Content uploaded by Francine Dehue
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francine Dehue
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation with adolescents’ perception of parenting.
Faculty of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, PO Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen,
The Netherlands
2
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Abstract
This study investigates the relation between parenting and involvement in cyberbullying. We
predicted that cyberbullies and cyberbully-victims report less responsiveness and
demandingness from their parents than victims and youths who are not involved in
cyberbullying. And we predicted that youths with neglectful parents cyberbully most and
youths with authoritative parents cyberbully least. The same differences were predicted for
traditional bullying behavior and for youth involved in both forms of bullying behavior.
Participants were 1200 youths of 10 to 14 years old. They responded to a survey measuring
cyberbullying and traditional bullying with questions based on the sub-scales from the
Bully/Victim Questionnaire, and parenting with an adjusted version of the ‘Parenting style’
questionnaire. Most results confirm our predictions. Results on authoritative, authoritarian,
permissive and neglectful parenting style suggest that for bullies demandingness is an
important dimension and for victims responsiveness is an important dimension.
Keywords: youths, cyberbullying, cyber victimization, parenting dimensions, parenting style
3
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Author note
Francine Dehue, Faculty of Psychology. Research on cyberbullying and bullying at work.
Depute member of the Management Committee of the COST Action IS0801 on
cyberbullying.
Catherine Bolman, Faculty of Psychology. Research on health intervention strategies.
Trijntje Vollink, Faculty of Psychology. Reasearch on determinants of cyberbullying.
Member of the Management Committee of the COST Action IS0801 on cyberbullying
Mieneke Pouwelse, Faculty of Psychology. Research on contextual influences on bullying
and victimization and the behavior of bystanders.
4
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation with adolescents’ perception of
parenting
In order to communicate with each other youths make use of electronic communication tools
on the Internet, such as chatrooms, social networking sites and blogs, and of cell phones
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Lenhart, Purcell, Smith & Zickuhr, 2010). It has been suggested
that for the majority of youths these electronic tools are “critical tools for their social life”
(Kowalski, Limber & Agatston, 2008, p. 2). The analysis of anonymous posts by youths
revealed the importance and regularity of their involvement in interactions on the Internet
(Mishna, McLuckie & Saini, 2009). Although these tools provide numerous benefits to young
people they are not without their disadvantages. As shown in Tokunaga’s review (2010) on
cyberbullying, one such disadvantage is the increasing use of these tools to bully other
children.
The often referred definition of bullying of Olweus (1993a) states that an individual is
bullied if he is repeatedly and intentionally exposed, over a long period of time by one or
more individuals, to negative acts in a situation where a power imbalance exists. Based on
this definition, Smith et al. (2008) define cyberbullying as long term aggressive, intentional,
repetitive acts by one or more individuals, using electronic means, against an almost
powerless victim.
While both definitions indicate that traditional bullying and cyberbullying share certain
characteristics such as repetitiveness, intentionality and power imbalance, they also differ.
Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying is bereft of non-verbal cues, thus increasing the
risk of misinterpretation: what was intended as a joke could be regarded as intentional and
deliberately hurtful (Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2009). Contrary to traditional bullying,
the perpetrators of cyberbullying may be unknown (Dehue, Bolman & Völlink, 2008;
Dempsey, Sulkowsky, Dempsey & Srtorch, 2011; Huang & Chou, 2010; Ybarra, Diener-
5
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
West & Leaf, 2007). This anonymity and the invasion of, hitherto protected, privacy make
cyberbullying very painful for victims (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Mishna, Saini, & Solomon,
2009). The anonymity, the inability to have any control over acts of bullying and the fact that
few places remain for cyberbully victims to escape their tormentors (Dempsey et al., 2011)
also results in feelings of powerlessness (Dooley, Pyzalski & Cross, 2009). Moreover,
cyberbullying can quickly command a large audience and can be longer visible (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2011; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Sourander et al., 2010; Vandebosch & van Cleemputt
2009; Ybarra et al., 2007). As to the latter difference, some researchers argued that
repetitiveness is not a prerequisite for cyberbullying, since a single act such as uploading an
embarrassing picture can result in continued and widespread humiliation (Dooley et al., 2009;
Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk & Solomon, 2010; Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2009).
Many studies have shown that cyberbullying is a prevalent problem. A significant
proportion of youth report having cyberbullied and being cybervictimized, ranging from 4%
to 57% (Dehue et al., 2008; Erdur-Baker, 2010; Kraft & Wang, 2009; Mesch, 2009; Mishna
et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Raskauskas, 2009; Vandebosch & van Cleemput,
2009; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011). Methods of measuring cyberbullying could account
for the difference in prevalence figures. Some studies present percentages of youths who
occasionally have cyberbullied or cybervictimized, while others used the restriction of at least
once per month. Moreover, Vandebosch and van Cleemput (2009) have shown that when
asked whether youths were perpetrators or victims of cyberbullying, approximately 10%
answered in the affirmative, whereas when asked about specific cyberbullying acts 62%
reported having experienced and 52% admitted having carried out at least one form of
cyberbullying. Apparently, prevalence figures are lower when youths are asked if they have
been either victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying than when asked about specific
cyberbullying acts. This could indicate that certain forms of cyberbullying are not always
6
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
regarded as cyberbullying (Dehue et al., 2008; Mishna, Saini et al., 2009) and that the
perception is dependent on the context (Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2009).
