Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary report on college students

Abstract

Recent surveys show that cyber bullying is a pervasive problem in North America. Many news stories have reported cyber bullying incidents around the world. Reports on the prevalence of cyber bullying and victimization as a result of cyber bullying increase yearly. Although we know what cyber bullying is it is important that we learn more about the psychological effects of it. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to investigate the relationship between psychological needs and cyber bullying. Participants of the study included 666 undergraduate students (231 males and 435 females) from 15 programs in the Faculty of Education at Selcuk University, Turkey. Questions about demographics, engagement in and exposure to cyber bullying, and the Adjective Check List were administered. 22.5% of the students reported engaging in cyber bullying at least one time, and 55.3% of the students reported being victims of cyber bullying at least once in their lifetime. Males reported more cyber bullying behavior than females. Results indicate that aggression and succorance positively predict cyber bullying wheras intraception negatively predict it. In addition, endurance and affiliation negatively predict cyber victimization. Only the need for change was found as a positive, but weak predictor of cyber victimi zatiotin. In light of these findings, aggression and intraception should be investigated further in future research on cyber bullying.

Full text

AVCI, YÜKSEL, SOYER, BALIKÇIOĞLU / Şr Blgs Konusu İçn Tasarlanmış... • 1307
Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of
Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on
College Students
Bülent DİLMAÇ*
Abstract
Recent surveys show that cyber bullyng s a pervasve problem n North Amerca. Many
news stores have reported cyber bullyng ncdents around the world. Reports on the pre-
valence of cyber bullyng and vctmzaton as a result of cyber bullyng ncrease yearly.
Although we know what cyber bullyng s t s mportant that we learn more about the
psychologcal e ects of t.  erefore, the am of the current study s to nvestgate the re-
latonshp between psychologcal needs and cyber bullyng. Partcpants of the study nc-
luded 666 undergraduate students (231 males and 435 females) from 15 programs n the
Faculty of Educaton at Selcuk Unversty, Turkey. Questons about demographcs, enga-
gement n and exposure to cyber bullyng, and the Adjectve Check Lst were admns-
tered. 22.5% of the students reported engagng n cyber bullyng at least one tme, and
55.3% of the students reported beng vctms of cyber bullyng at least once n ther l-
fetme. Males reported more cyber bullyng behavor than females. Results ndcate that
aggresson and succorance postvely predct cyber bullyng wheras ntracepton negat-
vely predct t. In addton, endurance and a laton negatvely predct cyber vctmzat-
on. Only the need for change was found as a postve, but weak predctor of cyber vctm-
zaton. In lght of these fndngs, aggresson and ntracepton should be nvestgated furt-
her n future research on cyber bullyng.
Key Words
Cyber bullyng, Cyber vctms, Psychologcal Needs, College Students
* Correspondence: Bülent Dlmaç, Phd. Selcuk Unversty, Faculty of Ahmet Keleşoğlu Educaton, 42090,
Meram-Konya / Turkey.
E-mal: bdlmac73@hotmal.com
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences:  eory & Practice
9 (3) • Summer 2009 • 1307-1325
© 2009 Eğitim Danışmanlığı ve Araştırmaları İletişim Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. Şti.

1308 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Over the past decade, technology has become ncreasngly mpor-
tant n the lves of adolescents. Adolescents are heavy users of electro-
nc communcaton such as nstant messagng, e-mal, and text messa-
gng.  ey are also heavy users of communcaton-orented nternet s-
tes such as blogs, socal networkng, and stes for sharng photos and v-
deos (Subrahmanyam, & Greenfeld, 2008).  e nternet o ers connec-
tvty to frends and famly and access to mportant nformaton. Ho-
wever, as wth other socal envronments, the potental to meet and n-
teract wth others n harmful ways exsts (Ybarra, Dener-West, & Leaf,
2007). One such nteracton of growng concern s cyber bullyng (Hn-
duja & Patchn, 2008).
Cyber bullyng has recently emerged as a new form of bullyng and ha-
rassment. Cyber bullyng s defned as “an ndvdual or a group wllfully
usng nformaton and communcaton nvolvng electronc technolo-
ges to facltate delberate and repeated harassment or threat to anot-
her ndvdual or group by sendng or postng cruel text and/or graphcs
usng technologcal means” (Belsey, 2008; Berson, Berson, & Ferron,
2002; Fnkelhor, Mtchell, & Wolak, 2008; Mason, 2008; Patchn, &
Hnduja, 2006; Wllard, 2007; Ybarra, & Mtchell, 2004a, 2004b). Re-
cent surveys show that cyber bullyng s a pervasve problem n North
Amerca (Agatston, Kowalsk, & Lmber, 2007; Beran and L, 2005;
Ybarra, & Mtchell, 2007) and many news stores have reported cyber
bullyng ncdents all over the world (Arıcak, Syahhan, Uzunhasanoğ-
lu, Sarıbeyoğlu, Cıplak, Yılmaz & Memmedov, 2008; L, 2007a; Slonje,
& Smth, 2008; Smth et al., 2008).
Reports on the prevalence of cyber bullyng and vctmzaton have been
ncreasng regularly every year. Fnkelhor, Mtchell, and Wolak reported
that sx percent of young people were exposed to cyber bullyng (threats,
rumors, or other o ensve behavor) durng the past year. Sx and a half
percent of young, regular nternet users n Ybarra’s study reported at least
one form of cyber bullyng n the prevous year. In Patchn and Hnduja’s
(2006) study, almost 30% of the adolescent respondents reported that
they had been vctms of cyberbullyng-operatonalzed as havng been
gnored, dsrespected, called names, threatened, pcked on, or made fun
of or havng had rumors spread by others (Patchn, & Hnduja, 2006).
In a study conducted n 2007 wth an onlne panel of youth ages 13 to 17
years old, 43% had experenced cyber bullyng n the past year, defned as
“use of the nternet, cell phones, or other technology to send or post text

