Cyberbullying RUNNING HEAD: CYBERBULLYING

Cyberbullying among high school students: Cluster analysis of sex and age differences and the level of parental monitoring. Paper accepted for publication in the International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL). (in press)

Baylor University One Bear Place 97301 Waco TX 76798-7301 Ikuko Aoyama Ikuko_aoyama@baylor.edu Tel. 254-652-5356 /Fax. 254-710-3265

Lucy Barnard-Brak

Lucy_Barnard-Brak@baylor.edu

Tel. 254-710-4234 /Fax. 254-710-3265

Tony Talbert Tony_Talbert@baylor.edu Tel. 254-710-7417 /Fax 254-710-3160

Cyberbullying

Abstract Bullying, a once typical occurrence in schools, has gone digital. As a result, cyberbullying has become ever more present among youth. The current study aimed to classify high school students into four groups based on their cyberbullying experiences and to examine the characteristics of these groups based on the sex and age of the participants and the level of parental monitoring. Participants were 133 high school students located in central Texas. A cluster analysis revealed four distinct groups of students who were: highly involved both as bully and victim, more victim than bully, more bully than victim, or least involved. Significantly more girls and more students in lower grades were classified into the more victim than bully group while older students were more likely to be classified into the more bully than victim group. No significant differences were found between cluster membership and the degree of parental monitoring.

Cyberbullying Introduction

Cyberbullying among youth has been becoming a serious societal and educational concern internationally. The media, educators, and parents have been paying great attention to the phenomena for the past few years because researchers from various countries have revealed the relatively high prevalence of cyberbullying among youth. For example, approximately 30% of youth (N=384) surveyed in 2004 reported their victimization, and 11% have cyberbullied others (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). The more recent study shows that 72% of the youth (N=1,454) were victimized at least once in the past year, and 13% of them reported frequent victimization (Juvonen & Gross, 2008).

Theoretical Background of Cyberbullying Researchers have linked bullying behaviors with theories of human behaviors and communication. For example, the well- known theory is the social cognitive theory, which argues that adolescents model their parents or friends aggressive behaviors (Duncan, 2004; Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004). The effect [of the model] will be stronger if the observer has a positive evaluation of the model, for example, perceive, him/herself as tough, fearless, and strong (Olweus, 1993, p. 43). In other words, observing an aggressive model makes aggressive behaviors less inhibited if observers see a model getting rewarded for the aggressive actions. In these cases, the reward means the bullies victory over the victims. Thus, all forms of bullying may be learned actions (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008) because bullying is a type of peer aggression.

One theoretical model that can possibly explain cyberbullying is desinhibited behavioral effects on the Internet (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Kowalski et al., 2008). Joinson (1998) argues

Cyberbullying that people in cyberspace behave in a way they do not in real life because of the effects of disinhibition: Disinhibition means that normal behavioral restraint can become lost or disregarded (Mason, 2008, p. 328). For example, researchers have demonstrated that people tend to behave more bluntly when communicating by e-mail or in other electronic venues. Moreover, misunderstandings, greater hostility, aggressive responses, and nonconforming behaviors are more likely in computer-mediated communication than in face-to-face communication (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). In face-to-face interaction, people read the emotional reactions of others and modulate their own behavior in response to the consequences (Kowalski et al., 2008). In other words, human behaviors are inhibited by social situations and public evaluations (Joinson, 1998). In cyberspace context, on the other hand, people have less social, contextual, and affective signs than in face-to-face communication; thus, they are less sensitive and remorseful for the types of behaviors that they exhibit (Mason, 2008). In cyberbullying, perpetrators have no direct social disapproval and punishment for engaging in

bullying others and do not see that victims suffer (Willard, 2007). As a result, their behaviors are often disinhibited and become ruder, harsher, and more difficult to control (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Disinhibition effects are caused by deindividuation (Joinson, 1998). Deindividuation can occur when accountability cues are reduced; in other words, anonymity can reduce concerns about others reactions (Joinson, 1998). Deinvididuation also occurs when an individuals selfawareness is blocked or reduced by external factors because it decreases the influence of internal (i.e., self) standards of or guides to behavior, and increases the power of external, situational cues (McKenna & Bargh, 2000, p. 61- 62). Students Status in a Peer Group