There is convincing evidence that being cyberbullied can result in serious psychosomatic
and psychosocial health problems. Several studies found that victims of cyberbullying feel
depressed, confused, guilty, feared, lonely, embarrassed, angry, sad, and experience a low
self esteem and more interpersonal problems than non-victims (Mishna, McLuckie et al.,
2009; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010; Raskauskas, 2010; Tokunaga, 2010; Wang et
al., 2011). Other studies found clear evidence for negative behavioral and physical
consequences associated with cyberbullying such as offline interpersonal victimization, use
of drugs and alcohol, problems at school and with peers, physical or sexual abuse,
delinquency and aggressive behavior (Tokunaga, 2010). Some researchers suggest that the
effects of cyberbullying are more severe than the effects of traditional bullying, due to the
anonymity of the bullyer and the continuity of the messages (Mishna, Saini et al., 2009;
Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, & Comeaux, 2010).
The aforementioned literature research reveals that cyberbullying is a serious problem
with severe consequences. Very little is known about the role of parenting in cyberbullying.
Parents are often excluded from the internet activities of their youngsters because they value
their privacy (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008), and thus cyberbullying is less visible than
traditional bullying. Moreover, youth do not tell their parents they are involved in
cyberbullying because they fear punishment, loss of computer privileges, and isolation from
peers (Bath, 2008; Kraft & Wang, 2009; Mishna, Saini et al. 2009). So, parents are frequently
unaware that their child is a cyberbully or is cyberbullied (Aricak et al., 2008; Dehue et al.,
2008). Yet, the role of parents is critical in safe Internet usage (Bath, 2008; Rosen, Cheever &
Carrier, 2008). Moreover, Internet usage is mainly a home activity (Dehue et al., 2008; Lee &
Chae, 2007). Monitoring and regulating this usage is however hard, since there is a
7
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
generational divide in internet usage. Parents are often less than expert in the new
communication technologies and feel less confident about using the Internet than the youth.
They do not fully understand the risks (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008; Wong, 2010).
This implicates that parents are not aware of a need for internet education, which stresses the
importance of the role of parenting, or the normal variations in parents’ attempts to control
and socialize their children (Baumrind, 1991) in relation to cyber bullying.
Some studies have examined the relation between characteristics of parenting and
cyberbullying, They found that children who cyberbully experience limited parental
monitoring, stronger parental discipline and a weaker emotional bond with their parents than
children who do not cyberbully (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004; Wang, Ianotti, & Nansel, 2009;
Wong, 2010). It was also found that adolescents who received more support from parents
participate in fewer negative and antisocial behaviors (Park, Kim, & Cho, 2008)
These studies however did not take into account the strong relation between traditional
bullying behavior and cyberbullying. Many youths who are involved in traditional bullying
are also involved in cyberbullying (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Dehue et al. 2008; Dempsey et al.,
2011; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, & Melzer, 2011; Twyman et al., 2010). The aim of the
present study is to provide insight into the relation between parenting and cyberbullying,
traditional bullying and both forms of bullying to investigate which parental practices
decreases the risk of bullying and victimization.
It has been suggested that deficient parenting impairs the social competence of their
children and the ability to develop positive friendships, whereas parents who are involved in
their children and supervise them are instrumental in reducing aggressive behavior within and
without the family (Duman, & Margolin, 2007; Knutson, DeGarmo & Reid, 2004; Mazefsky
& Farell, 2005). Parents who interact with their children in a hostile, cold and indifferent
manner encourage their children do interact with others in the same manner, which affects the
8
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
socialization of their children and which may increase the likelihood of becoming a bully
(Pontzer, 2010). It indeed is a well established finding that poor supervision, inconsistent
discipline and lack of affection and support influence the unfolding of antisocial behavior in
children, whereas effective parenting characterized by warmth and consistency is associated
with reduced levels of antisocial behavior (Bacchini, Miranda, & Affuso, 2011; Brown,
Arnold, Dobbs, & Doctoroff , 2007; Demetriou & Christodoulides, 2011; Getachew &
Sintayehu, 2007; Knutson et al., 2004; Luyckx et al., 2011).
Current theories posit that parental characteristics can be ranked into a responsiveness
dimension characterized by warmth, support, acceptance and affection, and a demandingness
dimension referring to supervision, control and monitoring (Baumrind, 1991; Spera, 2005).
Some researchers have investigated the relation between parental responsiveness and
traditional bullying and found a negative association: as parents were less responsive, their
children exhibited more bullying behavior and victimization increased (Flouri & Buchanan,
2002; Georgio, 2008; Ok & Aslan, 2010). Some other researchers compared bullies, bully-
victims and victims and found that bullies and bully-victims experienced less parental
responsiveness than victims (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998;
Stevens, Bourdeaudhuij & Oost 2002). Also the relation between demandingness and
traditional bullying is investigated and these studies revealed that bullies and bully-victims
experience more parental demandingness than victims (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-
CURA, 2006; Rican, Klicperova & Koucka, 1993; Unnever, 2005).