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1309
or mages ntended to hurt or embarrass another person” (Wolak, Mtc-
hell, & Fnkelhor, 2007). Hnduja and Patchn found that over 32% of
boys and over 36% of grls have been vctms of cyber bullyng (Hnduja,
& Patchn, 2008). Smlarly, Arcak et al also reported that 36.1% of stu-
dents have been exposed to cyber bullyng, such as beng teased, nsulted,
threatened or havng pctures of themselves dsplayed by others.
In a recent study, Smth et al. (2008) reported that most pupls beleve
that between 67-100% of students have experenced cyber bullyng.
Traditional Bullying versus Cyber Bullying
Although there are some smlartes between tradtonal bullyng and
cyber bullyng (Hnduja, & Patchn, 2008; L, 2006, 2007a), there are
mportant characterstcs of cyber bullyng that d er from tradto-
nal bullyng (Kowalsk, & Lmber, 2007; Mason, 2008). For examp-
le, tradtonal bulles are known by others n school or n the workpla-
ce. However, n most cases, cyber bulles are anonymous (Anderson, &
Sturm, 2007; Chbbaro, 2007; Strom, & Strom, 2005).  s aspect of
cyber bullyng makes t partcularly hurtful (Beale, & Hall, 2007). In
tradtonal bullyng, chldren who are consdered overweght, physcally
weak, dsabled, or unpopular are often targeted (Olweus, 1999; Wllard,
2007). However, all students are potental vctms of cyber bullyng a-
med at n ctng unwarranted hurt and embarrassment on unsuspectng
vctms (Beale, & Hall, 2007).
Tradtonal bullyng most often occurs n schools or durng the day (Cun-
nngham, 2007; Olweus, 1999). Cyber bullyng can occur at any tme,
whch may heghten chldren’s perceptons of vulnerablty. Cyber bull-
yng messages and mages also can be dstrbuted quckly to a wde aud-
ence.  e nteractons that occur n vrtual realty can a ect the everyday
realty that students experence elsewhere (Kowalsk, & Lmber, 2007).
Psychological Characteristics of Bullies and Victims
Accordng to Cunnngham (2007), Hayne et al. (2001), and Pellegrn,
Bartn and Brooks (1999), bulles, vctms, and bully-vctms have df-
ferent psychologcal and socal profles. Adolescent bulles tend to have
hgh emotonalty and low self-control (Pellegrn et al., 1999). Altho-
ugh bulles are both proactvely and reactvely aggressve, bulles appe-
ar to use proactve aggresson to establsh domnance and leadershp n

1310 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
ther peer groups (Juvonen, Graham, & Shuster, 2003; Pellegrn et al.,
1999). Bulles show lttle empathy for ther peers (Bernsten, & Wat-
son, 1997). Accordng to Menesn et al (2003), bulles are often awa-
re of others’ feelngs but are unable or unwllng to allow those feelngs
a ect them.
Vctms of bullyng generally manfest nternalzng psychologcal
problems such as depresson, lonelness, low self-esteem, school phob-
as, and socal anxety (Grene, 2003; Juvonen et al., 2003; Olweus, 1999).
 ey often have a negatve atttude towards volence and the use of vo-
lence. If they are boys, they are lkely to be physcally weaker than ther
same-age male peers (Olweus, 1999). Pskn (2002) suggests that bulles
often come from homes where physcal punshment s used, and whe-
re parental nvolvement and warmth are often lackng. In contrast, vc-
tms tend to be close to ther parents and may have overprotectve pa-
rents (Pskn, 2002).
Tradtonal bullyng and cyber bullyng smlarly a ect the vctms (Ma-
son, 2008). Bullyng s correlated wth sgnfcant health and psycholo-
gcal ssues among young people such as depresson, emotonal dstress,
low self-esteem, and poor academc achevement (Mason, 2008; Ybar-
ra, 2004; Ybarra et al., 2007).
Research on cyber bullyng s stll n ts nfancy. Whereas we know the
e ects of bullyng on vctms, and L Q. Gender and CMC (2005; L Q
2006; 2007b), Ybarra and Mtchell (2004a, 2004b), Patchn and Hn-
duja (2006) and other researchers have examned the prevalence, e ects,
related factors and types of occurrence of cyber bullyng and vctmza-
ton n detal, there s less understandng of what factors motvate young
people to cyber bully and whether we can predct cyber bullyng behav-
ors from specfc psychologcal needs.  ese questons wll be addressed
n the current study. Specfcally, the am of the current study s to exp-
lore the relatonshp between psychologcal needs and cyber bullyng.
Method
Participants
Partcpants ncluded mddle (97.6%) and hgh (2.4%) socoeconomc
status college students. In the begnnng of the study, 693 (239 ma-
les and 454 females) subjects were selected and responded to the sur-
veys. However, pror to conductng analyses, 17 subjects were dentf-