Cyberbullying

In traditional bullying studies, differences among children have been conceptualized through categorizing them into four groups: bullies, victim, bully/victims, and not involved (Espelage & Holt, 2007). However, little research examining the group differences has been conducted in cyberbullying research. The discrimination among groups is important because these subgroups exhibit different patterns of aggression and behavioral and internal problems (Espelage & Holt, 2007). Understanding the group differences is also necessary to deliver an effective intervention. Many cyberbullying studies are currently focusing either victims or bullies. However, bully/victim students who are involved as both bullies and victims are often overlooked. Researchers have suggested that a childs status as a bully or victim could be easily

interchanged; for instance, 35.7% of bullies reported experienced being victimized within the year, and 15.5% of them were currently being victimized as well (Morita et al., 1999). In addition, traditional bullying studies have shown that bully/victim students have the highest risk of behavioral and emotional problems because bully/victims experience double negative effects as both bullies and victims (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & Ylc-Cura, 2006). In fact, their evaluation by teachers and peers are low. For example, bully/victims are seen as more clumsy and immature than their peers [and] not only do peers find it difficult to associate with these children, but teachers and other school personnel frequently report that these children are among the most difficult to work with in school settings (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatson, 2008, p. 32). Similarly, bully/victims report a higher rate of depression, somatization, and psychiatric referrals than all of their peer groups (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Considering all of the fact, the researchers of the present study believe it is important to identify the distinct subgroups of youth who are involved/not involved with cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying Sex Differences in Cyberbullying In traditional bullying, studies have shown that boys were more likely than girls to be involved in bullying overall; however, more girls experience indirect and psychological types of

bullying such as rumor spreading and social exclusion (Kowalski et al, 2008; Ma, 2002; Olweus, 1993; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Therefore, researchers have pointed out that cyberbullying is more prevalent among girls (Anderson & Sturm, 2007; Willard, 2007) because this cyberbullying is text-based, and girls tend to be more verbal than boys (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). However, research findings are inconsistent across studies. Some studies found that boys were more likely to engage in cyberbullying than girls (Dehue , Bolman, & Vllink, 2008; Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009; Shariff, 2008), and girls were more likely to be victimized online (Dehue et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2008). On the other hand, Li (2006) argues that more boys reported being cyberbullied than girls. Other researchers, however, find no significant sex differences (Arcak, 2009; Beran & Li, 2005). Age Differences Research findings on age differences of youth cyberbullying experiences also vary. While studies in Britain and Canada found no age effects (Beran & Li, 2005; Smith et al., 2008), other studies identified differences. For example, researchers have argued that cyberbullying peaks later in middle school or in high school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). A survey conducted by Pew/Internet American Life Project (N=935) also reveals that older girls aged 15 to17 are more likely to report being bullied online than any other age and gender group (Lenhart, 2007). Likewise, Japanese high school students reported that cyberbullying was more prevalent among middle school students (Aoyama & Talbert, 2009). In contrast, primary pupils

Cyberbullying in the Netherlands reported their cyberbullying experiences more often than secondary students did (Dehue et al., 2008).

Gap between Adults and Youth In spite of the high prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents, studies suggest that adults underestimate the incidents. For example, The percentage of parents reporting that their child was engaged in bullying on the Internet or via text messages was considerably lower (4.8%) than the percentage of children reporting to be engaged in bullying on the Internet or via text messages (17.3%) (Dehue et al., 2008, p. 219). This finding is consistent with a study by Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O-Brennan (2007) which indicates that adults estimate the incidents of traditional bullying: over 49% of children (N=15,185) reported being bullied at least once during the past month; whereas, 71.4% of staff (N=1,547) estimated that 15% or less of the students at their school were frequently bullied. In addition, only less than 1% of staff members reported bullying rates similar to those indicated by students. These findings suggest that adults may not fully aware of bullying/cyberbullying incidents happening to their children. Parents Monitoring Roles

Traditional bullying studies indicate the association between parental monitoring and bullying behavior. For example, parents with permissive parenting are less likely to acknowledge their childrens activities (Marini et al., 2006), and parents of bully-victims often display the indifferent-uninvolved parenting style, neglect, and inconsistently monitor their children (Duncan, 2004). In addition, Wienke Totura et al (2009) found that the level of adult monitoring negatively correlated with bullying behaviors.

