THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

The Relationships Among and Between Psychosocial Variables and Cyber bullying in SchoolAge Children
By
Krista Bergman

A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY

CALGARY, ALBERTA
NOVEMBER, 2012

Krista Bergman 2012

ABSTRACT
The present study examined the relationship between cyber bullying and psychosocial
variables, including parenting styles, and coping strategies. A sample of Canadian students from
junior high schools in the Calgary area (N = 125) ages 11 to 15 years (boys= 42, girls = 82,
unknown sex = 1) completed online self-report questionnaires on cyber bullying, parenting
styles, and coping strategies. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics, t-tests, and analyses of
variances of the variables related to parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber victims were
calculated. Results from the quantitative analyses revealed that cyber victims reported
significantly lower levels of parental autonomy than their non-cyber victim peers, but did not
significantly differ on levels of parental warmth. In terms of coping strategies, cyber victims
reported significantly higher levels of avoidance coping strategies than their non-cyber victim
peers. In addition, females reported significantly higher levels of parental warmth and avoidance
coping strategies than males. Significant, positive correlations between age and parental
autonomy were found for both the cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups, but no significant
relationships were found between grade and each of the six dependent variables (Warm
Involvement, Psychological Autonomy, Active Coping, Distraction Coping, Avoidance Coping,
and Support Coping).
This study contributes to the understanding of cyber bullying by highlighting the
importance of parenting style and the ways children cope with cyber bullying. Empirical and
applied implications from this research are suggested and discussed.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to several individuals who supported me
in the completion of this thesis. First, I would like to my supervisor, Dr. Jac Andrews, who has
guided me down this fulfilling path and provided me with many opportunities to learn and grow.
Second, I would like to thank Dr. Tak Fung, who was more than generous with his time
and expertise as a statistical consultant. My sincerest thanks to my committee members, Dr.
David Nordstokke and Mike Boyes whose knowledge, advice, and kind words during stressful
times got me through many obstacles.
Third, I wish to thank the administrators, teachers, and students who gave their time to
participate in this study. Without their cooperation and involvement, this research could not have
taken place.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for the love and support I have
received over the past two years. In particular, I would like to thank my parents who were always
there to provide support. Without all of your encouragement and understanding, I could not have
completed this journey.

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to the many influential educators in my life that helped me to achieve my
goals, especially my mom. Thanks for always being there to give me advice!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
Appendices...................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Nature of the Relationship Between Cyber victims and Parenting Styles ............................... 2
The Nature of the Relationship Between Cyber victims and Coping Styles .................................. 3
Purpose of the Current Research ..................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 6
Definition of Cyber bullying ........................................................................................................... 6
Types of Cyber bullying ................................................................................................................. 8
Direct and Indirect Cyber bullying ......................................................................................... 8
Direct Cyber bullying Behaviours .......................................................................................... 8
Indirect Cyber bullying Behaviours ...................................................................................... 10
Traditional Bullying ...................................................................................................................... 11
Forms of Traditional Bullying ...................................................................................................... 12
Direct bullying ...................................................................................................................... 12
Indirect bullying .................................................................................................................... 13
Similarities between Traditional and Cyber bullying ................................................................... 13
Differences between Traditional and Cyber bullying ................................................................... 14
Overview of Cyber bullying Victimization .................................................................................. 16
Characteristics of Cyber victims ........................................................................................... 16
Cyber bullying Victimization and Demographic Factors ............................................................. 17
Prevalence of Cyber bullying and Victimization .................................................................. 17
The Role of Age in Cyber bullying Victimization ................................................................ 21
The Role of Gender in Cyber bullying Victimization .......................................................... 23
Outcomes Associated with Cyber bullying Victimization .................................................... 25
Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying ............................................................................................. 27
Baumrinds Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 27
Maccoby and Martins Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 29

Overview of Parenting Styles and Traditional Bullying ....................................................... 32

Empirical Review of Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying Victimization ........................... 32
Measurement of Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying Victims ............................................ 35
Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying .......................................................................................... 38
Theoretical Models ............................................................................................................... 39
Overview of traditional Bullying and Coping Strategies ...................................................... 40
Empirical Review of Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying Victimization ......................... 41
Measurement of Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying Victims ......................................... 48
Overview of Cyber-victimization, Parenting Styles, and Coping Strategies ................................ 48
Delineation of the Research Problem ........................................................................................... 51
Present Study ................................................................................................................................ 51
Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................................ 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS .................................................................................................. 56
Participants .................................................................................................................................... 56
Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................................... 56
Measures and Procedures .............................................................................................................. 57
Cyber-victimization .............................................................................................................. 57
Parenting Styles .................................................................................................................... 59
Coping Strategies .................................................................................................................. 61
Procedure ...................................................................................................................................... 63
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 64
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 64
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 67
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 67
Overview of Findings ................................................................................................................... 67
Preliminary Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 68
Demographic Description of the Sample .............................................................................. 68
Description of Variables ....................................................................................................... 69
Analysis of Variance ............................................................................................................. 70
Results for Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 71
Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 77
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 77
Overview of Findings ................................................................................................................... 77
Discussion Relative to the Primary Questions ............................................................................... 77
Theoretical Implications of the Study ........................................................................................... 83

vi

Practical Implications of the Study ............................................................................................... 88

Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................ 92
Variables ............................................................................................................................... 92
Sample ................................................................................................................................... 93
Instruments ............................................................................................................................ 94
Procedures ............................................................................................................................. 96
Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 96
Future Research ............................................................................................................................ 96
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 100
References ................................................................................................................................... 102

vii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Demographic Characteristics for the Sample of 12- to 15- Year Old Children
TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics of Variables
TABLE 3: Means, Standard Deviations for Variables and Grade 7, 8, 9 Students

viii

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Administrator Information Letter
APPENDIX B: Parental Consent Form
APPENDIX C: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX D: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX E: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX F: Child Assent Form
APPENDIX G: Child Assent Form

ix

Chapter One: Introduction

Bullying among school-aged children is a phenomenon that has been examined since the
early 1970s (Olweus, 1993). However, with an increase in technological access and knowledge
among children and teenagers, a recent form of traditional bullying has emerged in which
individuals use electronic communication to deliberately harass and insult others (Kowalski et
al., 2007). Cyber bullying is considered to be an international problem as research findings from
around the world have reported on the nature and severity of cyber bullying experiences among
youth (Mura, Topcy, Erdur-Baker, & Diamantini, 2011). For example, research in Canada (Li,
2006), the United States, Australia, England (Smith, Mandavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006), Belgium
(Vandebosch,Van Cleemput, Mortelmans, & Walrave, 2006), Turkey (Erdur-Baker, 2010), Sweden (Slonje
& Smith, 2008), and Italy (Saputo & Pisano, 2008) clearly suggests that cyber bullying is an
alarming issue across various age groups regardless of cultural background (Mura, Topcy, ErdurBaker, & Diamantini, 2011). Given that this phenomenon is in its relative infancy and
technological advancements are changing rapidly, it is difficult to determine trends in prevalence
rates of cyber-victimization. To date, published research studies have noted several
methodological problems such as non-standardized definitions of the term cyber bullying and
cyber-victimization, the variability of measurement tools used, (the time frame of the measured
cyber bullying acts, and the specificity of the asked items (Tokunaga, 2010; Mura, Topcy, ErdurBaker, & Diamantini, 2011).
Previous research has addressed cyber bullying with respect to prevalence, frequency,
and negative outcomes (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Beran & Li, 2007; Ybarra, 2004; Tokunaga,
2010). In this regard, students who experience the negative outcomes of cyber bullying have
many similarities with traditional bullying victims (Tokunaga, 2010). For instance, children who