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1311
ed as outlers. All outlers were deleted, leavng 666 cases for the analy-
ses.  erefore, partcpants of the study were 666 undergraduate colle-
ge students (231 males and 435 females) from 15 d erent programs n
the Faculty of Educaton at Selcuk Unversty, Turkey. Students’ ages
ranged from 18 to 22 years (M = 19.29, SD = 1.14). One hundred and
eghty-one students were freshmen, 254 were sophomores, 120 were ju-
nors and 111 were senors. Data were collected usng the nternet users;
therefore, convenence samplng was used n ths study.
Procedure
 e study was started n September, 2007. After preparng the surveys,
they were admnstered to groups n classrooms durng the Fall of 2007.
 e author of the current study admnstered the surveys. Before comp-
letng the surveys, partcpants were nformed about the study and sg-
ned a consent form to partcpate.  e survey requred approxmately 20
mnutes to complete. All data were coded and entered SPSS by student
research assstants at the Faculty of Educaton.
Instruments
 e survey conssted of three sectons.  e frst secton conssted of fve
demographc questons regardng sex, age, department, class year, and
socoeconomc level.  e second secton conssted of questons specf-
cally about cyber bullyng. Fnally, the thrd secton was the Adjectve
Check Lst (ACL) (Gough, & Helbrun, 1983).
Cyber Bullying Questions
After the demographc questons, students were provded wth an ope-
ratonal defnton of cyber bullyng. Belsey’s (2008) defnton wth a
set of examples was used to help students understand what s meant by
cyber bullyng. Followng the defnton, the followng questons were
asked to students:
Based on the defnton of cyber bullyng provded above (1) “Have you
ever engaged n cyber bullyng before today?” (1-Never, 2-One tme,
3-Between two-four tmes, 4-Fve or more tmes). (2) “Have you ever
been exposed to cyber bullyng?” (1-Never, 2-One tme, 3-Between
two-four tmes, 4-Fve or more tmes). (3) “Would you engage n cyber

1312 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
bullyng as a bully n the future?” (1-Yes, 2-I am not sure, 3-No).
Two expert revewers wth PhDs examned the tems for ambguty and
the overall qualty of the nstrument.  e nstruments were admnste-
red n Turksh.
The Adjective Check List (ACL)
 e ACL was orgnally developed n 1949 by Gough and was publs-
hed n 1965 (Gough, & Helbrun, 1983). Gough and Helbrun deve-
loped the ACL to assst n dentfyng personal trats of an ndvdual
by analyzng ther socal needs. By analyzng the ndvdual’s socal ne-
eds, the ndvdual’s motvatons and modus operand also become ap-
parent (Reljc, 2007).
 e ACL conssts of 300 adjectves arranged n alphabetcal order. Res-
pondents are asked to endorse adjectves they beleve are descrptve of
ther personalty.  e 300 adjectves are dvded nto 37 scales: 4 Mo-
dus Operand scales, 15 Need scales, 9 Topcal scales, 5 Transactonal
Analyss scales, and 4 Orgence-Intellgence scales (Gough, & Helb-
run, 1983; Reljc, 2007).  e ACL s a pencl and paper test that was
completed n approxmately 15-20 mnutes.
 e normatve sample used to develop the ACL ncluded 5236 male
and 4144 female adults, hgh school students, college students, medcal
students, graduate students, psychatrc patents, and delnquents from
37 states n the Unted States (Reljc, 2007).  e ACL was translated
and adapted to Turksh by Savran (Savran, 1993). Savran performed re-
lablty and valdty analyses of the ACL on Turksh unversty students
(n=300).  e nternal consstency relablty coe cents were between
.36 and .84 for the 37 subscales (Savran, 1993).
 e Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards, Abbott,
& Klockars, 1972; Kuzgun, 1985) was used as a crteron measure to
measure the valdty of the analyses.  e mean of correlaton coe c-
ents was .48 (p<.05). Subscales of the ACL were found correlated wth
each other (between .20 and .80) (Savran, 1993). Savran also conduc-
ted norm study of the ACL on Turksh people from d erent age, edu-
caton and socoeconomc level (n=700). Results showed that the ACL
was a vald and relable nstrument for Turksh populaton.  e ACL g-
ves standard scores for Turksh people (Savran, 1993).

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1313
The Need Scales of the ACL
Ffteen need scales were used n the current study (Gough, & Helbrun,
1983, 2008).  ese nclude:
Achevement: Strvng to be outstandng n pursuts of socally recog-
nzed sgnfcance.
Domnance: Seekng and sustanng leadershp roles n groups or beng
n uental and controllng n ndvdual relatonshps.
Endurance: Persstng n any task undertaken.
Order: Placng specal emphass on neatness, organzaton, and plan-
nng n one’s actvtes.
Intracepton: Engagng n attempts to understand one’s own behavor
or the behavor of others.
Nurturance: Engagng n behavors whch extend materal or emoto-
nal benefts to others.
A laton: Seekng and sustanng numerous personal frendshps.
Heterosexualty: Seekng the company of and dervng emotonal sats-
facton from nteractons wth opposte sex-peers.
Exhbton: Behavng n such a way as to elct the mmedate attent-
on of others.
Autonomy: Actng ndependently of others or of socal values and ex-
pectatons.
Aggresson: Engagng n behavors whch attack or hurt others.
Change: Seekng novelty of experence and avodng routne.
Succorance: Solctng sympathy, a ecton, and emotonal support from
others.
Abasement: Expressng feelngs of nferorty through self-crtcsm,
gult, or socal mpotence.
Deference: Seekng and sustanng subordnate roles n relatonshps
wth others.
Data Analysis
Descrptve and nferental statstcs were used to examne the relat-
ons and nteracton between cyber bullyng and the psychologcal needs
subscales of the ACL.  e statstcal package, SPSS 15 for Wndows
(SPSS for Wndows, 2006) was used to analyze the data.