Cyberbullying The parental monitoring plays key roles because cyberbullying often occurs at home;

however, parental monitoring strategies do not seem to work well. Mason (2008) said about 30% of adolescents use the Internet for 3 hours or more daily, and during these hours, more than 50% of them reported poor parental monitoring. Rosen (2007) also pointed out many parents were unsure what their children were doing online, but didnt know how to approachthe subject with their teens (p. 80). Similarly, McQuade et al. (2009) found that 93 percent of parents stated they established Internet rules for their childs; however, 37 percent of children reported being given no rules from their parents on the Internet activity. Likewise, Rosen (2007) found that even though the majority of parents set limits on their childrens Internet use, they are not actually monitoring those limits. These findings indicate the difficulty of effective parental monitoring. In fact, Mesch (2009) reanalyzed a large secondary data of nationally representative youth sample (N=945) and found that parental mediation and monitoring are not very effective.

Purpose of the study Cyberbullying research is still in its infancy; thus, research findings are inconsistent across researchers. It is possible that these mixed findings are due to the lack of knowledge regarding the level of students involvement in cyberbullying. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to identify the subgroups of youth who are involved with cyberbullying and to examine any sex and age differences among these groups. The research questions consist of the following: 1) Can we classify the students based on their cyberbullying experiences? 2) Are there any sex differences among the groups? 3) Are there any age differences among the groups? 4) If there are age differences among the group, does the association indicate a trend?

Cyberbullying 5) Are there any significant relationships between the degree of parental monitoring and cluster membership? Method Participants

Participants were selected from a public high school located in central Texas: 133 high school students (Male = 52.7%, n = 68, Female = 47.3%, n = 61). Students who were taking computer classes were invited to participate in the study. 89.5% (n = 119) of the participants were Caucasian, and the remaining 21% (n = 14) were African American, Hispanic, and others. Of these students, 57 (43.2%) were ninth graders, 20 (15.2%) were tenth graders, 41 (31.1%) were eleventh graders, and 14 (10.6%) were twelfth graders, and their mean age was 15.7 years old (SD = 1.25). The school is located in rural area with 85.7% of the students in this school being Caucasian (SchoolDataDirect, 2009). Thus, the sample of this present study may be considered representative as a sample of this high school. Instrument The self-report survey uploaded on a web-based online survey management tool was used. The survey was modified from the one created by Willard (2007) and Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, and Tippett (n.d.). The survey consists of 55 questions, including demographic information, and open-ended questions. Sixteen questions were used for the analysis of the study. The duration of the survey was approximately 20 minutes to complete. The participants accessed the online survey during computer classes at the high school. Measures Cyberbullying offending behaviors Five questions assessed the frequency of cyberbullying offending behaviors (e.g., In the last six months, have you sent mean or nasty messages to someone?, and In the last six months,

Cyberbullying

10

have you put down someone else online by sending or posting cruel, gossip, rumors, or other harmful materials?). These questions addressed various types of cyberbulllying such as text message, email, and Internet community. Response choices were Yes, 1 to 4 times (coded as 1), Yes, more than 5 times (coded as 2), and No (coded as 0). Higher scores indicate more frequent offending behaviors. Cronbachs alpha was 0.69, and its value is close to the Cyberbulling Offending Scale (Cronbachs alpha = 0.76) developed by Hinduja & Patchin (2009). Cyberbullying victimization A self-report cyberbullying victimization, including name-calling, social exclusion, rumor spreading, was measured by the six questions (e.g., In the last six months, have you received online messages that made you fear for your safety? and In the last six months, have you been put down online by someone who has sent or posted cruel, gossip, rumors, or other harmful materials?). Response choices and coding system were the same as above. Higher scores indicate more frequent victimization. Five questions measured offending behaviors, and six questions measured victimization; thus, the scores were standardized to provide a standard metric. Cronbachs alpha was 0.72, and its value is close to the Cyberbulling Victimization Scale (Cronbachs alpha = 0.73) developed by Hinduja & Patchin (2009). Parental monitoring Two questions assessed the level of parental monitoring (e.g., How often do you discuss what you are doing online with your parents?). Response choices were Frequently (coded as 2), Occasionally (1), and Never (0). Data Analysis First, characteristics of the data distribution were evaluated (e.g. skewness). According to the z-score, both offending and victimization measure data indicated a moderate degree of