are victims of traditional bullying and cyber bullying report lower achievement scores (Holt,
Finkelhor, & Kantor, 2007). Victims are more likely to internalize their problems and show their
unhappiness, and less likely to participate in pro-social activities and behaviours (Tokunaga,
2010). Researchers have found that online victimization can result in a chronically victimized
individual to be emotionally distressed (Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2006).
Furthermore, cyber victims have reported elevated daily levels of anxiety (Nishina, Juvonen, &
Witkow, 2005; Ybarra et al., 2006), feelings of frustration and anger (Patchin and Hinduja,
2006), hurt and sadness (Beran & Li, 2007), and clinical symptoms of depression (Ybarra, 2004;
Ybarra et al., 2006). In addition, online victimization is also associated with feelings of
hopelessness, withdrawal, and low-self-esteem (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Strom & Strom,
2005).
To date, there has been an extensive focus in the cyber bullying literature on the feelings
of victims who have experienced negative cyber bullying outcomes; however, there is a paucity
of data regarding the enduring effects of cyber-victimization, making it difficult to judge the
long-term consequences of this problem (Hierman & Walrave, 2008). Considering the rapid
increase and serious consequences of cyber-victimization, it is also important to examine
interrelated factors. For example, if cyber-victimization is related to a variety of negative
consequences, it would seem important for researchers to investigate possible protective factors
(e.g., individual coping strategies) and social factors (parenting styles) associated with cyber
bullying in order to reduce the risk of becoming cyber victims (Baldry & Farrington, 2005).
1.1 The Nature of the Relationship between Cyber-victimization and Parenting Styles
The family may be one of the most important and influential variables in a childs
environment. The relationship between parents and children has been researched extensively in

relation to traditional bullying victimization (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998; Marchant, Paulson,
& Rothlisberg, 2001; Hines & Paulson, 2006; Baldry & Farrington, 1998; 2000; 2005). For
example, parenting quality (e.g., responsiveness and demandingness), family cohesion, family
structure, and parental monitoring have been shown to predict childrens bully status. Several
studies have found that bullies and victims had parents who lacked responsiveness toward their
children (Rigby, 1993; Baldry and Farrington, 1998; Smith and Binney, 1994). However, few
empirical studies have examined parenting styles in relation to cyber-victimization (Hay &
Meldrum, 2010; Vllink, Dehue, F. & Bolman, 2008; Dehue, Bolman, Vllink and Pouwelse,
2009). Hay and Meldrum (2010), found that exposure to authoritative parenting and high selfcontrol reduced the harmful effects of bullying victimization on self-harm and suicidal ideation.
Similarly, Dehue, Bolman, Vllink and Pouwelse (2009) investigated the influence of parenting
style on cyber bullying, noting that children who perceived their parents parenting style as
authoritative were cyberbullied less than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style. These
results are based on Dutch children and so the findings cannot be generalized to a Canadian
sample. Hence, further investigation of the relationship between parenting style and cyber
bullying victimization is warranted, particularly within Canada.
1.2 The Nature of the Relationship between Cyber-victimization and Coping Strategies
Coping strategies seem to play a vital role in the reduction of cyber-victimization
(Tokunaga, 2010; Price & Dalgleish, 2010). While research suggests that cyber victims use
various coping strategies to prevent future incidents or to reduce the effects of cyber bullying, the
frequency of particular coping strategies used by cyber victims are inconsistent across studies.
(Aricak et al., 2008; Riebel et al., 2008; Price & Dalgleish, 2010). A study conducted by Patchin
& Hinduja, (2006) investigated cyber victims use of coping strategies. They discovered that

when exposed to cyber-victimization, 25% of victims surveyed reported using passive strategies
by ignoring cyber bullying incidents (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In contrast, other studies
indicate that passive strategies are used more infrequently. Dehue et al. (2008) found that only
6.9% of cyber victims reported using passive coping strategies by ignoring the bully and
avoiding thinking about the problem. Therefore, the way in which children cope with the effects
of cyber bullying should be further investigated in order to better understand the specific nature
of the relationship between cyber bullying and coping strategies.
1.3 Purpose of the Current Research
The current study was designed to contribute to the empirical literature by examining the
relationships between and among cyber bullying, parenting styles, and coping strategies in
Canadian children and adolescents. As such, the primary objective of this study is to determine if
there are individual associations between cyber victims and parenting styles, and coping
strategies.
Research of this nature will potentially provide a more comprehensive explanation of the
possible protective factors such as coping strategies and parenting styles that may moderate the
negative outcomes for cyber-bully victims. The results are also expected to aid in the
identification of children who are most at-risk to becoming a victim of cyber bullying, and in our
understanding of factors associated with being a cyber victim. Additionally, a more thorough
understanding of factors associated with being a cyber victim might significantly impact
prevention and intervention efforts. Finally, the knowledge gained through research on the
interrelationship between cyber victims, parenting styles, and coping strategies may help mental
health professionals and parents to identify signs of being a cyber victim and will encourage
them to create a safe atmosphere in which cyber bullying victims can openly talk about cyber

bullying experiences. Therefore, an examination of the possible relationship between cyber

bullying victims, parenting styles, and coping strategies may help to reduce further incidents of
victimization.
1.4 Overview of the Thesis
Chapter two presents a review of the relevant background literature, including a detailed
discussion of cyber bullying, parenting styles and coping strategies. It concludes with an
overview of the current study and outlines the research questions and hypotheses. The methods
for this study are subsequently presented in chapter three. Chapter four provides the results of the
study in two sections: preliminary analyses and primary analyses. The fifth and final chapter
provides a discussion of the results and the research and theoretical and practical implications of
this research, as well as directions for future research.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a background to the current study that presents
the current empirical/theoretical understandings of the relationship among and between parenting
styles, coping strategies and victims of cyber bullying. First, cyber bullying will be defined and
issues with respect to the definitions will be addressed. Second, traditional bullying will be
defined and the similarities and differences between cyber bullying and traditional bullying will
be discussed. Third, an overview of cyber-victimization will be reviewed, outlining the
characteristics of cyber victims. Fourth, research findings and understandings relative to
associated demographic factors such as prevalence, age, and gender with cyber bullying will be
examined. Fifth, the empirical and theoretical literature linking parenting styles with cyber
bullying victimization will be discussed. Sixth, empirical and theoretical literature that links
coping strategies with cyber bullying victimization will be examined. Finally, the research
questions and hypotheses of the current study will be presented.
2.1 The Definition of Cyber bullying
Researchers and scholars/practitioners have presented several cyber bullying definitions
in the literature, many of which have been adopted from traditional bullying definitions
(Tokunaga, 2010). The definition of cyber bullying has varied across studies, and is still debated
by researchers in the field (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011). Although a consensus has not been
reached, there is some agreement in the definition of cyber bullying. Across the definitions the
most important identifiers of cyber bullying include: an intentional, repeated, aggressive, hostile,
or harmful act that is carried out by the bully through any type of electronic device. Differences
across definitions have been with respect to the nature of the individuals involved (Besley,

2009, Smith et al., 2008), and aspects of the nature and scope of cyber bullying (i.e.,
intentionality and repetition of the act over time) (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008).
The term cyber bullying was coined by Canadian educator Bill Belsey and is defined (by
him) as the targeting of a child or adolescent by another youth using technology (e.g.,, e-mail,
cell phone and pager text messaging, instant messaging, defamatory web sites and polling sites)
for the purpose of intentionally humiliating, tormenting, threatening or harassing the individual.
Strom and Strom (2005) stated that cyber harassment involves using an electronic medium to
threaten or harm others. E- mail, chat rooms, cell phones, instant messaging, pagers, text
messaging, and online voting booths are tools used to inflict humiliation, fear, and a sense of
helplessness (p.21). Similarly, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) define cyber bullying as a means
of bullying in which peers use electronics to taunt, threaten, harass, and/or intimidate a peer
(p.565). A definition of cyber bullying has been provided by Beran and Li (2007), who provided
more context for the act of cyber bullying by referring to cyber bullying as an act of harassment
when a student, or several students, says mean and hurtful things or makes fun of another
student or calls him or her mean and hurtful names, completely ignores or excludes him or her
from their group of friends or leaves him or her out of things on purpose, tells lies or spreads
false rumors about him or her, sends mean notes and tries to make other students dislike him or
her, and other hurtful things like that. When we talk about harassment, these things happen
repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being harassed to defend him or herself. We also call
it harassment, when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we do not call
it harassment when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not harassment
when two students of about equal strength or power argue or fight (p.21). Importantly,
Kiriakidis & Kavoura (2010) notes that , cyber bullying is the exposure, repeatedly and over