1314 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Results
Descriptive Statistics
In the overall sample (N=666), 22.5% of the students (n=150) repor-
ted engagng n cyber bullyng at least once, and 55.3% of the students
(n=368) reported beng vctms of cyber bullyng at least once n ther
lfetme. Of the 22.5% of respondents who reported engagng n cyber
bullyng at least once, 3% (n=20) were dentfed by the author as a
“pure-bully”; that s, someone who s a perpetrator of cyber bullyng but
has never been bulled.  e other 19.5% of the 22.5% (n=130) were la-
beled as “bully-vctms” and were both perpetrators and vctms of cyber
bullyng. In the sample, 35.7% of the students (n=238) were labeled as
“pure-vctms” who never perpetrated cyber bullyng, but were themsel-
ves bulled. Another 41.7% of students (n=278) reported that they had
never engaged n or been exposed to cyber bullyng (.e., “non-bully-
vctms” or “bystanders”).
When partcpants were asked f they would engage n cyber bullyng n
future, 3.5% answered “yes,” 15.3% answered “I am not sure,” and 81.2%
answered “no.” Males (M rank=359.05) reported more cyber bullyng
behavor than females (M rank=319.93), (Mann-Whtney U=44339.50,
Z=-3.42, p=.001). As seen n Table 1, whle the rate of vctms and
bully-vctms s hgher among females than males, the rate of bullyng
s hgher among males than females (χ² (3) =16.64, p=.001).
 e mean order scores was 52.61 at the hghest pont, and the mean
Domnance scores was 43.14 representng the lowest mean score. Tab-
le 2 lsts the means and standard devatons of the psychologcal needs
reported by males and females. Sgnfcant correlatons emerged among
some of the Need scales of the ACL. Correlaton coe cents ranged
from .00 to .52 (see Table 3).
Table 1.
Frequences and Percentages of Non-Bully-Vctms, Pure Bulles, Pure Vctms and
Bully-Vctms accordng to Sex
Groups Male Female Total
N% n % N %
Non-Bully-Victim 92 13.8 186 27.9 278 41.7
Pure-Bully 13 2.0 7 1.0 20 3.0
Pure-Victim 69 10.3 169 25.4 238 35.7
Bully-Victim 57 8.5 73 11.0 130 19.5
Total 231 34.6 435 65.3 666 100

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1315
As seen n Table 1, whle the rate of vctms and bully-vctms s hgher
among females than males, the rate of bullyng s hgher among males
than females (χ² (3) =16.64, p=.001).
Table 2.
Mean and Standard Devatons for the Need Scales of the ACL
 e Need Scales of
the ACL Male (n = 231) Female (n = 435) General(N = 666)
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
Achievement 43.91(9.98) 44.99(9.10) 44.61(9.42)
Dominance 42.17(11.82) 43.66(11.10) 43.14(11.37)
Endurance 45.75(11.73) 46.63(10.52) 46.33(10.96)
Order 52.90(12.87) 52.45(12.26) 52.61(12.47)
Intraception 47.70(10.94) 48.15(11.39) 47.99(11.23)
Nurturance 49.89(10.88) 49.10(11.73) 49.37(11.44)
A liation 42.39(18.19) 45.61(18.20) 44.49(18.25)
Heterosexuality 49.74(11.46) 50.00(12.48) 49.91(12.13)
Exhibition 45.98(9.67) 45.61(9.09) 45.74(9.29)
Autonomy 50.05(9.24) 49.67(9.35) 49.80(9.30)
Aggression 49.67(10.04) 49.03(10.22) 49.25(10.16)
Change 48.80(10.17) 47.27(9.72) 47.80(9.90)
Succorance 50.50(11.01) 49.98(10.68) 50.16(10.79)
Abasement 52.27(11.05) 51.29(10.79) 51.63(10.88)
Deference 49.96(9.72) 49.90(9.76) 49.92(9.74)
Table 2 lsts the means and standard devatons of the psychologcal ne-
eds reported by males and females.

1316 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
1: Achevement; 2: Domnance; 3: Endurance; 4: Order; 5: Intracept-
on; 6: Nurturance; 7: A laton;
8: Heterosexualty; 9: Exhbton; 10: Autonomy; 11: Aggresson; 12:
Change; 13: Succorance; 14: Abasement; 15: Deference
Inferential Statistics
 e data were examned for normalty usng normal Q-Q plots, hs-
Table 3.
Correlatons among the Need Scales of the ACL
123 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
1 1.00 .34** .45** .43** .28** .21** .35** .23** .18** .17** .10** .04 -.29** -.33** -.10**
2 1.00 .35** .03 .13** .04 .001 .08* .33** .19** .17** .09* -.34** -.37** -.23**
3 1.00 .52** .33** .27** .15** .06 .05 -.09* -.12** -.27** -.28** -.16** .12**
4 1.00 .35** .30** .27** .19** -.01 -.06 -.10* -.22** -.23** -.18** .19**
5 1.00 .52** .37** .24** -.03 -.12** -.30** -.06 -.20** .00 .22**
6 1.00 .41** .38** -.04 -.21** -.40** .003 -.05 .04 .31**
7 1.00 .23** .05 -.01 -.20** .20** -.10** .01 .16**
8 1.00 .15** -.002 -.03 .16** -.06 -.11** .06
9 1.00 .28** .34** .20** -.18** -.36** -.26**
10 1.00 .36** .24** -.26** -.42** -.48**
11 1.00 .19** -.14** -.35** -.42**
12 1.00 .02 -.09* -.24**
13 1.00 .51** .22**
14 1.00 .40**
15 1.00