Cyberbullying

11

positive skeweness; thus, the data were transformed by square rooting the composite score. This data transformation procedure has been recommended by Tabachnick and Fidall (2001) when moderate positive skewness was observed. Second, a k-mean cluster analysis was performed to classify students into four groups. The number of cluster was determined based on a review of extant literature. Previous research utilized a k-mean cluster analysis as an appropriate analysis (Espelage & Holt, 2007). Subsequently, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to ensure that the cluster analysis had classified the participants accurately. In conducting our MANOVA, a Boxs test was also conducted to test the assumption of the equality of covariance matrices. Third, a 2 (sex) x 4 (groups) chi square (2) analysis was conducted to examine the presence of any sex differences. As a measure of effect size, a Phi coefficient () was also calculated. Phi values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 may be interpreted as small, medium, and large association between groups respectively (Green & Salkind, 2004). Then, standardized residuals in each cell greater or lesser than 1.96 were considered as being statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less. Fourth, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the relationship between age and cluster group membership. A Levenes F test was conducted to examine if the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met. Finally, nonresponse items were handled by a pair-wise deletion method because missing data consisted of only about 10% for both offending and victimization measures. SPSS 16.0 was used for all data analyses. Results Correlations A statistically significant, positive correlation between offending and victim scale score was found (r = 0.62, p < 0.01). This result indicates that students who cyberbullied others are

Cyberbullying

12

likely to be also victimized. In addition, a statistically significant, negative correlation between offending scale score and sex was observed (r =- 0.24, p < 0.01). This result indicates that girls are less likely than boys to cyberbully others. As for the level of parental monitoring, age showed statistically significant, negative correlation (r =- 0.24, p < 0.01) and sex showed a statistically significant, positive correlation (r =0.21, p < 0.05). These results indicate that the level of parental monitoring is higher for younger children and girl. The level of parental monitoring was also negatively correlated with offending scale score (r =- 0.19, p < 0.05). This result indicates that students are less likely to cyberbully others as the level of parental monitoring increases. There were no statistically significant correlations among sex, age, and victimization scale score. Cluster Analysis It was hypothesized from literature on traditional bullying that four clusters would emerge. Cluster one was termed the least involved group, and scored the lowest on both offending and victim scale scores. The group included 68 students (51.1 % of the sample). Cluster two was termed the highly involved both as a bully and a victim group, and scored the highest scores on both offending and victim scale scores. The group included 17 students (12.8 % of the sample). Cluster three was termed the more bully than victim group and scored the second highest score on offending scale score and the second lowest on victim scale score. The group included 14 students (10.5 % of the sample). Cluster four was termed the more victim than bully group and scored the second highest on victim scale score and the lowest on offending scale score. The group included 13 students (9.8 % of the sample). Of the 133 students, 21 students did not complete the survey; thus, they are treated as missing data. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics according to cluster membership while Figure 1 contains a graphic display of offending and victimization scale scores according to cluster membership.

Cyberbullying [Insert Table 1] [Insert Figure 1]

13

Further, results from the MANOVA indicated the distinctions among four subgroups were significant on both bullying (F(3,108) = 351.72, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.90) and victimization measures (F(3,108) = 240.65, p < 0.01, 2 =0.87). The Box test was significant (F(3,4) = 6.82, p < 0.01), thus the assumption of the equality of covariances was violated. As a result, the MANOVA statistic reported was the Wilks Lambda, which was significant ( = .02, F(6,214)= 0.20, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.85). Sex differences A 2 (sex) x 4(cluster) chi-square analysis revealed statistically significant differences for sex, 2 (3, N =133) =11.63, p < 0.05, =0.36). The value of Phi indicated a medium strength of association between sex and student group membership. In examining the standardized residuals for each cell in the chi-square analysis, results indicated that significantly more girls (n =11, Std residual = 2.1) than boys (n = 2, Std residual = -1.9) were classified into the more victim than bullys group. However, no other significant sex differences emerged. Age differences A Levenes F test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met, F(3, 124) = 3.21, p < 0.05. A one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences for age (F(3, 124) = 3.96, p < 0.05, 2= 0.87), suggesting that cluster membership was associated with students age. Younger students (M = 14.92, SD = 0.33) were more likely to be in the more victim than bully group, but as they become a little older, the trend seemed to split into two directions: Highly involved (M = 15.76, SD = 0.29) or Least involved (M = 15.61, SD = 0.13). Then, older students (M = 16.39, SD = 0.28) were more likely to be in the more bully