Both dimensions however co-exist and influence each other (Baumrind, 1991; Spera,
2005). A combination of both dimensions results in four parenting styles, as figure 1 shows.
Figure 1 about here
9
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Responsive and demanding parents adopt an authoritative parenting style, less
responsive but demanding parents adopt an authoritarian parenting style, responsive but less
demanding parents adopt a permissive parenting style and less responsive and less demanding
parents adopt a neglectful parenting style (Baumrind, 1991, 2005). Many studies have shown
that children with authoritative parents exhibit less problem behavior and have greater
psychosocial competence and lower levels of psychological and behavioral dysfunction.
Children with authoritarian parents exhibit antisocial behavior in public whereas children
with permissive parents generally act impulsively and develop aggressive behavior. Children
with neglectful parents suffer from the Internet Addiction Disorder, and manifest, in the long
term, antisocial and delinquent behavior (Baumrind, 2005; Duriez & Soenens, 2006; den
Exter-Blokland, Engels, & Finkenauer, 2001; Knutson et al., 2004; Xiuqin et al., 2010). The
parenting styles are also related to bullying behavior by youths. Several studies on traditional
bullying show that youths from families characterized by authority and neglect bully more
often (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Casas et al., 2006; Knutson
et al., 2004; Olweus, 1993a; Stevens et al. 2002), whereas victimization is associated with a
permissive parental style (Georgiou, 2008).
In the present study we address the question whether a relation exists between
cyberbullying, being cyberbullied and the parenting dimensions and styles. Based on the
aforementioned research, we predicted that cyberbullies and cyberbully-victims report less
responsiveness and less demandingness from their parents than victims and youths who are
not involved in cyberbullying. We predicted the same differences for youths who are
involved in traditional bullying behavior and with both forms of bullying behavior. And we
predicted that youths with neglectful parents cyberbully most and youths with authoritative
parents cyberbully least. Again, the same differences were predicted for traditional bullying
behavior and for both forms of bullying behavior. Furthermore, we also investigated the
10
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
relation between parenting style and cybervictimization, traditional victimization and
victimization of both forms of bullying behavior.
Method
Participants and procedure
This study was carried out in the south of the Netherlands under the auspices of the regional
Public Health Service (PHS). We did an inventory of all 67 primary schools and 7 of the
junior high schools in the region to determine school type, school size and location (town or
village). Based on this information classic school types with an average student population
were selected to participate in this study. Schools from towns and small villages were
proportionally represented which resulted in the selection of 34 primary and all 7 of the high
schools. Of the 34 primary schools 31 (91%) and of the 7 high schools 6 (86%) agreed to
participate. Per school or location, dependent on the school size, at least one group 8 (primary
school) and one high school class 1 was randomly assigned to take part in the study. A few
students did not fill in the questionnaire due to illness or absenteeism. Of the 1221 students
who completed the questionnaire, 37 students neglected to answer several questions, which
were excluded from the study. Of the resulting 1184 students 580 were girls, 583 were boys
and 21 did not fill in their gender. The age of the students ranged from 10 to 14 with a mean
age of 11.7 (SD .74); 66% attended primary school and 34% attended junior high school.
The selected schools received a letter requesting participation plus an information
leaflet for the parents. After approval of the schools and informing parents the schools
received an explanatory letter, the questionnaire and instructions for the teachers. Students
filled in the questionnaire under the supervision of their teachers. The questionnaires were,
via the schools, collected by the PHS.
Measurement
11
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
In line with Ybarra et al. (2007) the questionnaire began with a definition of cyberbullying,
which emphasizes doing nasty and mean things to someone else with the computer or cell
phone, the lack of power of the victim and the anonymity of the bullier and excludes making
jokes. In addition some examples were given. The following four questions concerning
frequency of cyberbullying and cybervictimization (two on the Internet and two by cell
phone) plus two questions concerning frequency of traditional bullying were based on a
translation (Liebrand, IJsendoorn & van Lieshout, 1991) of sub-scales from the Bully/Victim
Questionnaire (Olweus, 1993b). The answer categories were: 'I have not bullied/ I have not
been bullied this school year', 'once or twice this school year', 'approximately once or twice
per month', 'approximately once per week', 'many times per week'.
The parenting dimensions responsiveness and demandingness were measured with an
adjusted version of the ‘Parenting style’ questionnaire (den Exter-Blokland et al., 2001).
Responsiveness was measured with 10 questions such as 'Do your parents/carers try to help
you solve your problems?'. Demandingness was measured by 7 questions, one of which is
'Do your parents know exactly what you do in your free time?'. All questions used a 5-point
scale with the answer categories: 1 (no, never), 2 (mostly not), 3 (sometimes), 4 (mostly yes),
5 (yes, always). High average scores reflect a high level of responsiveness and
demandingness of parents. Cronbach's alpha for the responsiveness scale was .80, for
demandingness .62. Consistent with Exter-Blokland et al. (2001), youths were classified as
being parented in an authoritative manner if they reported scores above average on the
responsiveness and demandingness dimensions and authoritarian if they reported scores
below average on responsiveness and above average on demandingness. And they were
classified as being parented as permissive when scores were above average on responsiveness
and below average on demandingness, and as being parented as neglectful if both
responsiveness and demandingness scores were below average.