time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other individuals (p.1173) and as
respectively suggested by Smith et al., (2008) and Hinduja and Patchin (2008), it is considered a
negative or hurtful repetitive behaviour, by the means of electronic communication tools, which
involve an imbalance of power with the less-powerful person or group being unfairly
attacked(p.1), and as intentional and repeated harm of others through the use of computers,
cell phones, and other electronic devices (p. 5).
In sum, the act of cyber bullying is viewed as a hostile and intentional, but not all
always including the repetition of the behavior. Moreover, it is assumed by some to be an act
where the behaviour is directed to one individual from another, while others view it as an act
that can be directed to an individual from another individual or a group (Kiriakidis & Kavoura,
2010, p.83).
2.2 Types of Cyber bullying
2.2.1Direct and indirect cyber bullying
Peer victimization (i.e., the targeting of bullying) can be categorized as either direct or
indirect. Direct forms of aggression (bullying) are defined as overt confrontational attacks, and
indirect forms of victimization (targets of bullying) are defined as covertly manipulative attacks
(Mynard & Joesph, 2000). However, these qualities and characteristics do not directly relate to
cyber victimization due to the anonymous nature of cyber bullying. Although cyber bullying
could be arguably similar to the traditional form of indirect bullying by way of manipulative
attacks, cyber bullying involves repeated psychological torment through electronic rather than
behavioral or relational means (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Ybarra, 2004). For example, cyber
bullying can be seen as more intrusive and pervasive than traditional bullying. In this regard,
victims can be reached through electronic means at any given time of the day, and therefore the

frequency and intensity of the bullying behaviors may result in stronger negative outcomes
(Tokunaga, 2010). Cyber-bullies in comparison to traditional bullies lack some boundaries and
are able to extend their aggression beyond the school grounds.
2.2.2 Direct cyber bullying behaviours
Direct bullying may include harassment, exclusion, and denigration (Willard, 2006).
Physical, verbal, non-verbal, and social forms of cyber bullying are classified as direct bullying
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Although there are no physical forms of cyber bullying,
such as hitting someone, there are types of Internet and mobile phone behaviours that are
classified as acts of property violation. For example, physical cyber bullying may be
characterized as deliberately sending a virus-infected file to another person (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2008). Direct bullying may also involve verbal bullying, where an individual uses the
Internet or mobile phone to insult or threaten the victim; or non-verbal bullying, where an
individual sends threatening or obscene pictures or illustrations. Furthermore, direct cyber
bullying can include social exclusion, where the victim is rejected from their peer group and left
out of technological communications (Willard, 2006).
The behaviours most commonly associated with direct cyber bullying take on multiple
forms of harassment, denigration, exclusion and ostracism, and cyber-stalking.
Harassment in the cyber world can take the form of repeatedly sending emails containing
derogatory words that are intended to emotionally upset the victim (Hines, 2011). This form of
harassment has a clearly identifiable victim and perpetrator (Kowalski et al., 2008).
Denigration is posting hurtful lies about another person online (Kowalski, 2009). This
can occur through posting untrue stories about an individual, or forwarding modified pictures of
another person on a social networking site, personal web pages, and on blogs (Hines, 2011).

10

Often, the victim is not able to delete this information, because he/she does not have access to
the site where it was initially posted.
Cyber stalking is defined as information about another that is derogatory and untrue
(Kowalski et al., 2008, p. 48). This is a more extreme form of harassment that is centered more
on threats than insults.
Exclusion and ostracism can be carried out through the use of a computer by blocking or
removing an individual from a chat room, Internet group, or social media website (Kowalski,
2009). Online exclusion is often perceived rather than real (Kowalski et al., 2008). Individuals
may think a slightly delayed response is a social exclusion due to the nature of electronic media
as a form of instant communication. This type of direct bullying has been found to be very
impactful; individuals who were exposed to exclusion and ostracism for a short period of time
have reported decreases in mood, self-concept, and lower levels of belonging (Williams, 2001).
Happy slapping is the most recent trend in aggressive behavior connected to cyber
bullying and occurs when the aggressor randomly chooses someone to slap or hit, while friends
record the abuse of their cell phone video cameras (Hines, 2011). This footage is then posted on
an online video-sharing site (e.g., YouTube).
2.2.3 Indirect cyber bullying behaviours
Rather than direct bullying behaviours toward a victim, cyber bullies may engage in
indirect bullying. Indirect bullying occurs most often with girls than boys (Kowalski & Limber,
2007). As previously noted, this is consistent with gender differences in traditional bullying as
girls often rely on indirect forms of aggression. Researchers suggest that the Internet gives girls
the opportunity to establish and maintain relationships without worrying how other individuals
may be judging their physical characteristics (Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002). The behaviours

11

most commonly associated with indirect cyber bullying include flaming, impersonation, outing
and trickery.
Flaming is the act of exchanging negative emails between two or more people,
forwarding inappropriate photos, participating in teasing online or excluding or isolating others
(Willard, 2007). Characteristics of flaming can include using capital letters, numerous
punctuation marks, and derogatory words (Turnage, 2008). These angry messages usually take
place in public places such as on the Internet rather than through email or text messaging.
Impersonation is when an aggressor poses as the victim and spreads inappropriate, cruel,
or negative information to others, acting as though the victim were sharing these thoughts
(Kowalski et al., 2008). For instance, this can be carried out by stealing the victims passwords
for their personal accounts. The aggressor then has access to changing information on social
networking sites or sending out emails from the victims account. Impersonation is relatively
easy to engage in due to the anonymity of the Internet, and it is often impossible to retrace who
has posted information and whether or not it is accurate (Hines, 2011).
Outing and trickery involves sharing a victims personal information with others electronically
(Kowalski, 2009). Outing can occur when an individual intentionally shares the victims personal
information without his or her permission. For example, a bully might receive a personal email
with private information intended only for him or her, and then forward it to a larger audience
through email, text message, chat room, or web page (Brewer, 2011). Trickery occurs when a
victim is purposely tricked into sharing private information that is then shared with a larger
audience without that persons permission.

12

2.3 Traditional Bullying

Bullying has been investigated in schools by researchers across the world for over thirty
years. Olweus (1978) first labeled bullying as mobbing, but later adapted his original
definition to a person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly over time, to
negative actions on the past of one or more other students (Olweus, 1993, p. 9). He defined
negative actions as intentional attempts to injure or humiliate an individual by physical, verbal,
or psychological means (Olweus, 1993). Furthermore, Olweus thought that bullying can occur
without provocation and does not have to involve violence to be considered bullying. In later
years, Olweus extended his views regarding bullying by suggesting that bullying occurred when
other students say mean and hurtful things or make fun of another person and call him or her
mean and hurtful names; completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or
leave him or her out of things on purpose; hit, kick, push, shove around, or threaten him or her;
tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean notes and try to make other
students dislike him or her and do other hurtful things like that. (p. 246).
Different terms are used when defining bullying. For example, in American literature, the
term victimization is used, whereas Canadian researchers use intimidation or harassment
(Smith et al. 2002). Regardless of the term used, most bullying definitions include the following
components: 1) an imbalance of power; 2) malicious intent; 3) harm directed at victims; 4)
physical pain or humiliation; and 5) a sense of enjoyment (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 1998; Solberg
& Olweus, 2003).
2.4. Forms of Traditional Bullying
2.4.1 Direct bullying