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1317
togram graphcs wth normal dstrbuton, skewness and kurtoss.  e-
se parameters ndcate normal dstrbutons of all varables of nterest.
As aforementoned, 17 sgnfcant outlers were found usng standard z
values. Cases wth a standardzed scores n excess of 3.29 (p<.001, two-
taled test) were outlers and deleted. Correlatons between the varab-
les (r ≤ .90) showed that there was no multcollnearty (Tabachnck, &
Fdell, 2007).
Psychologcal Need D erences among Bully, Vctm, Bully-Vctm,
and Non-Bully-Vctms
General Lnear Model (GLM) MANOVA show that there are sgnf-
cant d erences between “pure-vctms,” “pure-bulles,” “bully-vctms,”
and “non-bully-vctms” accordng to the self-reported psychologcal
need scores (Λ=.87, F=2.08, Hypothess df=45, η²=.046, p=.000).  e-
re was no sgnfcant nteracton between sex and cyber bullyng a la-
ton on psychologcal needs (Λ=.93, F=1.04, Hypothess df=45, η²=.024,
p=.398). A Bonferron multple comparson test was performed to exp-
lore specfc d erences between groups.
GLM MANOVA and Bonferron tests showed that non-bully-vctms
(M=48.22, SD=10.98) reported sgnfcantly more endurance than pure-
vctms (M=45.78, SD=10.18) and bully-vctms (M=43.43, SD=11.64),
(F (3, 658)=6.55, p=.000).
Bully-vctms (M=44.68, SD=11.83; Mn=46.42, SDn=10.33) self-
reported sgnfcantly less ntracepton and nurturance than both pure
vctms (M=49.12, SD=10.62; Mn=49.92, SDn=11.18) and non-
bully-vctms (M=49.02, SD=10.82; Mn=50.66, SDn=11.61), (F (3,
658)=7.10 and 5.81, p=.001, respectvely).
Non-bully-vctms (M=47.03, SD=15.74) showed sgnfcantly more
a laton than bully-vctms (M=39.46, SD=18.32), (F (3, 658)=6.32,
p=.000).
Fnally, bully-vctms (M=52.42, SD=10.56) self-reported sgnfcantly
more aggresson than both pure-vctms (M=47.85, SD=9.68) and non-
bully-vctms (M=48.59, SD=9.86), (F (3, 658)=7.96, p=.000). No sg-
nfcant d erences among groups n terms of other psychologcal ne-
eds were found.
Stepwse Regresson Analyss: Psychologcal Needs as Predctors of Cyber
bullyng

1318 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
To examne the predctve power of psychologcal needs on cyber bull-
yng, a stepwse regresson analyss was performed usng SPSS 15. In the
frst analyss, engagement n cyber bullyng (as perpetrator) was the de-
pendent varable and the 15 need scales were the ndependent varables.
 ree models were extracted as the result of analyss. In the frst model,
ntracepton (β=-.18) was the only varable that predcted engagement
n cyber bullyng (R²=.031, F(1, 664)=22.07, p=.000). In the second mo-
del, ntracepton (β=-.14) and aggresson (β=.12) predcted engagement
n cyber bullyng (R²=.042, F(2, 663)=15.56, p=.000). In the thrd model,
ntracepton (β=-.12), aggresson (β=.14) and succorance (β=.10) predc-
ted engagement n cyber bullyng (R²=.049, F(3, 662)=12.53, p=.000).
In the second analyss, exposure to cyber bullyng (as vctm) was the
dependent varable and the ffteen need scales were ndependent varab-
les. Four models were extracted as the result of analyss. In the frst mo-
del, endurance (β=-.13) predcted exposure to cyber bullyng (R²=.017,
F(1, 664)=12.21, p=.001). In the second model, endurance (β=-.12) and
a laton (β=-.12) predcted exposure to cyber bullyng (R²=.028, F(2,
663)=10.70, p=.000). In the thrd model, endurance (β=-.09), a lat-
on (β=-.14) and change (β=.10) predcted exposure to cyber bullyng
(R²=.036, F(3, 662)=9.17, p=.000). In the fourth model, endurance (β=-
.13), a laton (β=-.16), change (β=.11) and order (β=.10) predcted ex-
posure to cyber bullyng (R²=.041, F(4, 661)=8.08, p=.000).
In the thrd analyss, the probablty of engagng n cyber bullyng n
the future (as perpetrator) was the dependent varable and the 15 need
scales were ndependent varables. Four models were extracted. In the
frst model, aggresson (β=.17) predcted possble future engagement n
cyber bullyng (R²=.026, F(1, 664)=18.93, p=.000). In the second mo-
del, aggresson (β=.14) and a laton (β=-.12) predcted possble futu-
re engagement n cyber bullyng (R²=.039, F(2, 663)=14.34, p=.000).
In the thrd model, aggresson (β=.14), a laton (β=-.10) and hetero-
sexualty (β=-.08) predcted possble future engagement n cyber bull-
yng (R²=.044, F(3, 662)=11.20, p=.000). In the fourth model, aggres-
son (β=.14), a laton (β=-.09), heterosexualty (β=-.08) and endu-
rance (β=-.08) predcted possble future engagement n cyber bullyng
(R²=.049, F(4, 661)=9.49, p=.000).
In addton to psychologcal needs, prevous engagement n cyber bullyng
(β=.51) and exposure to cyber bullyng (β=.10) predcted the lkelhood of
beng a cyber bully n the future (R²=.31, F(2, 663)=150.82, p=.000).