12
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Prior to the study, the questionnaire was pre-tested on 40 students who did not participate
in the study. As a result of the pre-test some questions were adjusted to facilitate clarity,
understanding and ease in answering the questions.
Results
To assess whether youths who are involved in traditional bullying behavior also were
involved in cyberbullying we calculated Cramer’s V which revealed an association between
cyberbullying and traditional bullying (.23, p < .01). Table 1 shows that 40.1% of the youths
were not involved in either form of bullying behavior, 7.1% of all youths were involved in
only cyberbullying, 30.1% were involved in only traditional bullying and 22.8% were
involved in both forms of bullying behavior as either bullier, victim, of bully-victim.
Table 1 about here
We then tested our hypotheses that bullies and bully-victims report less responsiveness
and less demandingness from their parents than victims and youths who are not involved in
bullying. We used ANOVA´s with involvement in bullying behavior as independent variable
and responsiveness and demandingness as dependent variables, for involvement in only
cyberbullying, for involvement in only traditional bullying, and for involvement in both
forms of bullying behavior. Although cyberbully-victims and victims report the least
responsiveness and cyberbullies report less responsiveness than youths who are not involved
in bullying (table 2), the differences are not significant (F(3, 535) = 2.33, p > .5). The
differences for demandingness however are significant (F(3, 535) = 3.19, p < .05) and
Tukey’s tests and mean scores show significantly least demandingness reported by
cyberbullies and most by youths who are not involved in cyberbullying (p < .05).
13
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Table 2 about here
For traditional bullying the analyses reveal significant differences for responsiveness
(F(3, 798) = 7.68, p < .01) as well as for demandingness (F(3, 798) = 10.33, p < .01).
Tukey’s tests and mean scores reveal that youths who traditional bullied and/or were victims
of traditional bullying report significantly less responsiveness from their parents than youths
who are not involved in traditional bullying, and that youths who only bullied report less
demandingness than the other youths (p < .05). Also for youths who are involved in both
forms of bullying behavior as bullies, bully-victims or victims the differences in
responsiveness and demandingness are significant (F(9, 706) = 7.02, p < .01 and F(9, 706) =
9.62, p < .01). Games-Howell’s tests and mean scores reveal a significant lower score on
responsiveness for youths who bullied in both forms and who were victims of both forms
compared to the non-involved youths (p < .05). For demandingness Tukey’s tests and mean
scores reveal significant lowest scores for youths who bullied in both forms, followed by the
bully-victims of both forms, who score lower than the victims of both forms and the non-
involved youths (p < .05).
Consistent with Exter-Blokland et al. (2001), youths are classified as being parented in
an authoritative manner if they scored above average on the responsiveness and
demandingness dimensions, authoritarian if they scored below average on responsiveness and
above average on demandingness, permissive when scores were above average on
responsiveness and below average on demandingness, and neglectful if both responsiveness
and demandingness scores were below average. In order to investigate the relation between
the parenting style and the frequency of bullying and victimization, ANOVA's were carried
out with parenting style as independent variable and bullying behavior and victimization as
dependent variables. Again, we performed these analyses for only cyberbullying, only
14
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
traditional bullying and both forms of bullying separately. Table 3 presents the number and
percentages of youths for each parenting style and form of bullying behavior. Most youths
have authoritative parents, except those who are involved in both forms of bullying behavior.
The percentage with neglectful parents is highest for this group and lowest for youths who
are not involved in bullying behavior (χ2 (9, 1141) = 49.02, p < .05).
Table 3 about here
Table 4 presents the mean scores on bullying behavior for each parenting style. Youths
with permissive and neglectful parents cyberbullied more often than youths whose parents
adopt an authoritative and authoritarian parental style, but the differences are not significant
(F(3, 535) = 1.81, p > .05). And youths with authoritarian and neglectful parents were more
often cyberbullied than youths with authoritative and permissive parents but again the
differences are not significant (F(3, 535) = 1.33, p > .05). For traditional bullying results
however revealed significant differences (F(3, 798) = 6.52, p < .01). Games-Howell’s tests
and mean scores shows that youths with neglectful parents bullied significantly more often
than youths with authoritative parents (p < .05). Youths with authoritarian and permissive
parents are most often bullied, youths with neglectful parents somewhat less often and youths
with authoritative the least often, but these differences are not significant (F(3, 798) = 2.23, p
> .05). Again, the differences between youths who cyberbullied as well as traditional bullied
are significant (F(3, 581) = 10.83, p < .01), with youths with neglectful parents bullying most
often and youths with permissive parents bullying more often than youths with authoritative
and authoritarian parents (p < .05). Youths with neglectful parents show highest scores on
victimization, followed by youths with authoritarian parents and youths with authoritative
15
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
and permissive parents show lowest scores on victimization, but these differences are not
significant (F(3, 581) = 2.04, p > .05).