Cyberbullying

14

than victim group. Both linear and quadratic trend appear to be significant; however, quadratic trend seems to fit the data slightly better, F(3, 124) = 3.96, p < 0.05. Figure 2 contains a graphic display of the relationship between age and cluster membership. [Insert Figure 2] The level of parental monitoring A Levenes F test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met, F(3, 124) = 3.04, p < 0.05. A one-way ANOVA revealed statistically nonsignificant differences for the level of parental monitoring (F(3, 124) = 2.08, p> 0.05), suggesting that cluster membership was not associated with the level of parental monitoring. Discussion The purpose of the present study was to identify the subgroups of youth who are involved with cyberbullying and to examine sex and age differences and the level of parental monitoring among these groups. A cluster analysis identified four groups: least involved, highly involved both as a bully and victim, more bully than victim, and more victim than bully group. Although the majority of students were in the least involved group (51.1 %), about 10% of the students were in the highly involved both as a bully and victim group, and the rest of the students (21%) had also experienced cyberbullying at least once. In traditional bullying studies, differences among children have been conceptualized through categorizing them into four groups: bullies, victim, bully/victims, and not involved (Espelage & Holt, 2007). However, the analyses indicate that it is rare for high school students to be pure cyberbullies and/or cybervictims. As for sex differences, girls were more likely to be in the more victim than bully group than boys. This result is consistent with findings arguing that more girls experience indirect types

Cyberbullying

15

of bullying than boys (Kowalski et al, 2008; Ma, 2002; Olweus, 1993), and girls were more likely to be victimized online (Dehue et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2008). The result also found significant age differences among groups. Younger students were more likely to be in the more victim than bully group, and older students were more likely to be in the more bully than victim group. In traditional bullying, researchers have argued that younger children are victimized more often than older children because younger victims were bullied both by older and same-age pupils. On the other hand, older victims were bullied mainly by same-age (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999). Moreover, it is also possible that older students are more technology savvy than younger students and know how to protect themselves from being cybervictims: blocking unwanted contacts or limiting friends network on social networking sites. Therefore, older students were less likely to be victimized compared to younger students. In addition, older students have a larger social circle than younger students at high school. Even though cyberbullying can happen anonymously, this type of harassment often occurs within the circle of friends. In fact, Smith et al. (n.d.) report that most of the cyberbullying is done by students in the same class, or in a same year different class in their study. Similarly, Kowalski & Limber (2007) found that victims were cyberbullied by a student at school. In other words, students are victimized by someone they know, not by strangers in a cyberspace. Thus, older students who know more people at school possible have higher risk of being highly involved as a bully or victim. In addition, younger students have not acquired assertive skills yet: There is evidence that some victims of bullying come from enmeshed, overprotective family backgrounds in which skills of assertiveness are not practiced (Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999, p. 282). Research suggests the usefulness of assertive training for victimized students (Smith, Madsen, & Moody,

Cyberbullying

16

1999); thus, teaching younger students how to be assertive and protect themselves online would be important. Finally, the level of parental monitoring was not associated with cluster membership. Our finding is consistent with Mesch (2009)s study. This result indicates parental monitoring strategies are not effective and protective as McQuade et al. (2009) pointed out. Implications & Limitations of the Study This research extends previous cyberbullying studies by classifying students and examining sex and age differences and the level of parental monitoring based on the subgroups. Past research indicated mixed findings on sex and age differences possibly because the methodology ignored students cyberbullying subgroups (e.g., Aricak, 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Li, 2006). As discussed earlier, the classification is important for schools to implement effective prevention and intervention strategies. In addition, this study also found sex and age differences. Unlike traditional bullying, physical strength and age do not seem to be a significant predictor in cyberbullying contexts; however, girls and younger students are still more likely to be victimized than boys and/or older students. Even though it seems easier for cybervictim to fight back, some victims may not know how to protect themselves. Therefore, it can be concluded that cyberbullying victimization pattern is similar to traditional bullying. Finally, some limitations of the study also need to be addressed. First, this is a crosssectional correlational study; thus, causality inferences cannot be made. Second, the sample size may be considered small, however our analyses revealed acceptable levels of statistical power (1 = .95 to .99) and the majority of the students are Caucasian who live in the rural area of middle class families. Therefore, future studies can include individuals with different ethnic and

Cyberbullying socioeconomic backgrounds. Finally, age differences are compared only among high school students in the current study. If middle school or elementary school students were included,

17

analyses can show more distinct age differences and trend. Future studies can replicate the study with larger and more diverse samples. In addition, future researchers also can examine other variables such as educational achievement and psychological traits to distinguish among groups. Despite these limitations, this research adds to a growing literature on cyberbullying among youth. Acknowledgement The authors thank Dr. Willard and Dr. Smith for letting us use part of their questionnaires for our study.