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1319
Discussion
In ths study, the rate of cyber vctms exceeded the rate of cyber bul-
les.  s fndng s consstent wth the recent fndngs of Hnduja and
Patchn (2008), L (2007a), and Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007). Ma-
les engaged n cyber bullyng more than females, but females were ex-
posed to cyber bullyng more frequently than males. Harman, Han-
sen, Cochran and Lndsey (2005), L (2006), and Smth et al. (2008)
report smlar fndngs n ther studes.  ey reported that males en-
gaged n cyber bullyng more frequently than females. However, ths
s a comparatve outcome fndng. Whle males may report more en-
gagement n bullyng than females, females may engage n ndrect
bullyng (Hara, 2002) and relatonal aggresson (Anderson, & Sturm,
2007; Crck, & Grotpeter, 1995). Chbbaro (2007) stated ths rea-
lty as “cyber bullyng behavors also can be both drect and ndrect”
and Mason emphaszed ths d erence between males and females n
cyber bullyng.
 ere were also sgnfcant d erences n psychologcal needs between
non-bully-vctms, pure-vctms, pure-bulles, and bully-vctms. Howe-
ver, there was not a sgnfcant nteracton between these groups, gen-
der and psychologcal needs. Non-bully-vctms reported more endu-
rance than pure-vctms and bully-vctms. Endurance was the only va-
rable that predcted exposure to cyber bullyng. When endurance sco-
res ncreased, exposure to cyber bullyng decreased. Rahey (2007) also
found that ncreased frendshp endurance was assocated wth decre-
ased physcal vctmzaton. Another consstent fndng n the current
study s that endurance was a negatve predctor of possble future en-
gagement n cyber bullyng.  us, we may consder endurance as a ne-
gatve psychologcal characterstc related to cyber bullyng.
Bully-vctms reported less ntracepton and nurturance than both pure-
vctms and non-bully-vctms. Intracepton and nurturance are con-
cepts closely related to empathy. In fact, Munro, Bore and Pows (2005)
equate ntracepton wth empathy (p. 50). And Batson, Lsher, Cook,
and Sawyer (2005) defne nurturance as the bass for empathc feelngs.
Crothers and Kolbert (2008) suggest that students who frequently bully
are lkely to receve parentng wth lttle nurturance, along wth ds-
cplne that s physcal and severe. It s therefore possble that becau-
se pure-vctms and non-bully-vctms have hgh ntracepton, empathy,
and nurturance, they do not engage n cyber bullyng.

1320 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Another consstent fndng n the current study was that non-bully-
vctms reported more a laton than bully-vctms. A laton predcted
exposure to cyber bullyng (vctmzaton) and the possblty of engagng
n cyber bullyng n the future. Pellegrn and Bartn (2002) suggest that
socal a laton s an nhbtor of vctmzaton. A laton has a protect-
ve e ect on bullyng and vctmzaton. Regular nternet users use the n-
ternet to establsh socal networks and to connect wth others (“Danger
onlne,” 2007).  us, the nternet gratfes ther need for a laton.
Another expected fndng was that bully-vctms reported sgnfcantly
more aggresson than both pure-vctms and non-bully-vctms. We ex-
pected to see ths d erence n favor of bulles. In fact, pure-bulles’ agg-
resson scores were hgher than all other groups. However, no sgnf-
cant d erence could be found between pure-bulles and the other gro-
ups. One possble explanaton for ths result was that the number of
pure-bulles n the sample was relatvely small (n=20). Accordng to Ta-
bachnck and Fdell (2007), as small group sze ncreases the standard
error n the MANOVA restrans the statstcal d erence.
We know from the lterature that there s a strong relatonshp betwe-
en aggresson and cyber bullyng (Beran, & L, 2005; Chsholm, 2006;
Davd-Ferdon, & Hertz, 2007; Harman et al., 2005; Wllard, 2007). In
the current study, aggresson predcted concurrent engagement n cyber
bullyng (as perpetrator), and the possblty of engagng n cyber bull-
yng n the future.  ese fndngs provde a reasonable explanaton for
the unexpected MANOVA fndng mentoned above.
Another nterestng fndng was that succorance postvely predcted en-
gagement n cyber bullyng. As expected, cyber bulles may need atten-
ton. By showng aggressve and manpulatve behavors on cyberspace,
they can gratfy ther need for superorty. Accordng to Stover (2006, p.
41), adolescents use socal network stes such as Facebook, MySpace or
Xanga “to buld ther socal status by cozyng up to those who are hgher
up on the socal ladder than they are themselves-and tryng to dengra-
te or exclude others.” Adolescents fnd the attenton or sympathy they
could not fnd n ther o -lne daly lfe, by engagng n cyber bullyng.
Fnally, as expected, prevous engagement n cyber bullyng and expo-
sure to cyber bullyng predcted the lkelhood of beng a cyber bully n
future.  us, prevous engagement n cyber bullyng s a strong predc-
tor of cyber bullyng behavors n the future.

