Longitudinal Predictors of Cyber and Traditional Bullying Perpetration in Australian Secondary School Students

School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Australia.
Journal of Adolescent Health (Impact Factor: 3.61). 07/2012; 51(1):59-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019
Source: PubMed


Cyberbullying perpetration (using communication technology to engage in bullying) is a recent phenomenon that has generated much concern. There are few prospective longitudinal studies of cyberbullying. The current article examines the individual, peer, family, and school risk factors for both cyber and traditional bullying (the latter is bullying that does not use technology) in adolescents.
This article draws on a rich data set from the International Youth Development Study, a longitudinal study of students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States, which began in 2002. In this article, data from almost 700 Victorian students recruited in grade 5 are analyzed to examine grade 7 (aged 12-13 years) predictors of traditional and cyberbullying perpetration in grade 9 (aged 14-15 years).
Fifteen per cent of students engaged in cyberbullying, 21% in traditional bullying, and 7% in both. There are similarities and important differences in the predictors of cyber and traditional bullying. In the fully adjusted model, only prior engagement in relational aggression (a covert form of bullying, such as spreading rumors about another student) predicted cyberbullying perpetration. For traditional bullying, previous relational aggression was also predictive, as was having been a victim and perpetrator of traditional bullying, family conflict, and academic failure.
The use of evidence-based bullying prevention programs is supported to reduce experiences of all forms of bullying perpetration (cyber, traditional, and relational aggression). In addition, for traditional bullying perpetration, addressing family conflict and student academic support are also important.

28 Reads
  • Source
    • "Despite this, there is a need to advance in identifying psychosocial risk and protective factors associated with the different profi les in bullying and cyberbullying involvement. Recent studies recognize the infl uence of personal and contextual factors in aggressive behaviour and victimization (Casas, Del Rey, & Ortega, 2013; Fanti, Demetruiou, & Hawa, 2012; Hemphill et al., 2012; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Preddy & Fite, 2012), and a higher infl uence of contextual factors is identifi ed in bullying than in cyberbullying (Atik & Güneri, 2013; Feslt & Quandt, 2013; Hemphill et al., 2012; Law, Shapka, Domene, & Gagné, 2012). It is necessary to deepen investigation into the relationship between cyberbullying and bullying in terms of risk and protective factors for the roles of aggressor, victim and bully/ victim. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Research has shown that there is a co-occurrence between bullying and cyberbullying in relation to certain variables that describe and explain them. The present study aims to examine the differential influence of individual and contextual variables on perception of the role played in the involvement in both phenomena. Method: Participants were 1278 schoolchildren (47.7 % girls) of primary education, aged 10 to 14 years (M=11.11, SD= 0.75). Results: Logistic regression analysis indicated that social adjustment, normative adjustment, disruptiveness, gender, and self-esteem explain a substantial part of the involvement in both violent phenomena as victims, aggressors, and bully/victims. Conclusions: The results are discussed regarding the weight that must attributed to individual versus contextual factors, concluding that the explicative weight of the immediate social elements and educational context may make the difference.
    Psicothema 10/2015; 27(4):347-353. DOI:10.7334/psicothema2015.35 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "ng ( Ortega and Mora - Merchán , 2008 ; Olweus , 2013 ; Ortega - Ruiz et al . , 2014 ) . Several studies have shown how cyberbullying , and more specifically cybervictimiza - tion , occur as the result of , and can be predicted by , traditional victimization , although this relationship is not seen in the other direction ( Del Rey et al . , 2012 ; Hemphill et al . , 2012 ; Kowalski et al . , 2012 ; Olweus , 2012 ) ."
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The negative effects of traditional bullying and, recently, cyberbullying on victims are well-documented, and abundant empirical evidence for it exists. Cybervictimization affects areas such as academic performance, social integration and self-esteem, and causes emotions ranging from anger and sadness to more complex problems such as depression. However, not all victims are equally affected, and the differences seem to be due to certain situational and personal characteristics. The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between perceived emotional intelligence (PEI) and the emotional impact of cybervictimization. We hypothesize that EI, which has previously been found to play a role in traditional bullying and cyberbullying, may also affect the emotional impact of cyberbullying. The participants in our study were 636 university students from two universities in the south of Spain. Three self-report questionnaires were used: the "European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire," the "Cyberbullying Emotional Impact Scale"; and "Trait Meta-Mood Scale-24." Structural Equation Models were used to test the relationships between the analyzed variables. The results support the idea that PEI, by way of a moderator effect, affects the relationship between cybervictimization and emotional impact. Taken together, cybervictimization and PEI explain much of the variance observed in the emotional impact in general and in the negative dimensions of that impact in particular. Attention and Repair were found to be inversely related to Annoyance and Dejection, and positively related to Invigoration. Clarity has the opposite pattern; a positive relationship with Annoyance and Dejection and an inverse relationship with Invigoration. Various hypothetical explanations of these patterns are discussed.
    Frontiers in Psychology 04/2015; 6(486). DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00486 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "As cyberbullying has received extensive attention in the popular media, research on cyberbullying behaviors is also growing, at both the national and the international levels. The majority of existing studies have focused on the prevalence of the phenomenon (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Merch, 2009; Olweus, 2012), school-based bullying (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001; O'Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999; Olweus, 1993; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Wang, Ronald, & Tonja, 2009), and the comparative analysis of traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Hay, Meldrum, & Mann, 2010; Hemphill et al., 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). However, at present, studies focusing on the measurement of cyberbullying are still scarce. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Cyber bullying represents a new and alarming form of bullying that potentially leads to serious and long-lasting consequences for young people; yet, there is a dearth of research on the assessment of cyberbullying behaviors among emerging adults. Thus, this study aims to close this gap by assessing the development and validation of the cyberbullying behavior scales for application in social work research and practice settings. Methods: Two scales, cyberbullying perpetration (CBP) and cyberbullying victimization (CBV), were validated using a purposive sample of 286 undergraduate students aged 18 to 25. Results: Both CBP and CBV scales showed excellent reliability (a = .93 for CBP and a = .95 for CBV), good fit, and strong convergent validity. Conclusions: The cyberbullying behavior scales provide valid and reliable measures of emerging adults’ bullying behaviors. Implications for further social work research and practice are discussed.
    Research on Social Work Practice 03/2015; DOI:10.1177/1049731515578535 · 1.53 Impact Factor
Show more