling & Steingberg, 1993).
Therefore, parenting styles were characteristics of the parent and not the parent-child
relationship. Previous research acknowledged that parents influenced their children, but did not
recognize that children also influence their parents. In order to address this concern, Baumrind
measured parental characteristics separate from the childs reaction to the parent, because she felt
that it was important to look at the parent-child socialization relationship. Lastly, Baumrinds
findings revealed that various parental behaviours were associated with a set of optimal child
characteristics. These results had a significant impact on the field as she discovered that parents
who were emotionally supportive, granted appropriate autonomy, had high standards, and clear
communication successfully socialized their children, calling this parenting style authoritative.
(Kennall, 1994 p. 21). Empirical research has replicated these findings consistently since her
original work, which has provided researchers with the foundation to explore parenting styles
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
2.9.2 Maccoby and Martins Framework
Maccoby and Martin (1983) transformed Baumrinds configurational typology theory by
introducing a multi-dimensional linear definition of parenting based on the three parenting styles:
30
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Kennall, 1994). Baumrinds conception allowed for
her authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles to be solely based on the control dimension.
However, her results revealed that other parenting attributes were consistently associated with
the different types of control (Kennall, 1994 p.21).
Maccoby and Martin created two dimensions they believed categorized Baumrinds
configurational approach. This model explains parenting styles as varying along two orthogonal
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Parental responsiveness refers to the extent
to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being
attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to childrens special needs and demands (Baumrind, 1991,
p.62). Moreover, parental demandingness refers to the claims parents make on children to
become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary
efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys (Baumrind, 1991, pp.61-62). These
two dimensions yield four parenting styles according to whether they are high or low on parental
demandingness and responsiveness. They proposed that four parenting styles could be
categorized by combining these two dimensions: authoritarian (low support, high control),
authoritative (high support and control), permissive (high support and low control), and
neglecting (low support and control) (Baumrind, 1991).
Although Maccoby and Martins parenting styles corresponded with Baumrinds, they
differed in several ways. Maccoby and Martins parenting styles framework did not consider
communication patterns between parents and children and they did not account for differing
patterns of control (Kennall, 1994). However, they did feel that their two dimensional model was
close enough to Baumrinds that the outcomes of child socialization would be very similar.
2.9.3 Overview of parenting styles and traditional bullying
31
Many studies have examined the relationship between parenting styles and traditional
bullying, consistently showing a positive relationship between bullying, poor parenting, and
school behavior problems (Rigby, 1994, 1996). Research examining the effects of parenting on
bullying and victimization has largely focused on Baumrinds (1971, 1989, 1991, 1996) widely
used measure of parenting styles (Smetana, 1995; Baldry & Farrington, 1998; Haynie, Nansel,
Eitel et al., 2001; Georgiou, 2008). Parenting styles have been associated with the quality of
children and adolescents peer relationships. Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg (2001) reported
that authoritative parenting styles were positively associated with prosocial development in
adolescents (Taitrol, 2010). Furthermore, Hines and Paulson (2007) found that was inversely
related to adolescents involvement in conflict, which coincides with Olweus (1994) who
suggested that parents with permissive parenting styles were less likely to address their
childrens bullying incidents.
Authoritative parents are considered a protective factor (Bamrind, 1966, 1996; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992) as they have high acceptance of the child, good
supervision, and the granting of psychological autonomy (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). This
means that parents who promote autonomy while providing support and firm guidance, enable
their children to develop personal social skills that may benefit them in any social difficulties
they may face (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998).
In regards to victimization, traditional bullying studies have found that children with low
authoritative parents who rarely value their children and do not give them the chance to stand up
for themselves, are more likely to grow up being fearful of speaking out and are therefore easily
picked on (Smith, Myron, & Wilson, 1998; Baldry & Farrington, 1998). The quality of parenting
has been linked to experience with victimization in childhood, and therefore it is important to
32
determine what features of parenting styles influence positive and negative outcomes of child
and adolescent coping strategies. To date, the majority of research has focused on the negative
effects of parental child-rearing styles on traditional bullying, and has ignored the importance of
protective parental child-rearing styles for cyber victims (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004).
Therefore, research that investigates childhood stressors including the quality of parenting styles
can highlight the potential etiological significance of early peer victimization experiences
(Gladstone et al., 2006). In addition to having authoritative parents, protective factors such as
coping strategies have been found to be associated with lower levels of bullying victimization
(Baldry & Farrington, 2005).
2.9.4 Empirical review of parenting styles and cyber bullying victimization
The importance of examining parenting styles in relation to cyber-victimization is evident
when reviewing the lack of empirical studies conducted to date. In order to conduct a review of
the current literature on parenting styles and cyber bullying victimization, a computerized search
from the year 2000-2012 was conducted, using the PsychINFO and ERIC databases and the key
terms parenting styles, cyber bullying, and cyber bully victimization. Articles were
selected based on their inclusion of adolescent subjects, who were between the ages of 10 and
18. Articles selected also directly investigated the reported parenting styles of the primary
caregiver in relation to their children who were cyber bullying victims. The reference lists of
these articles were also searched for other relevant studies. Based on this search, 7 available
studies were obtained. The findings of these studies are discussed in the following section.