Table 4 about here
Discussion
Most studies on cyberbullying do not take into account that most youths who are
involved in cyberbullying are also involved in traditional bullying, whereas several studies
showed significant positive relations (e.g. Erdur-Baker, 2010; Dehue et al., 2008; Dempsey et
al., 2011; Steffgen et al, 2011; Twyman et al., 2010; Ybarra et al., 2007). Our study was
based on a large population, and therefore we were able to distinguish youths who are only
involved in cyberbullying from youths who are only involved in traditional bullying and from
youths who are involved in both forms of bullying. Several researchers suggest that
cyberbullying is more accessible than traditional bullying because it is possible to remain
anonymous and invisible, and because of the lack of feedback (Kowalski et al., 2008; Slonje
& Smith, 2008). The anonymity, invisibility and the lack of feedback however seem not to be
an advantage for youths who are inclined to bully since our study showed that the percentage
of youths who only cyberbully is rather small, as is the percentage of youths who are only
cybervictims. Probably, cyberbullies and traditional bullies, and cybervictims and traditional
victims share common characteristics.
The present study investigates the role of parenting, an aspect of which very little is yet
known regarding cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is less visible than traditional bullying and
parents are often unfamiliar with this phenomenon (Aricak et al., 2008; Dehue et al., 2008).
Moreover, there is a generation divide in internet usage and parents are often unaware of the
activities of their children on internet because they are excluded for reasons of privacy
16
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
(Mitchell at al., 2005; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008; Wong, 2010) and fear of loss of
computer privileges (Bath, 2008; Kraft & Wang, 2009; Mishna et al. 2009). This suggests
that for most parents internet education is not a topic, which implicates that the way of
parenting or the way parents control and socialize their children is especially critical in safe
Internet usage.
Based on the literature (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002; Georgiou, 2008; Smith & Myron-
Wilson, 1998; Stevens et al., 2002; Unnever, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004; Wang et al.,
2009; Wong, 2010) our first hypothesis states that cyberbullies and cyberbully-victims report
less responsiveness and less demandingness from their parents than cybervictims and youths
who are not involved in cyberbullying. The hypothesis was partially supported, since the
cyberbullies report less responsiveness and less demandingness than the non-involved youths,
although the difference on responsiveness was not significant. This however should be
explained by the small percentage of youths who are only cyberbullies, cyberbully-victims
and cybervictims. For youths who are involved in traditional bullying and in cyberbullying
as well as traditional bullying we found comparable but significant results: bullies, bully-
victims and victims report less responsiveness and demandingness than non-involved youths.
Limited responsiveness and demandingness may be considered as deficient parenting. Some
researcher found that deficient parenting practices impair the social competence of children
(Duman & Margolin, 2007; Knutson et al., 2004; Mazefsky & Farell, 2005; Pontzer, 2010).
Thus it is possible that the lack of responsiveness and demandingness of parents as role
models impairs the social competence of both bullies and victims (Perren & Hornung, 2005;
Stevens et al. 2002), especially in the case of cyberbullying as peers and teachers as possible
role models are frequently unaware that a child is a cyberbully or is cyberbullied (Aricak et
al., 2008; Dehue et al., 2008). However, Veenstra and colleagues (2005), who found the same
differences for emotional warmth and traditional bullying behavior, suggest that multivariate
17
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
analyses are necessary since in their study the effect for emotional warmth disappeared after
adding the socioeconomic status of the parents.
The percentage of youths with neglectful parents is highest for those who are involved in
both forms of bullying behavior and lowest for youths who are not involved in bullying
behavior. We found support for the hypothesis that youths with neglectful parents bully most
and youths with authoritative parents bully least, although the differences for youths involved
in only cyberbullying were again not significant, probably due to the small percentage of
youths who are only cyberbullies. For youths who bully both traditionally and in cyberspace
we found that they bully less when they have authoritative or authoritarian parents compared
to permissive parents, and most when they have neglectful parents. Several studies on
traditional bullying also showed that youths with authoritative parents bully the least (Casas
et al, 2006; Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Georgiou, 2008), and
youths with neglectful parents bully the most (Knutson et al., 2004; Olweus, 1993a; Stevens
et al., 2002). Other studies on traditional bullying however have found that children with
authoritarian parents were most likely to bully others. These studies defined an authoritarian
upbringing as one in which punishment, conflict and harshness exist (Ahmed & Braithwaite,
2004; Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Stevens et al., 2002) while in this study an authoritarian
upbringing was defined as one with little responsiveness and a high level of demandingness
taking the form of monitoring and rules.
Our last analyses concerned parenting style and victimization. Due to the small sample
size, the analysis indicate no significant difference on cyber victimization, although the
means suggest that youth with authoritative and permissive parents are less often victimized
than youths with authoritarian and neglectful parents. Results for cyber- and traditional
victims were comparable and significant, and also traditional victims with authoritative
parents were least often victimized and those with authoritarian parents most.