Cyberbullying References Anderson, T., & Sturm, B. (2007). Cyberbullying: From playground to computer. Young Adult Library Services, 5, 24-27.

18

Aoyama, I., & Talbert, L. T. (2009, April). A cross-cultural study on cyber-bullying among high school students in the Unites States and Japan. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA. Arcak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of cyberbullying among university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 167-184. Barnard-Brak, L., & To, Y. (2009). Examining parental nonresponse to stimulant treatment questions according to ethnicity. Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology, 19, 301-304. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265-277. Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A.L., & O-Brennan, L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361-382. Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vllink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 217-223.

Duncan, D. R. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victims. In D. L. Esspelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools. (pp. 227-244). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Espelage, L. D., & Holt, K., M. (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully-

Cyberbullying victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799-811.

19

Green, S. B., & Salkind, J. W. (2004). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (4th Edition). London: Pearson. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89-112.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.

Joinson, A. (1998). Causes and implications of behavior on the Internet. In Gackenbach, J. (Ed); Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43-60). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press.

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-505. Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the victims?: A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization in school. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21, 25-36. Kowalski, M. R., & Limber, P. S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 22-30. Kowalski, M. R., Limber, P. S., & Agatson, W. P. (2008). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital

Cyberbullying age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157-170. Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Individual and school characteristics of victims and offenders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 63 89. Marini, Z., Dane, A., Bosacki, S., & Ylc-Cura, Y. (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims:

20

differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551-569.

Mason, K. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 323-348.

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 57-75.

McQuade, C. S., Colt, P. J., Meyer, B. N. (2009). Cyber bullying. Protecting kid and adults from online bullies. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Mesch, S. G. (2009). Parental Mediation, Online Activities, and Cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 387-393. Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In P, Smith., Y, Morita., J, JungerTas., D, Olweus., R, Catalano., & P, Slee. (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective (pp. 309-323). Florence, KY US: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.

Cyberbullying

21

Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39, 315-335.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575. Rosen, L. D. (2007) Me, MySpace, and I: Parenting the Net Generation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. School Data Direct Retrieved on Nov 1, 2009, from http://www.schooldatadirect.org/ Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-Bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. New York: Routledge. Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., & Moody, J. C. (1999). What cause the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41 267-285. Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., and Tippett, N. (n.d.). An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. Retrieved July 11, 2008, from http://www.antibullyingalliance.org.uk/downloads/pdf/cyberbullyingreportfinal230106_000.pdf Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49, 376-385. Tabachnick, G. B., & Fidall, S. L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cyberbullying

22

Wienke Totura, M. C. et al. (2009). Bullying and victimization among boys and girls in middle school: The Influence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 571-609. Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyber-threats: responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and internet harassment among young regular internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 247-257. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 1308-1316.

Cyberbullying

23

Figure 1. Graphic display of offending and victimization scale scores

2.5 2 1.5 1

0.5
0 -0.5 -1 Offending Score Victimization Score

More victim than bully

-0.55 1.07

Least Involved -0.55 -0.68

Highly Involved 2.05 1.63

More bully than victim

1.04 0.32

Offending Score Victimization Score

Cyberbullying Table 1. Descriptive statistics according to cluster membership Offending Score Victimization Score More victim than bully Least Involved Highly Involved More bully than victim M -0.55 -0.55 2.05 1.04 SD 0 0 0.83 0.29 M 1.07 -0.68 1.63 0.32 SD 0.56 0 0.34 0.68 N 13 68 14 17

24

Cyberbullying

25

Figure 2. The relationship between age and cluster membership

17 16.5 16.39

16
15.76 15.5 15 14.5 14 More victim than bully Least Involved Highly Involved More bully than victim 15.61 Mean age 14.92