A body of research has explored the relationship between parenting styles and cyber
bullying victimization. These studies suggest that monitoring behaviour is related to parenting
style, and that both parental responsiveness and parental control are associated with the extent to
33
which parents monitor their childrens technology use (Soenens, Vansteenkise, Luyckx, &
Goossens, 2006). For example, Eastin, Greenberg and Hofschire (2006) examined parenting
styles and how they mediated their childrens Internet use. Results indicated that authoritative
parents used evaluative (co-viewing or discussing content) and restrictive techniques (placing
time or content limits) more often than authoritarian and neglectful parents. A significant
relationship between child Internet use and parenting styles has also been shown by Valcke,
Bonte, De Wever, & Rots (2010). Parents of children in primary schools (n=533) were surveyed
and results show that the highest child usage level occurs when parents adopt a permissive
parenting style, whereas the lowest levels are see when parents adopt an authoritarian parenting
style. On the other hand, Aoyama, Barnard-Brak, & Talbert (2011) did not find a strong
relationship between parental monitoring and child Internet behavior. The present study
classified students into four groups: highly involved both as bully and victim, more victim than
bully, more bully than victim, or least involved, based on their cyber bullying experiences and
examined the characteristics of the groups based on the level of parental monitoring. Results
revealed that the level of parental monitoring was not associated with being a cyber bully or
victim.
A recent study conducted by Leung & Lee (2011) examined how parenting styles can
predict Internet risks. These authors identified three types of media-related mediation parenting
styles: active mediation, restrictive mediation, and coviewing. First, active mediation involves
the types of conversations that parents have with children about the Internet (Fujioka & Austin,
2007). Second, restrictive mediation involves carrying-out specific rules about when the child is
allowed to use the Internet, and how long they can be on the web (Livingstone, 2008b). Third,
coviewing involves direct supervision, where the parents sit in the same room as the child to talk
34
about the content while on the Internet (Jordan, 2001). Results from this study indicate that
parents who enforced stricter rules, had more involvement and more mediation, were less likely
to have children that were targeted for harassment (Leung & Lee, 2011). However, adolescents
may not be the target of harassment at home, as they may be experiencing these risks at friends
house or in school since the Internet is a universal medium (Leung & Lee, 2011). This suggests
that adolescents may be targets of online harassment despite having parents who employ strict
mediation rules.
Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier (2008) looked at the association between parenting style with
parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behaviour. Parenting styles were strongly related
to adolescent MySpace experiences, behaviours, and attitudes. In particular, parents with older
children are more likely to have neglectful or indulgent parenting styles and are less likely to set
limits on their childs Internet use (Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier, 2008). However, the extent to
which the child experienced cyber bullying was relatively low compared to previous studies
stating a high incidence of Internet related problems. Only 22% of teens surveyed endorsed
having experienced an uncomfortable experience on MySpace including an uncomfortable
sexual incident, fights with boyfriends, peers, gossip, and other teen drama (Rosen, Cheever,
& Carrier, 2008).
A study conducted by Dehue, Bolman, Vollink and Pouwelse (2009) investigated the
influence of parenting style on cyber bullying and found that children who perceived their
parents parenting style as authoritative, cyber bully less than those who perceive the parenting
style as permissive or neglectful. Furthermore, the results revealed that children who perceived
an authoritative parenting style were cyberbullied less than those who perceived a neglectful
parenting style.
35
Hay & Meldrum (2010) studied the relationship between cyber-victimization and a
childs exposure to authoritative parenting, in order to examine the effects of both traditional and
cyber bullying victimization on deliberate self-harm and suicidal ideation. Specifically, these
authors investigated the role of a childs exposure to authoritative parenting in moderating the
relationship between bullying and self-harm (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Participants included 426
students from a rural county of a southeastern state, who attended one of two selected schools:
one middle school and one high school. Students completed a school-based survey that consisted
of closed-ended questions and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.
The analysis of this study revealed that both traditional and cyber bullying are positively
related to self-harm and suicidal ideation (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Moreover, those relationships
are partially mediated by the negative emotions experienced by the victims and partially
moderated by aspects of the individuals social environment and self (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). In
terms of parenting style, exposure to authoritative parenting and high self-control reduced the
harmful effects of bullying victimization on self-harm and suicidal ideation (Hay & Meldrum,
2010). Therefore, adolescents who have high authoritative parents and self-control are less likely
to use externalizing aggression when experiencing bullying victimization. These findings are
beneficial as they suggest that cyber bullying prevention programs could focus on protective
factors such as authoritative parenting practices to reduce the overall prevalence of cyber bully
victims (Hay & Meldrum, 2010).
2.9.5 Measurement of parenting styles and cyber bullying victims
Aforementioned, the majority of r