18
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
The finding that youths with authoritative and authoritarian parents bully less frequently
than youths with permissive and neglectful parents suggests that the dimension
demandingness is associated with bullying. The difference between the authoritative and
authoritarian style on the one hand and the permissive and neglectful style on the other is
indeed the level of demandingness, which is less in the permissive and neglectful style. For
victims of bullying behavior the dimension responsiveness is probably most important.
Means suggest less victimization by youths with authoritative and permissive parents than
with authoritarian and neglectful parents. The difference between these pairs of parenting
styles is the level of responsiveness, which is less in the authoritarian and neglectful style.
This study has certain limitations. Although the sample was rather large, the number of
youths who are only involved in cyberbullying is rather small. Bullying behavior was
measured by a single question for perpetrators and victims. As shown by Vandebosch and
van Cleemput (2009), with this method prevalence figures are lower than when subjects are
asked how often they are perpetrators and victims of specific cyberbullying acts. To
distinguish between cyberbullies and cybervictims on the one hand and traditional bullies and
victims on the other it is recommended to use a measurement containing specific
cyberbullying acts. A second limitation lies in the fact that this study did not measure if
parents had rules concerning the use of the Internet. Considering that demandingness seems
to play an important role in bullying, it is to be expected that the rules parents have
concerning the use of the Internet could influence cyberbullying. Indeed, Mesch (2009)
demonstrated that the existence of some rules decreases the risk of cyberbullying
victimization. Although the demandingness of an authoritative and authoritarian parenting
style implicates supervision, control and monitoring, it is not clear whether these parents
perceived as authoritative and authoritarian use rules concerning the internet use. It may be
that they do not realize they can set rules since they are less acquainted with the use of the
19
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
new communication technologies (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008; Wong, 2010 Mitchell
at al., 2005). Obviously it is crucial to know if, and how much, children adhere to these rules.
The third limitation concerns the use of self-report measures which increase the risk of
socially desirable answers and consequently distorted results (Goossens, Olthof & Dekker,
2006). In this respect it is not clear however what youths would perceive as socially
desirable. They may as well be socially influenced by the group norm that disapproves of
bullying or by the group norm that bullying is cool, which makes the potential distortion of
the results by socially desirable answers difficult to interpret. The literature indicates that the
questioning of several groups of witnesses concerning the child's behavior appears to be
reliable (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Elinoff, Chafouleas & Sassu, 2004; Rubin, Bukowski &
Parker, 2006). Future research should therefore utilise peer-report methods to measure
bullying (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998). The use of the Participant Role Scales (PRS),
developed by Salmivalli and colleagues and validated in a Dutch study (Goossens et al.,
2006), is recommended. Whether such an instrument is helpful to measure cyberbulling
should be investigated, since cyberbullies mostly operate alone and at home and peers are
therefore often not aware of cyberbullying (Dehue et al., 2008). A fourth limitation is the
cross-sectional nature of the design which makes it impossible to establish cause and effect.
We therefore recommend longitudinal research. Although earlier longitudinal studies showed
that ineffective parental behavior can initiate bullying (Rican, Klicperova, & Koucka, 1993),
it is possible that problematic behavior such as bullying can initiate ineffective parental
behavior (Cox & Paley, 1997; Huver, Engels & de Vries, 2006; Johnston, Chen & Ohan,
2006).
Conclusion
Our findings indicated great similarities between the different forms of bullying and
vicitmization. However, the importance of parental commitment to cyberbullying is probably
20
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
more necessary as cyberbullying is less noticeable and less visible (Dehue et al. 2008). In
addition, the reactions of victims are less visible due to the lack of nonverbal cues
(Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2009). These aspects ensure that cyberbullies receive almost
no feedback concerning their behavior. Also parents often have no idea whether their child
cyberbullies or is cyberbullied (Dehue et al. 2008). It is therefore important that parents gain
more insight into the negative aspects of the Internet usage and become closely associated
with their children’s’ use of the Internet. Yet the role of parenting practices in cyberbullying
is barely investigated. The findings of this study suggest that especially the parental
dimension responsiveness plays an important role for victims whereas the parental dimension
demandingness plays a role for bullies.
21
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
References
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: cause for concern for both
families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 35-54.
Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., &
Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11(3), 253-261.
Baldry, A. C. & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in
adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8(3), 263-284.
Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and exposure
to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(2), 269-292.
Bath, C.S. (2008). Cyber bullying: overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance
officers, and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 18(1), 53-
66.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61-69.
Brown, S.A., Arnold, D.H., Dobbs, J., & Doctoroff, G.L. (2007). Parenting predictors of
relational aggression among Puerto Rican and European American school-age children. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 147-159.
Casas, J.F., Weigel, S.M., Crick, N.R., Ostrov, J.M., Woods, K.E., Jansen Yeh, E.A., &
Huddleston-Casas, C.A. (2006). Early parenting and children’s relational and physical
aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 209-
227.
22
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Cox, M.J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243-
267.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vollink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: youths’ experiences and parental
perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217-223.
Demaray, M.K., & Malecki, C.K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social
support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school.
School Psychology Research, 32(3), 471-489.
Demetriou, L. & Christodoulides, P. (2011). Personality and psychological adjustment of Greek-
Cypriot youth in the context of the parental Acceptance-Rejection theory. The Cyprus
Review, 23(1), 81-96.