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1321
Conclusion
 s study s a prelmnary assessment of the relatonshp between cyber
bullyng and psychologcal needs among college students. Pror to ths
study, there was lttle theoretcal background n ths area of research.
 s study sought to fll ths gap.  e results of ths study ndcate that
aggresson and succorance postvely predct cyber bullyng whereas nt-
racepton negatvely predcted t. Endurance and a laton negatvely
predcted cyber vctmzaton. Only the “change need” postvely pre-
dcted cyber vctmzaton. One lmtaton of the study s the homoge-
neous natonalty and soco-economc background of the partcpants.
Replcaton and comparatve studes are therefore needed. However, n
lght of the exstng lterature and the fndngs of the current study, agg-
resson and ntracepton should be pursued n future research on cyber
bullyng.

1322 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
References/Kaynakça
Agatston, P. W., Kowalsk, R., & Lmber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectves on cyber
bullyng. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 59-60.
Anderson, T., & Sturm, B. (2007). Cyberbullyng from playground to computer. Yo-
ung Adult Lbrary Servces, Wnter, 24-27.
Arcak, T., Syahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu., A., Uzunhasanoğlu, A., Sarıbeyoglu, S.,
Cıplak, S., Yılmaz, N. &Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullyng among Turksh ado-
lescents. CyberPsychology & Behavor, 11(3), 253-261.
Batson, C. D., Lsher, D. A., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Smlarty and nurturan-
ce: Two possble sources of empathy for strangers. Basc and Appled Socal Psycho-
logy, 27(1), 15-25.
Beale, A. V., & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullyng: What school admnstrators (and
parents) can do.  e Clearng House, 81(1), 8-12.
Belsey, B. (2008). Cyberbullyng. Retreved August 03, 2008, from, http://www.cyber-
bullyng.org.
Beran, T., & L, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old
behavor. Journal of Educatonal Computng Research, 32(3), 265-277.
Bernsten, J. Y., & Watson, M. W. (1997). Chldren who are targets of bullyng. Jo-
urnal of Interpersonal Volence, 12(4), 483-498.
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emergng rsks of volence n the
dgtal age: Lessons for educators from onlne study of adolescent grls n the Unted
States. Journal of School Volence, 1(2), 51-71.
Chsholm, J. F. (2006). Cyberspace volence aganst grls and adolescent females.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(1), 74-89.
Chbbaro, J. S. (2007). School counselors and the cyberbully: Interventons and mp-
lcatons. Professonal School Counselng, 11(1), 65-68.
Cunnngham, N. J. (2007). Level of bondng to school and percepton of the scho-
ol envronment by bulles, vctms, and bully vctms. Journal of Early Adolescence,
27(4), 457-478.
Crck, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relatonal aggresson, gender, and socal-
psychologcal adjustment. Chld Development, 66, 710-722.
Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert J. B. (2008). Tacklng a problematc behavor manage-
ment ssue: Teachers’ nterventon n chldhood bullyng problems. Interventon n
School and Clnc, 43(3), 132-139.
Danger onlne. (2007). Weekly Reader, 85(16), 3.
Davd-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2007). Electronc meda, volence, and adoles-
cents: An emergng publc health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 1-5.
Edwards, A. L., Abbott, R. D., & Klockars, A. J. (1972). A factor analyss of the
EPPS and PRF personalty nventores. Educatonal and Psychologcal Measurement,
32(1), 23-29.
Fnkelhor, D., Mtchell, K., & Wolak, J. (2008). Hghlghts of the Youth Internet Sa-
fety Survey. Juvenle Justce Fact Sheet-FS200104. Washngton, DC: US Government

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1323
Prntng O ce 2001. Retreved August 3, 2008, from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/
pdf/jvq/CV46.pdf.
Grene, M. B. (2003). Counselng and clmate change as treatment modaltes for
bullyng n school. Internatonal Journal for the Advancement of Counsellng, 25(4),
293-302.
Gough, H. G., & Helbrun, A. B. Jr. (1983).  e adjectve check lst manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consultng Psychologsts Press.
Gough, H. G., & Helbrun, A. B. Jr. (2008).  e ACL-assessment scales. Retreved Au-
gust 11, 2008, from http://www.mndgarden.com/products/aclscales.htm.
Hara, H. (2002). Justfcatons for bullyng among Japanese schoolchldren. Asan Jo-
urnal of Socal Psychology, 5, 197-204.
Harman, J. P., Hansen, C. E., Cochran, M. E., & Lndsey, C. R. (2005). Lar, lar: In-
ternet fakng but not frequency of use a ects socal sklls, self-esteem, socal anxety,
and aggresson. CyberPsychology & Behavor, 8(1), 1-6.
Hayne, D. L., Nansel, T., Etel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Smons-
Morton, B. et al. (2001). Bulles, vctms, and bully vctms: Dstnct groups of at-rsk
youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-50.
Hnduja, S., & Patchn, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullyng: An exploratory analyss of fac-
tors related to o endng and vctmzaton. Devant Behavo, 29(2), 129-156.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Shuster, M. A. (2003). Bullyng among young adoles-
cents:  e strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pedatrcs, 112(6), 1231-1237.
Kowalsk, R. M., & Lmber, S. (2007). Electronc bullyng among mddle school stu-
dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(Supply), 22-30.
Kuzgun, Y. (1985). Edwards kşsel terch envanternn Türkye’de güvenrlk ve ge-
çerlğ. AÜ Eğtm Blmler Fakültes Dergs, 17(1), 69-85.
L Q. Gender and CMC. (2005). a revew on con ct and harassment. Australasan
Journal of Educatonal Technology, 21:382–406.
L, Q. (2006). Cyberbullyng n schools: A research of gender d erences. School
Psychology Internatonal, 27(2), 157-170.
L, Q. (2007a). Bullyng n the new playground: Research nto cyberbullyng and
cyber vctmsaton. Australasan Journal of Educatonal Technology, 23(4), 435-454.
L, Q. (2007b). New bottle but old wne: A research of cyberbullyng n schools.
Computers n Human Behavor, 23(4), 1777-1791.
Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullyng: A prelmnary assessment for school personnel.
Psychology n the Schools, 45(4), 323-348.
Menesn, E., Sanchez, V., Fonz, A., Ortega, R., Costable, A., & Feudo, G. L.
(2003). Moral emotons and bullyng: A cross-natonal comparson of d erences
between bulles, vctms and outsders. Aggressve Behavor, 29, 515-530.
Munro, D., Bore., M., & Pows, D. (2005). Personalty factors n professonal eth-
cal behavour: Studes of empathy and narcsssm. Australan Journal of Psychology,
57(1), 49-60.