13

Physical and verbal forms of bullying are called direct aggression (Olweus, 1993) or
overt aggression (Crick, 1995). Direct, overt aggression involves face-to-face contact between
the bully and the victim and may include physical bullying such as hitting, punching, kicking,
biting, holding, hostile gesturing, and scratching (Ma, 2002). Direct or overt bullying, whether
physical or verbal, is intended to gain power, status, or possessions. Strategies may include
threatening to withdraw from a friendship (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
2.4.2 Indirect bullying
Indirect bullying includes behaviours such as ignoring and gossiping, usually involving a
third party (Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005). Indirect bullying is also referred to as relational
bullying, as it is intended to damage a social relationship (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Here,
verbal assaults against a victim are shared among peers rather than directed at the victim. For
example, verbal assaults may include threatening, humiliating, degrading, teasing, namecalling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, staring, sticking out the tongue, eye-rolling, silent
treatment, manipulating friendship, and ostracizing (Ma, 2002, p. 63). Verbal aggression may
also include negative comments, intimidating phone calls to the victim (Macklem, 2003) and email messages, although most researchers classify it as written messages, including graffiti and
note passing (Ma, 2002). Indirect bullying occurs most often in school, as opposed to at home or
on the way to or from school (Ma, 2002).
2.5. Similarities between Traditional and Cyber bullying
Research examining cyber bullying and traditional bullying has identified three main
similarities. First, the act is aggressive and intended to harm an individual (Kowalski, Limber,
Zane, & Hassenfeldt, 2008). Although cyber bullying does not take the form of physical
aggression, such as hitting someone, there are types of Internet and mobile phone behaviours that

14

are classified as acts of property violation. For example, physical cyber bullying may be
characterized as deliberately sending a virus-infected file to another person (Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009).
Second, the act of cyber bullying is often repeated (Kowalski et al., 2008).
Communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone, text messages, instant messaging,
personal Web sites, and blogs are repeatedly carried out to harass the victims (Aricak et al.,
2008). These actions are similar to traditional bullying in the sense that the victim is repeatedly
overtime, exposed to negative actions on the part of one or more other bystanders.
Third, there is often an imbalance of power (Kowalski et al., 2008). Power can be
identified as authority, control, and influence over another person, and this power is differential
between the bully and victim. Most often, the cyber bully claims more power over the cyber
victim, by having more access to technology than the victim, providing them with greater
opportunities to bully, and by instilling fear in the victim to not report the incident or retaliate
against the cyberbully (Hines, 2011).
2.6 Differences between Traditional and Cyber bullying
Although many similarities between traditional bullying and cyber bullying exist, there
are ways in which they differ as well. First, with traditional bullying, verbal and physical actions
expose the identity of the bully to the victim (Hines, 2011). Cyber bullies can hide behind their
anonymity and cannot see the victims emotional reactions, which could lead them to realize the
pain they are causing (Kowalski &Limber, 2007). Disturbingly, victims often are not aware of
the identity of the perpetrators. Li (2005) revealed that 41% did not know the identity of their
perpetrators, whereas Kowalski and Witte (2006) found that 74% of the time the victims of cyber
bullying did not know the bully. The fear of unknown perpetrators can be psychologically

15

devastating for victims and is also socially detrimental to all students including victims,
bystanders and perpetrators (Olweus, 2001; DiGuillio, 2001).
Second, due to the fact that cyber bullies can be anonymous and there is no supervision in
cyberspace, they do not fear being observed and getting punished (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). As
a result, cyber bullies often go to extremes when tormenting their victims (Hines, 2011). Some
researchers report that because cyber bullies cannot see the emotional impact of the victims
reactions, the bullys self-regulatory process is often disregarded. This eliminates the visual
images of the victims emotions and allows them to take their actions further than if they were
engaged in face-to-face contact with the victim (Kowalski, 2009). In addition, the cyber bully
has limited external sources of reinforcement, and therefore may have to rely on his or her own
reactions to their acts (Dooley et al., 2009). Therefore, it is possible that the reward for cyber
bullies may be larger than for face-to face bullies because cyber bullys must rely on the
expectation for how the victim will react, whereas traditional bullies see how the target person is
reacting in person (Dooley et al., 2009).
Third, cyber victims are not able to escape their cyber bullies after school. In terms of the
offenders, cyber bullies can extend their aggression beyond the school grounds and impact the
lives of victims at any time of day and in any environment (Tokunaga, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja,
2006). Therefore, there are no possibilities for the victims to face their perpetrators even if they
want to (Tokunaga, 2010). Unlike traditional bullying that usually occurs solely in or around the
school, cyber bullying can occur for days in the cyber victims homes (Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007). This form of aggression is becoming an increasing problem among school-age children as
they are often anonymous, and are unaware of the distress their behavior may cause (Strom &
Strom, 2005).

16

Fourth, the decision to not report incidents of victimization differs for traditional bullying
and cyber bullying. Traditional bullying victims often do not report bullying because they are
fearful of being further victimized and because they do not trust adults to effectively intervene
(Kowalski, 2009; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992). Victims of cyber bullying also rarely report
incidents of victimization because they believe that learning how to effectively manage problems
arising from the use of communication technologies is a skill they must acquire without the help
of their parents (Juvoven & Gross, 2008). Also, victims believe that if they notify an authority
figure, their freedoms may be limited (Tokunaga, 2010). Children fear that their Internet
privileges will be lost, and therefore instead of informing parents, cyber bullying victims are
more likely to consult with friends (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Aricak et al., 2008;
Dehue et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Here, victims are more fearful about losing
possessions such as cell phones, and Internet access, than the termination of the victimization
incident.
2.7. Overview of Cyber bullying Victimization
There is a noticeable scarcity of research on cyber bullying victimization despite the
increasing number of incidents and their dangerous outcomes for these individuals (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006). For example, it has been reported that a vast number of negative outcomes have
been linked to cyber bullying victimization including school problems (Ericson, 2001), suicidal
ideation, eating disorders, chronic illness (Borg, 1998; Rigby, 2003; Roland, 2002; StriegelMoore, Dohm, Pike, Wilfey, and Fairburn, 2002), and depression (Roland 2002; Hawker and
Boulton, 2000). This suggests that being the target of cyber bullying can have a detrimental
impact on ones developmental and psychosocial well-being (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Cyber

17

bullying is a new form of peer maltreatment that is an emerging health problem and therefore
warrants attention and further research (Campfield, 2006).
2.7.1. Characteristics of cyber victims
Researchers have found that victimization begins to increase at early adolescence and
decrease at the age of 16 or 17 years old. In addition, cyber victims spend more time online than
their peers (Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Juvoven and Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008;
Vandebosch et al., 2006; Lenhart, 2007).Van den Eijnden et al., (2006) found that youth who use
communication technologies as a function to connect with others more often than their peers,
have a higher risk of becoming a victim (Bauwens et al., 2009; Lenhart, 2007).
Individuals who are traditional bully victims and youth who cyber bully others, have an
increased risk of becoming victims of cyber bullying (Van den Eijnden et al., 2006). Several
studies confirm these findings (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). For example, Raskauskas and Stoltz
(2007) surveyed 84 adolescents between 13 and 18 years old and found that those who were
traditional victims were also cyber victims. This link is evidenced in a study conducted by
Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007) who surveyed a national representative sample and found
that 36 % of children who had experienced traditional peer victimization had also experienced
cyber bullying. Similarly, Juvoven & Gross (2008) found that 85% of children and adolescents
who are victimized electronically are also victims at school. These studies indicate that
traditional bullying is sometimes used in conjunction with cyber bullying in order to maximize
the effect of harmful behaviors toward the bullying victim.
In addition to the primary characteristics discussed above, demographic characteristics
such as prevalence, age, sex, and outcomes of cyber victims will be described next.