Dempsey, A.G., Sulkowski, M.L., Dempsey, J., & Storch, E.A. (2011). Has cyber technology
produced a new group of peer aggressors? CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 1(5), 297-302.
Dooley, J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying. A
theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.
Duman, S., & Margolin, G. (2007). Parents’ aggressive influences and children’s aggressive
problem solutions with peers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(1),
42-55.
Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006). Personality, identity styles and authoritarianism: an integrative
study among late adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 397-417.
Elinoff, M.J., Chafouleas, S.M., & Sassu, K.A. (2004). Bullying: Considerations for defining and
intervening in school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 41(8), 887-897.
Erdur-Baker, O. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and
frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society
12(1), 109–125.
23
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Exter Blokland, E.A.W., den, Engels, R.C.M.E., & Finkenauer, C. (2001). Parenting practices,
self-control and adolescent delinquency. Aggressive Behavior, 27(3), 216-217.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Lifesatisfaction in teenage boys: The moderating role of
father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 126-133.
Georgiou, S.N. (2008). Parental style and child bullying and victimization experiences at school.
Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 213-227.
Getachew, K. & Sintayehu, M. (2007). Types, magnitude, predictors and controlling
mechanismes of aggression in secondary schools of Jimma zone. Ethiopian Journal of
Education and Science, 2(2), 51-61.
Goossens, F.S., Olthof, T., Dekker, P.H. (2006). New participant role scales: comparison
between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity. Aggressive
Behavior, 32(4), 343-357.
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior
high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1581-1590).
Huver, R.M.E., Engels R.C.M.E., & Vries, H., de (2006). Are anti-smoking parenting practices
related to adults smoking cognitions and behavior? Health Education Research, 21(1), 66-77.
Johnston, C., Chen, M., & Ohan, J. (2006). Mothers' attributions for behavior in nonproblem
boys, boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and boys with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant behavior, Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35(1), 60-71.
Knutson, J.F., DeGarmo, D.S., & Reid, J.B. (2004). Social disadvantage and neglectful parenting
as precursors to the development of antisocial and aggressive child behavior: Testing a
theoretical model. Aggressive Behavior, 30(3), 187-205.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S.P., & Agatston, P.W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital
world. Blackwell Publishing, Malden MA.
24
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Kraft, E.M. & Wang, J. (2009). Effectiveness of cyber bullying prevention strategies: A study on
students’ perspectives. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(2), 513-535
Lee, S., & Chae, M. A. (2007). Children‘s Internet use in a family context: influence on family
relationships and parental mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(5), 640-644.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use
among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved September
20, 2011, from
http://67.192.40.213/~/media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_Re
port_Final_with_toplines.pdf
Liebrand, J., IJzendoorn, H., van. & Lieshout, C.F.M., van. (1991). Klasgenoten Relatie
Vragenlijst.[Classmates Relation Questionnaire]. Nijmegen: Faculty of Developmetal
Psychology, Catholic University.
Luyckx, K., Tildesley, E. A., Soenens, B., Andrews, J. A., Hampson, S. E., Peterson, M.,
&Duriez, B. (2011). Parenting and trajectories of children’s maladaptive behaviors: A 12-
year prospective community study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,
40(3), 468-478.
Mazefsky, C.A., & Farell, A.D. (2005). The role of witnessing violence, peer provocation, family
support, and parenting practices in the aggressive behavior of rural adolescents. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 14(1), 71-85.
Mesch, G.S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying, CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 12(4), 387-393.
Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Dacium, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors
among middle and high School students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 362-
374.
Mishna, F., McLuckie, A., & Saini, M. (2009). Real-world dangers in an online reality:
25
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
A qualitative study examining online relationships and cyber abuse. Social Work Research
33(2), 107-117
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228.
Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005). Protecting youth online: family use of filtering
and blocking software. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(7), 753-765.
Ok, S. & Aslan, S. (2010). The school bullying and perceived parental style in adolescents.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 536-540.
Olweus, D. (1993a). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H.
Rubin & J. B. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibitions and shyness, 315–341.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Olweus, D. (1993b). The Bully/Victim Questionnaire. In: Bullying at school: What we know and
what we can do. Bergen (Noorwegen): University of Bergen.
Park, S. K., Kim, J. Y., & Cho, C. B. (2008). Prevalence of Internet addiction and correlations
with family factors among South Korean adolescents. Adolescence, 43(172), 895-909.
Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of
general strain theory. Youth & Society, 43(2), 727-751
Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace:
Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4:28.
Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bulling and delinquency in adolescence: Victim’s and
perpetrators’ family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 51–64.
Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting,
personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 259–273
26
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Raskauskas, J. (2009). Text-Bullying: Associations with traditional bullying and depression
among New Zealand adolescents Journal of School Violence, 9(1), 74-97
Rican, P., Klicperova, M., & Koucka, T. (1993). Families of bullies and their victims: A
children’s view. Studia Psychologica, 35(3), 261-265.
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2008). The association of parenting style and
child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 459-471.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W.M., & Parker, J.G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Hoboken, New York: Wiley.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.
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
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.