1324 • EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P.K Smth, Y. Morta, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.
Catalano and P. Slee (Eds.)  e nature of school bullyng: A cross-natonal perspectve,
London: Routledge.
Patchn, J. W., & Hnduja, S. (2006). Bulles move beyond the schoolyard: A prelm-
nary look at cyberbullyng. Youth Volence and Juvenle Justce, 4(2), 148-169.
Pellegrn, A. D., Bartn, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bulles, vctms, and agg-
ressve vctms: Factors relatng to group a laton and vctmzaton n early adoles-
cence. Journal of Educatonal Psychology, 91(2), 216-224.
Pellegrn, A. D., Bartn, J. D. (2002). A longtudnal study of bullyng, domnan-
ce, and vctmzaton durng the transton from prmary school through secondary
school. Brtsh Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280.
Pksn, M. (2002). School bullyng: Defnton, types, related factors, and strateges
to prevent bullyng problems. Educatonal Scences:  eory & Practce, 2(2), 555-562.
Rahey, L. A. (2007).  e drect and moderatng e ect of bullyng on adolescent health.
Queen’s Unversty Kngston, Ontaro, Canada. Retreved August 13, 2008 from
http://qspace.lbrary.queensu.ca/handle/1974/447.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz., A. D. (2007). Involvement n tradtonal and electronc
bullyng among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575.
Reljc, R. D. (2007).  e correlates of the MMPI-2 clncal scales for a selected non-
clncal populaton usng the Adjectve Check Lst.  e Unversty of South Dakota.
(UMI Doctorate Dssertaton No: 3282916)
Savran, C. (1993). Sıfat lstesnn (adjectve check lst) Türkye koşullarına uygun dlsel
eşdeğerllk, geçerlk, güvenrlk ve norm çalışması ve örnek br uygulama. Yayımlanma-
mış doktora tez, Marmara Ünverstes, Sosyal Blmler Ensttüsü, İstanbul.
Slonje, R., & Smth P. K. (2008). Cyberbullyng: Another man type of bullyng?
Scandnavan Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154.
Smth, P. K., & Mahdav, J., Carvalho, M., Fsher, S., Russell, S., & Tppett, N.
(2008). Cyberbullyng: Its nature and mpact n secondary school pupls. Journal of
Chld Psychology and Psychatry, 49(4), 376-385.
SPSS for Wndows, Rel. 15. (2006). Chcago: SPSS Inc.
Subrahmanyam, K. & Greenfeld, P. (2008). Onlne communcaton and adolescent
relatonshps.  e Future of Chldren, 18(1), 119-146.
Stover, D. (2006). Treatng cyberbullyng as a school volence ssue. Educaton D-
gest, 72(4), 40-42.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2005). Cyberbullyng by adolescents: A Prelmnary as-
sessment.  e Educatonal Forum, 70(1), 21-36.
Tabachnck, B. G., & Fdell, L. S. (2007). Usng multvarate statstcs (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Lnkages between depressve symptomatology and nternet ha-
rassment among young regular nternet users. CyberPsychology & Behavor, 7, 247-57.
Ybarra , M., & Mtchell, K. J. (2004a ). Onlne aggressor/targets, aggressors, and tar-
gets: A comparson of assocated youth characterstcs. Journal of Chld Psychology and
Psychatry, 45(7), 1308-1316.

DİLMAÇ / Psychologcal Needs as a Predctor of Cyber bullyng: a Prelmnary Report on College... • 1325
Ybarra, M., & Mtchell, K. J. (2004b). Youth engagng n onlne harassment: assoc-
atons wth caregver-chld relatonshps, Internet use, and personal characterstcs.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mtchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of nternet ha-
rassment nstgaton: Implcatons for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent He-
alth, 41, 189-195.
Ybarra, M. L., Dener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examnng the overlap n n-
ternet harassment and school bullyng: Implcatons for school nterventon. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 41, 42-50.
Wllard, N. (2007). Educator’s gude to cyberbullyng and cyberthreats 2007. Ret-
reved August 3, 2008, from http://www.cyberbully.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteduca-
tor.pdf.
Wolak, J., Mtchell, K. J., & Fnkelhor, D. (2007). Does onlne harassment consttute
bullyng? An exploraton of onlne harassment by known peers and onlne-only con-
tacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 51-58.