18

2.8. Cyber bullying Victimization and Demographic Factors

2.8.1 Prevalence of cyber bullying and victimization
Researchers have conducted many studies in the past decade to examine the prevalence
of cyber bullying among youth (e.g., Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li,
2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). However, due to the fact that many victims
of cyber-bullying decline to report their victimization, the statistics noting the frequency of
cyber-bullying victimization may not be an accurate and true representation of the exact
prevalence of cyber-bullying among middle school students (Keith & Martin, 2005). As a result,
the actual prevalence rate may be much higher than what has been reported in the research
literature (Hines, 2011). Additional concerns within the research on cyber bullying victimization
include how victimization experiences are defined and the time frame in which cyber
victimization experiences are measured (Campfield, 2006). The methodology varies greatly
among studies, which makes it difficult to compare prevalence rates across studies. A large
number of studies have been conducted to explore the prevalence of cyber bullying and
victimization. Results of the analysis of over thirty studies on the prevalence of cyber bullying
and cyber victimization are presented below.
The prevalence rates of cyber bullying victimization ranged from 4.8% (Sourander et al.,
2010) and 72% (Juvonen and Gross, 2008). Percentages reported by researchers stating incidents
of cyber bullying vary widely among studies (Aricak et al., 2008; Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja &
Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006, 2007, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Topu, ErdurBaker, & apa-Aydin, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008).
The first empirical study to examine cyber bullying was conducted by the National
Childrens Home (2002). Participants included 856 British children between the ages of 11 and

19

19, who responded to questions about cyber bullying victimization. Results from this study
revealed that 16% of participants reported being victimized over text messaging, 7% through
chat rooms, and 4% via email (National Childrens Home, 2002). The definition of cyber
bullying used in this study included only three forms of Internet communication (e.g., IM, SNS,
and blogs), which may have been a reflection of the limited technologies available at that time
(Brewer, 2011). Two years later, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) examined Internet aggressor/
targets and found that 19% of Internet users between 10 and 17 years old had been involved in
cyber bullying either as cyber bullies or cyber victims. Interestingly, 84% of cyber bullies knew
their victim personally, whereas only 31% of cyber victims knew their bullies (Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004).
A study conducted by Li (2007a) examined Canadian students at the middle school level
who completed a self-report questionnaire about their experiences with cyber bullying. Results
revealed that 24.9% of her sample (n= 177) reported being victims of cyber-bullying. Li (2007b)
studied a sample of grade seven students (n= 461) in Canada and China. Both groups of students
completed the same questionnaire and researchers found that one in three students were victims
of cyber bullying. In addition, over 40% of those victims had been cyber bullied more than three
times.
Similarly, Kowalski and Limber (2007) examined cyber bullying among middle-school
children in grades 6 to 8. A large sample (n=3,767) completed a paper and pencil questionnaire
that included measures from the Olweus Bully/ Victim Questionnaire asking explicitly about
cyber bullying. The findings revealed that 11% were cyber victims, 7% were cyber
bullies/victims, 4% were cyber bullies, and 78% had no incidents of any cyber bullying.
Compared with other empirical studies, this number is very low; however the researchers

20

acknowledged that this might be a result of using a 2-month metric rather than a one-year metric
used in similar studies (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). In contrast to this low number of reported
victims, results of Patchin and Hindujas study (2006) indicated a slight increase in the number
of participants reporting cyber bullying victimization (29%). Furthermore, they found that 11%
of respondents identified themselves as cyber bullies and 47% had witnessed some form of cyber
bullying. The most prevalent forms of cyber bullying took place via chat room, computer text
messaging, and email.
Depending on the definition used in a study, the prevalence rates differ. The first Youth
Internet Safety Survey (YISS), a national survey collected in 2000 showed only 6.5% of
participants in the study reported being a cyber bullying victim (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). The
Second Youth Internet Survey collected in 2004 (N= 1,500), examined the overall prevalence
rate of cyber bullying for participants between the ages of 10 and 17. Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, &
Finkelhor (2006) found that overall prevalence rate for cyber bullying to be 9%, which is an
increase in prevalence from the first. The rates between these studies may have varied because
the first study looked at only one dimension of cyber bullying: Internet harassment, with a two
item dichotomous choice measure (Tokunaga, 2010). In another study conducted by Juvoven and
Gross (2008) they found that approximately 72% of the 1217 year olds in their American
sample encountered cyber-bullying at least once in their life. It is suggested that this finding may
be inflated as a result of the definition used for bullying. In this study, bullying was replaced
with the term mean things, which resulted in a broader definition that could have led to over
reporting (Tokunaga, 2010).
Overall, the variability in the prevalence rates can be attributed to the use of varied
operational definitions and measurements of cyber bullying (David-Feron & Hertz, 2007).

21

Hence, it appears that future research should utilize a similar operational definition and similar
measurements. In addition, the majority of studies fail to provide information about the duration
and frequency of victimization incidents (Aricak et al., 2008), which would allow researchers to
gain a better understanding of cyber bullying and its effects (Tokunaga, 2010).
Although cyber bullying research is in its infancy, it is quite evident that this real and
existing phenomenon is increasing in frequency, making cyber bullying an issue of concern
(Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Public awareness of cyber-bullying has become quite evident
since cyber bullying incidents are continually reported all over the world (Li, 2007). For
example, In Australia, a 9-year-old female student received pornographic emails and when the
source was traced it was found that the sender was one of the girls classmates (Thorp, 2004).
Another example is seen with a 15 year old boy from Quebec who made a Star Wars video that
was leaked onto the internet by a few of his classmates without his permission. This boy was so
humiliated that he had to seek counseling and eventually dropped out of school, filing a law suit
against his perpetrators (Snider & Borel, 2004). Although only a few cases are mentioned here,
numerous accounts of cyber-bullying have been featured and highlighted in the media. This has
proven to caregivers, educators, and politicians that cyber-bullying has no boundaries and is a
growing social concern due to the advances in the accessibility children and adolescents have to
technology (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch 2011). These studies suggest that cyber
bullying has a high rate of occurrence. As the use of technology continues to grow at a rapid
pace, it can be predicted that children and adolescents will find themselves increasingly at risk of
becoming victims of cyber bullying.
Despite the public concern associated with the increasing occurrence of cyber
victimization and the research attention that focuses on the prevalence and frequency of cyber

22

bullying among specific groups (Tokunaga, 2010), it is deemed important to investigate cyber
victimization and the possible psychosocial effects it has on youth (Campfield, 2006).
2.8.2 The role of age in cyber bullying victimization
Cyber bullying is not limited to school aged children and may emerge from elementary
years to college (Tokunaga, 2010). The exploration of whether age is a predictor of cyber
bullying victimization is common in the literature, with the majority of studies demonstrating the
lack of association between age and cyber-victimization (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009;
Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Varjas,
Henrich, & Meyers, 2009; Wolak et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004). On the other hand, some studies
have found a significant relationship (Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski &
Limber, 2007; Slonje & Smith, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008; Ybarra et al., 2007). Mixed
findings result from the diverse age range included in the samples (Tokunaga, 2010).
Studies that use smaller ranges of grade levels such as Kowalski and Limber (2007) and
Ybarra et al. (2006) have demonstrated positive relationships between age and frequency of
cyber bullying victimization. They studied 11-14 year olds and 10-15 year olds, and found a
positive correlation between age and frequency of victimization. Other trends are seen in studies
conducted by Dehue et al. (2008) and Slonje and Smith (2007) who surveyed a sample of 12-20
year olds and found an inverse relationship between age and victimization (Tokunaga, 2010).
Williams and Guerra (2007) followed students longitudinally in grade 5, 8, and 11, and found
that children in grade five experience the least amount of victimization (4.5%), whereas children
in grade 8 experience the highest levels (12.9%), and drops among high school students (9.9%).
A series of studies have examined the relationship between age and being a cyber victim,
and found that the chances of being a victim increases as children grow older (Kowalski &

23

Limber, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In contrast, Slonje and Smith (2007) found lower rates
of cyber bullying victimization for older students (15 and 18 years old) than for younger students
(12-15 years old), whereas others did not find a relationship between age and being a cyber bully
victim (Smith et al., 2006, 2008).
In general, the data suggests that the mixed findings may be explained by a possible
curvilinear relationship between age and frequency of cyber bullying victimization (Tokunaga,
2010). Based on the review of literature, it appears that the highest rates of victimization occur in
grade 7 and 8 children. Although several studies reported insignificant age differences, this could
be a result of not using samples with diverse age groups (Didden et al., 2009; Juvoven & Gross,
2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Wolak et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004). Therefore,
researchers must use caution when interpreting results from these studies, because victimization
does not occur uniformly across age groups (Tokunaga, 2010). Conclusions cannot be made until
there is more longitudinal research conducted in the form of large scale surveys at a national
level, including youth of different cultures and origins, and both male and female participants of
a wide age range (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010).
2.8.3 The role of gender in cyber bullying victimization
Similar to age differences in cyber bullying victimization, studies that examine sex
differences yield inconsistent findings (Tokunaga, 2010). Most of the literature suggests that one
sex is not targeted in victimization more than the other (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009;
Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Li, 2006, 2007a; Patchin
& Hinduja, 2006; Topcu et al., 2008; Varjas et al., 2009; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wolak et al.,
2007; Ybarra, 2004; Ybarra et al., 2007). Although, some studies have found that sex is in fact a
predictor for cyber bullying victimization and suggest that girls are the victims of cyber bullying