Smith, P.K., & Myron-Wilson, R. (1998). Parenting and school bullying. Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 3(3), 405-417.
Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M.,
Ristkari, T, & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying
among adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720-728.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and
adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125-146.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic?
Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. CyberPsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking. Online ahead of print: May 9, 2011.
27
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Stevens, V., Bourdeaudhuij, I., de, & Oost, P., van. (2002). Relationship of the family
environment to children’s involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 31(6), 419-429.
Subrahmanyam, K. & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships.
The Future of Children, 18(1), 119-146.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287
Twyman, K., Saylor, C., Taylor, L. A., & Comeaux, C. (2010). Comparing children and
adolescents engaged in cyberbullying to matched peers. CyberPsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 13, 195-199.
Unnever, J. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct groups?
Aggressive Behavior, 31(2), 153-171.
Vandebosch, H., & Cleemput, Van, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of
bullies and victims. New Media Society, 11(8), 1349-1371
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A.J., Winter, A., de, Verhulst, F.C., & Ormel, J. (2005).
Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims,
bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41 (4), 672-682.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2010). School bullying among adolescents in the United
States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-
375.
Wang, J., Nansel, T.R., & Ianotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential
association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415–417.
Wong, Y.C. (2010): Cyber-parenting: Internet benefits, risks and parenting issues. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 28(4), 252-273.
28
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Xiuqin, H., Huimin, Z., Mengchen, L., Jinan, W., Ying, Z., & Ran, T. (2010). Mental health,
personality, and parental rearing styles of adolescents with Internet addiction disorder.
CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(4), 401-406.
Ybarra, M.L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet
harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41(6), 42-50.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with
caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of
Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336.
29
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Figure 1
Parenting dimensions and styles
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
permissive authoritarian
neglectful authoritative
High!!
responsiveness!
Low!!
responsiveness!
Low!
!!!!!!!demandingness!
High!
demandingness!
30
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Table 1
Percentages (number) of youths who are involved in cyberbullying
and traditional bullying. N=1141.
Cyberbullying
Trad. bullying
Non involved
Bully
Bully-Victim
Victim
Non-involved
40.1 (458)
2.2 (25)
1.1 (13)
3.8 (43)
Bully
11.3 (129)
2.8 (32)
1.6 (18)
1.7 (19)
Bully-victim
11.7 (134)
1.8 (21)
4.6 (52)
4.6 (52)
Victim
7.1 (81)
0.9 (10)
1.0 (11)
3.8 (43)
31
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Table 2
Involvement in bullying behavior and mean score (SD) on
responsiveness and demandingness
Responsiveness
Demandingness
Non-involved
4.41 (.46)
4.76 (.61)
Cyberbully
4.34 (.64)
4.46 (.60)
Cyber victims
4.23 (.61)
4.57 (.69)
Cyber bully-victims
4.26 (.47)
4.56 (.49)
Traditional bully
4.23 (.54)
4.45 (.64)
Traditional victim
4.24 (.51)
4.81 (.52)
Trad. bully-victim
4.27 (.54)
4.64 (.57)
Both bully
3.90 (.80)
3.97 (.81)
Both victim
4.17 (.58)
4.83 (.56)
Both bully-victim
4.23 (.46)
4.38 (.68)
Both bully cyber victim
4.00 (.48)
4.15 (.63)
Both bully trad. victim
4.27 (.52)
4.44 (.61)
Both victim cyber bully
4.10 (.52)
4.21 (.60)
Both victim trad. bully
4.14 (.52)
4.66 (.55)
Cyber bully trad.victim
4.24 (.47)
4.70 (.53)
Cyber victim trad. bully
4.20 (.68)
4.65 (.55)
32
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Table 3
Number (percentages) of youths for parenting style and form of bullying behavior
Non-involved
Only
cyberbullying
Only trad.
bullying
Both
Authoritative
231 (50.4)
33 (40.7%)
125 (36.3%)
72 (27.9%)
Authoritarian
57 (12.4)
8 (9.9%)
54 (15.7%)
35 (13.6%)
Permissive
79 (17.2)
16 (19.8%)
73 (21.2%)
51 (19.8%)
Neglectful
91 (19.9)
24 (29.6%)
92 (26.7%)
100 (38.8%)
33
Running head: relation bullying and parenting.
Table 4
Means (SD) on bullying and being bullied per parenting style
Cyberbullying
Traditional bullying
Both
Authoritative
1.06 (.33)
1.37 (.78)
1.19 (.46)
Authoritarian
1.05 (.21)
1.52 (1.00)
1.23 (.53)
Permissive
1.16 (.55)
1.50 (.80)
1.40 (.66)
Neglectful
1.12 (.46)
1.74 (1.14)
1.56 (.82)
Cyber victimization
Trad. Victimization
Both
Authoritative
1.11 (.40)
1.35 (.82)
1.31 (.69)
Authoritarian
1.15 (.59)
1.54 (.86)
1.48 (.84)
Permissive
1.09 (.33)
1.53 (1.03)
1.34 (.61)
Neglectful
1.20 (.57)
1.44 (.94)
1.53 (.82)