24

more often than boys (Dehue et al., 2006; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Kowalski and Limber,
2007; Schrock and Boyd, 2010; Smith, et al., 2006 & 2008; Vandebosch et al., 2006).
A study on cyber bullying in schools, conducted by Li (2006) examined male and female
students (N=264) in grades 7-9 and found that they were almost identical in reporting cyber
bullying victimization (25% and 25.6%). Results also revealed that no significant gender
difference was found in frequencies of cyber bullying and no significant gender difference was
found in students beliefs about adult involvement in stopping cyber bullying (p.164).
Furthermore, studies conducted by Patchin and Hinjuda (2006) and Slonje and Smith (2008)
have found equal risks for boys and girls of becoming a cyber bully victim.
Some researchers suggest that girls are the victims of cyber bullying more often than
boys. Li (2007) found significant gender differences with girls being more likely to report
instances of cyber bullying. Similarly, Smith et al., (2006) found that girls were more likely than
boys to be cyber bully victims, especially by text messages and phone calls. Similar findings
were also revealed in a study conducted by Kowalski and Limber (2007) who found that girls
were more likely to be cyber bully victims than boys.
The findings that girls are cyber bullied more than boys are opposite to what is known
about gender differences in traditional bullying studies. In traditional bullying literature, boys are
more likely to be involved as bullies and victims than girls (Boulton & Underwood, 1992;
Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts, & King, 1982; OMoore & Hillery, 1989). A reasonable
explanation as to why female students are more likely to be cyber bullying victims is that girls
tend to have more close-knit relationships/friendships and therefore more readily exchange
intimate details and personal secrets whereas boys socialize in larger groups and share fewer
details (Dooley et al., 2009 p.186). In addition, females are more likely to be victims of bullying

25

experiences that involve psychological torment (Stephenson & Smith, 1989), which is often
carried out in cyber bullying. Still, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from the literature
related to the relationship between gender and cyber bullying victimization, as the majority of
data indicate that males and females are equally represented among victims (Tokunaga, 2010).
2.8.4. Outcomes associated with cyber bullying victimization
Cyber bullying victimization has been linked to multiple maladaptive emotional,
psychological, and behavioural outcomes, including depression, school problems, and delinquent
behaviours (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Beran and Li (2005) investigated reactions to cyber
victimization, investigating the incidence of different emotions and the behaviours that followed
experiences with cyber harassment. Results indicate that cyber victims showed emotions such as
anger, sadness, anxiety, embarrassment, crying, fear, and self-blame (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
Other impacts include a decrease in academic performance, concentration, and absence from
school. Beran and Li (2007) found that students who were experiencing cyber bullying
victimization reported a sudden drop in their grades, increased absences and truancy, and
increased detentions and suspensions (Katzer et al., 2009). Cyberbully victims were also more
likely to bring a weapon to school (Ybarra et al., 2007) and report feeling that school is not a safe
environment (Varjas et al., 2009). The decrease in academic performance may be a result of the
victims inability to concentrate at school and the increased levels of frustration with the bullying
situation (Beran & Li, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Much like traditional bullying, cyber bully victims experience a wide range of psychiatric
and psychosomatic problems (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011). A study conducted by Sourander et al.,
(2010) found that adolescent victims experienced frequent psychosomatic problems, headaches,

26

sleep disorders, repeated stomach aches; a greater number of perceived problems; emotional and
peer related problems; and feeling insecure at school and neglected by teachers.
Victims of cyber bullying also experience suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Hinduja and
Patchin (2010) looked into the correlations between victims experiences with cyber bullying and
thoughts of suicide. They found that individuals who experiences traditional bullying or cyber
bullying victimization had more suicidal thoughts and were more likely to attempt suicide than
those who had not experienced such forms of peer aggression (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
Psychosocial problems and mood disorders are also associated with cyber bully victims.
For example, depression is associated with the intensity and frequency to which an individual
experiences victimization (Didden et al., 2009; Ybarra, 2004). In addition, social anxiety and low
levels of self-esteem have also been reported in victims of cyber bullying (Juvoven & Gross,
2008; Didden et al., 2009; Katzer et al., 2009). For example, Raskaukas and Stoltz (2007)
reported that 93% of cyber victims said cyber bullying affected them in a negative way, with the
majority of responses being that cyber bullying make them feel sad, hopeless, or depressed.
Another study conducted by Ybarra et al. (2006) found from those who were cyber bullied, 38%
said they were emotionally distressed, and reported feeling upset or afraid because of the cyber
bullying incident. These negative feelings victims experience can also influence the development
of social problems such as detachment, externalized hostility, and delinquency (Tokunaga,
2010). As a result, victims are forced to internalize their problems, feel unhappy, and are less
likely to participate in pro-social activities and behaviors.
In sum, the negative outcomes of cyber bullying overlap with those of traditional bully
victims. Aforementioned, similarities of cyber bullying victims include lower achievement
scores, adjustment problems, internalizing problems, mental health and social problems. These

27

negative outcomes range from trivial levels of distress to serious life problems depending on the
frequency, duration, and severity of the harassing acts (Tokunaga, 2010).
2.9. Parenting Styles and Cyber bullying
Two definitions of parenting styles are prevalent in the field which are those are those
developed by Baumrind (1967) and Maccoby and Martin (1983). The following section includes
a critical examination of the definition of parenting styles using Baumrinds Parenting Styles
Theory and the related model created by Maccoby and Martin (1983).
2.9.1Baumrinds theoretical framework
Baumrinds parenting styles theory is the most influential theory of parental behaviours,
and guides contemporary research in the field (Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, & Ritter,
1997). This theory laid the groundwork for using parenting styles in a typological approach when
categorizing different parenting behaviours and the socializing effects of the strategies parents
use when raising their children (Kennell, 1994). The typology approach focuses on the
configuration of different parenting practices and assumes that the impact of any one practice
depends on the arrangement of all others (Glasgow et al, 1997, p. 508). Researchers have
adopted the parenting styles typology approach in order to measure this diverse construct in a
consistent manner.
Baumrinds (1968) parenting style typologies identified three different patterns of
parental authority: 1) authoritarian (characterized by low levels of responsiveness to their childs
need and high levels of demandingness on the child), 2) authoritative (described as having high
levels of both responsiveness and demandingness), and permissive (reflected by high levels of
responsiveness and low levels of demandingness). Associated with each of Baurminds parenting

28

typologies are four child-rearing dimensions: parental control, parental maturity demands,
parent-child communication, and parental nurturance.
Parental control is defined as acts that shape the childs behavior and promote
internalization of parental standards. Parental maturity demands referred to pressures put on the
child to perform up to ability intellectually, socially and emotionally. Parent-child
communication referred to the extent the parent used reason to obtain compliance and asked the
childs opinions and feelings. Parental nurturance referred to the extent the parent expressed love
and warmth while carrying out care taking functions for the child (Kennell, 1994 p. 19). The
behaviours that are characteristic of authoritarian parents include having high levels of control
over the child, expecting the child to follow a strict set of rules with no flexibility, and
demanding obedience from the child (Chen, Chen, & Zheng, 2011). In contrast, authoritative
parenting involves acceptance of the child, good supervision, and an emphasis on independence.
These parents encourage their children to say what they think, but provide support and firm
guidance, enabling them to develop well-formed personal and social skills (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Furthermore, permissive parenting involves having little control
over the child, enforcing few demands on the child, and providing copious levels of warmth and
flexibility and freedom (Chen et al., 2011).
Several aspects to Baumrinds conceptualization and theory of parenting styles set her
apart from earlier researchers. First, Baumrinds model was not linear. Rather than defining
parenting style with exact dimensions of parental control behavior, it was defined as fitting one
of three types of parental control patterns (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kennall, 1994). Control
can be defined as the parents attempt to integrate the child into the family and society by
demanding behavioral compliance (Kennall, 1994 p. 20). In terms of parenting styles,

29

authoritative parents carry out control in a nurturing way using clear communication,
authoritarian parents carry out control with little nurturance and unclear communication, and
permissive parents carry out low levels of control and less nurturance and communication
(Kennall, 1994).
Second, Baumrind used the configurational approach to define parenting style (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). Baumrind argued that any singular aspect of parenting is dependent on the
configuration of all other aspects (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Third, Baumrinds theory
separated parenting behaviours from child characteristics (Darling & Steingberg, 1993).
Therefore, parenting styles were characteristics of the parent and not the parent-child
relationship. Previous research acknowledged that parents influenced their children, but did not
recognize that children also influence their parents. In order to address this concern, Baumrind
measured parental characteristics separate from the childs reaction to the parent, because she felt
that it was important to look at the parent-child socialization relationship. Lastly, Baumrinds
findings revealed that various parental behaviours were associated with a set of optimal child
characteristics. These results had a significant impact on the field as she discovered that parents
who were emotionally supportive, granted appropriate autonomy, had high standards, and clear
communication successfully socialized their children, calling this parenting style authoritative.
(Kennall, 1994 p. 21). Empirical research has replicated these findings consistently since her
original work, which has provided researchers with the foundation to explore parenting styles
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
2.9.2 Maccoby and Martins Framework
Maccoby and Martin (1983) transformed Baumrinds configurational typology theory by
introducing a multi-dimensional linear definition of parenting based on the three parenting styles:

30

authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive (Kennall, 1994). Baumrinds conception allowed for
her authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive styles to be solely based on the control dimension.
However, her results revealed that other parenting attributes were consistently associated with
the different types of control (Kennall, 1994 p.21).
Maccoby and Martin created two dimensions they believed categorized Baumrinds
configurational approach. This model explains parenting styles as varying along two orthogonal
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness. Parental responsiveness refers to the extent
to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being
attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to childrens special needs and demands (Baumrind, 1991,
p.62). Moreover, parental demandingness refers to the claims parents make on children to
become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary
efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys (Baumrind, 1991, pp.61-62). These
two dimensions yield four parenting styles according to whether they are high or low on parental
demandingness and responsiveness. They proposed that four parenting styles could be
categorized by combining these two dimensions: authoritarian (low support, high control),
authoritative (high support and control), permissive (high support and low control), and
neglecting (low support and control) (Baumrind, 1991).
Although Maccoby and Martins parenting styles corresponded with Baumrinds, they
differed in several ways. Maccoby and Martins parenting styles framework did not consider
communication patterns between parents and children and they did not account for differing
patterns of control (Kennall, 1994). However, they did feel that their two dimensional model was
close enough to Baumrinds that the outcomes of child socialization would be very similar.
2.9.3 Overview of parenting styles and traditional bullying

31

Many studies have examined the relationship between parenting styles and traditional
bullying, consistently showing a positive relationship between bullying, poor parenting, and
school behavior problems (Rigby, 1994, 1996). Research examining the effects of parenting on
bullying and victimization has largely focused on Baumrinds (1971, 1989, 1991, 1996) widely
used measure of parenting styles (Smetana, 1995; Baldry & Farrington, 1998; Haynie, Nansel,
Eitel et al., 2001; Georgiou, 2008). Parenting styles have been associated with the quality of
children and adolescents peer relationships. Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg (2001) reported
that authoritative parenting styles were positively associated with prosocial development in
adolescents (Taitrol, 2010). Furthermore, Hines and Paulson (2007) found that was inversely
related to adolescents involvement in conflict, which coincides with Olweus (1994) who
suggested that parents with permissive parenting styles were less likely to address their
childrens bullying incidents.
Authoritative parents are considered a protective factor (Bamrind, 1966, 1996; Steinberg,
Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992) as they have high acceptance of the child, good
supervision, and the granting of psychological autonomy (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). This
means that parents who promote autonomy while providing support and firm guidance, enable
their children to develop personal social skills that may benefit them in any social difficulties
they may face (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998).
In regards to victimization, traditional bullying studies have found that children with low
authoritative parents who rarely value their children and do not give them the chance to stand up
for themselves, are more likely to grow up being fearful of speaking out and are therefore easily
picked on (Smith, Myron, & Wilson, 1998; Baldry & Farrington, 1998). The quality of parenting
has been linked to experience with victimization in childhood, and therefore it is important to

32

determine what features of parenting styles influence positive and negative outcomes of child
and adolescent coping strategies. To date, the majority of research has focused on the negative
effects of parental child-rearing styles on traditional bullying, and has ignored the importance of
protective parental child-rearing styles for cyber victims (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004).
Therefore, research that investigates childhood stressors including the quality of parenting styles
can highlight the potential etiological significance of early peer victimization experiences
(Gladstone et al., 2006). In addition to having authoritative parents, protective factors such as
coping strategies have been found to be associated with lower levels of bullying victimization
(Baldry & Farrington, 2005).
2.9.4 Empirical review of parenting styles and cyber bullying victimization
The importance of examining parenting styles in relation to cyber-victimization is evident
when reviewing the lack of empirical studies conducted to date. In order to conduct a review of
the current literature on parenting styles and cyber bullying victimization, a computerized search
from the year 2000-2012 was conducted, using the PsychINFO and ERIC databases and the key
terms parenting styles, cyber bullying, and cyber bully victimization. Articles were
selected based on their inclusion of adolescent subjects, who were between the ages of 10 and
18. Articles selected also directly investigated the reported parenting styles of the primary
caregiver in relation to their children who were cyber bullying victims. The reference lists of
these articles were also searched for other relevant studies. Based on this search, 7 available
studies were obtained. The findings of these studies are discussed in the following section.
A body of research has explored the relationship between parenting styles and cyber
bullying victimization. These studies suggest that monitoring behaviour is related to parenting
style, and that both parental responsiveness and parental control are associated with the extent to

33

which parents monitor their childrens technology use (Soenens, Vansteenkise, Luyckx, &
Goossens, 2006). For example, Eastin, Greenberg and Hofschire (2006) examined parenting
styles and how they mediated their childrens Internet use. Results indicated that authoritative
parents used evaluative (co-viewing or discussing content) and restrictive techniques (placing
time or content limits) more often than authoritarian and neglectful parents. A significant
relationship between child Internet use and parenting styles has also been shown by Valcke,
Bonte, De Wever, & Rots (2010). Parents of children in primary schools (n=533) were surveyed
and results show that the highest child usage level occurs when parents adopt a permissive
parenting style, whereas the lowest levels are see when parents adopt an authoritarian parenting
style. On the other hand, Aoyama, Barnard-Brak, & Talbert (2011) did not find a strong
relationship between parental monitoring and child Internet behavior. The present study
classified students into four groups: highly involved both as bully and victim, more victim than
bully, more bully than victim, or least involved, based on their cyber bullying experiences and
examined the characteristics of the groups based on the level of parental monitoring. Results
revealed that the level of parental monitoring was not associated with being a cyber bully or
victim.
A recent study conducted by Leung & Lee (2011) examined how parenting styles can
predict Internet risks. These authors identified three types of media-related mediation parenting
styles: active mediation, restrictive mediation, and coviewing. First, active mediation involves
the types of conversations that parents have with children about the Internet (Fujioka & Austin,
2007). Second, restrictive mediation involves carrying-out specific rules about when the child is
allowed to use the Internet, and how long they can be on the web (Livingstone, 2008b). Third,
coviewing involves direct supervision, where the parents sit in the same room as the child to talk

34

about the content while on the Internet (Jordan, 2001). Results from this study indicate that
parents who enforced stricter rules, had more involvement and more mediation, were less likely
to have children that were targeted for harassment (Leung & Lee, 2011). However, adolescents
may not be the target of harassment at home, as they may be experiencing these risks at friends
house or in school since the Internet is a universal medium (Leung & Lee, 2011). This suggests
that adolescents may be targets of online harassment despite having parents who employ strict
mediation rules.
Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier (2008) looked at the association between parenting style with
parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behaviour. Parenting styles were strongly related
to adolescent MySpace experiences, behaviours, and attitudes. In particular, parents with older
children are more likely to have neglectful or indulgent parenting styles and are less likely to set
limits on their childs Internet use (Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier, 2008). However, the extent to
which the child experienced cyber bullying was relatively low compared to previous studies
stating a high incidence of Internet related problems. Only 22% of teens surveyed endorsed
having experienced an uncomfortable experience on MySpace including an uncomfortable
sexual incident, fights with boyfriends, peers, gossip, and other teen drama (Rosen, Cheever,
& Carrier, 2008).
A study conducted by Dehue, Bolman, Vollink and Pouwelse (2009) investigated the
influence of parenting style on cyber bullying and found that children who perceived their
parents parenting style as authoritative, cyber bully less than those who perceive the parenting
style as permissive or neglectful. Furthermore, the results revealed that children who perceived
an authoritative parenting style were cyberbullied less than those who perceived a neglectful
parenting style.

35

Hay & Meldrum (2010) studied the relationship between cyber-victimization and a
childs exposure to authoritative parenting, in order to examine the effects of both traditional and
cyber bullying victimization on deliberate self-harm and suicidal ideation. Specifically, these
authors investigated the role of a childs exposure to authoritative parenting in moderating the
relationship between bullying and self-harm (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Participants included 426
students from a rural county of a southeastern state, who attended one of two selected schools:
one middle school and one high school. Students completed a school-based survey that consisted
of closed-ended questions and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.
The analysis of this study revealed that both traditional and cyber bullying are positively
related to self-harm and suicidal ideation (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Moreover, those relationships
are partially mediated by the negative emotions experienced by the victims and partially
moderated by aspects of the individuals social environment and self (Hay & Meldrum, 2010). In
terms of parenting style, exposure to authoritative parenting and high self-control reduced the
harmful effects of bullying victimization on self-harm and suicidal ideation (Hay & Meldrum,
2010). Therefore, adolescents who have high authoritative parents and self-control are less likely
to use externalizing aggression when experiencing bullying victimization. These findings are
beneficial as they suggest that cyber bullying prevention programs could focus on protective
factors such as authoritative parenting practices to reduce the overall prevalence of cyber bully
victims (Hay & Meldrum, 2010).
2.9.5 Measurement of parenting styles and cyber bullying victims
Aforementioned, the majority of research examining the effects of parenting style on
bullying and victimization has relied on Baumrinds Parenting style model. Empirical studies
examining the relationship between cyber-victimization and parenting styles have used various

36

instruments based on Baumrinds model to measure parenting styles. Eastin, Greenberg and
Hofschire (2006) used the Parenting Style Index (Steinberg et al., 1992, 1994) and categorized
parents as authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful based on measures of
responsiveness and demandingness. Responsiveness was measured using 10 items ranging from
never to very often, whereas demandingness was measured 10 dichotomous items (Eastin et al.,
2006). Four typological parenting styles were formed from these subscales using mean cut-off
scores. For example, parents who scored above the mean on responsive and demandingness
scales were labeled as authoritative, those above the mean on demandingness and below the
mean on responsiveness were labeled as authoritarian, those below the mean on demandingness
and above the mean on responsiveness were labeled as permissive, and finally, those below the
mean on both responsive and demanding scales were labeled as neglectful. Although the
Parenting Style Index is widely used, researchers have argued that using a mean split to create
high and low cut points used to create dichotomous or continuous measures can result in a loss of
power (Cohen, 1983) and an increase of Type I error (Maxwell & Delaney, 1993).
Rosen et al., (2008) created a survey on Survey Monkey and used the Parenting Style
Questionnaire (PSQ) (Lambourn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). The PSQ was based
on Maccoby and Martins (1983) revision of Baumrinds (1971) parenting style framework. This
questionnaire includes two subscales: parental warmth/involvement (10 items) and parental
strictness/supervision (9 items) which are generic and independent of computer use (Rosen et
al., 2008 p.464). The total scores for each scale were divided at the median to create four groups
based on Baumrinds (1971) parenting styles- Authoritarian (high strictness, low warmth),
Authoritative (high strictness, high warmth), Indulgent (low strictness, high warmth), and
Neglectful (low strictness, low warmth). In this study, the PSQ was administered to both the

37

student and the parent, with an internal consistency of .70 for the teens and .84 for the parents
(Rosen et al., 2008).
In a study conducted by Leung and Lee (2012) parenting style was measured using three
dimensions: strictness, involvement, and parental mediation. The authors adapted items in their
questionnaire from an existing measure created by Dornbusch et al., 1985). The responses were
then multiplied into multiples of 12, and summed and divided by 3, reporting an acceptable alpha
of .73. In contrast, Hay and Meldrum (2010) measured exposure to authoritative parenting using
a 12 item scale in which participants were asked to indicate their agreement (strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, strongly agree) with several statements about their social interaction with parents
(Hay & Meldrum, 2010). Although the authors note that these items are similar to those found in
previous studies that have examined the effects of authoritative parenting on adolescents, this
questionnaire measures only one parenting style.
Recently, some researchers have measured parenting styles in relation to Internet related
behaviours. For example, Valcke, Bonte, De Wever, & Rots (2010) measured Internet parenting
styles using the Internet Parenting Style Instrument (IPSI). This parental self-report questionnaire
was based on a scale developed by van den Eijden (2007) and includes two sub scales that reflect
parental control and parental warmth. The parental control scale contains 11 Likert-scale items
that measures supervision, stopping Internet usage, and Internet usage rules, whereas the parental
warmth scale contains 14 Likert-scale items that measure communication and support. The
authors reported good reliability noting a Cronbachs alpha of .90 for the parental warmth
subscale and .78 for the parental control subscale (Valcke et al., 2010). Although this
methodology seems to be efficient, studying parenting styles in relation to the Internet is a new
phenomenon and therefore, the results of these studies should be interpreted with caution.

38

Despite the agreement about the effects of parenting styles on childrens development,
many questions regarding the construct of parenting style remain unanswered (Kordi, 2010;
Darling, 1999). Issues surrounding this construct include the variability in the effects of
parenting style based on the childs cultural background, the process through which a parent
influences a childs development, and the operationalization of the construct parenting style
(Kordi, 2010). For this reason, many researchers believe that parenting style is best represented
as a context that moderates the influence of parenting practices on the child (Kordi, 2010).
As a result, Parker et al. (1997) developed a measure of parenting styles that integrated
two traditions in socialization research: the study of specific parenting practices integrated with
global parental characteristics. Measure of Parenting style (MOPS) is a 15-item self-report
questionnaire of dysfunctional parenting (Parker et al., 1997) Participants are asked to rate how
true they judge each item as a description of how their mother and father acted (i.e.,
overprotective of me, sought to make me feel guilty) toward them in their first 16-years,
using a 4-point scale (0= not true at all, 3= extremely true). MOPS include three scales:
Indifference (6 items), Overcontrol (4 items), and Abuse (five items). The scales have acceptable
internal consistency with alpha coefficients of .93 for both maternal and paternal indifference,
.82 and .76 for maternal and paternal over control, and .87 and .92 for maternal and parental
abuse (Parker et al., 1997). Although this measure of parenting style is unique in that it accounts
for several parental characteristics, it has been used only a few bullying studies (Gladstone &
Parker, 2006).
2.10. Coping Strategies and Cyber bullying
In the past few years, researchers have taken an increasing interest in coping with cyber
bullying. Coping strategies and cyber bullying is a relatively new issue, when compared to the

39

many studies conducted on general coping strategies (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011). Over the years,
there has not always been agreement in the literature concerning the conceptualization of coping
strategies in children and adolescents (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). The following section will
examine the different classifications of coping strategies based on the transactional model
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the approach-avoidance model (Roth & Cohen, 1986).
2.10.1. Theoretical models
Traditionally, theoretical models of coping strategies have been divided into dichotomous
categories. Two of the most notable models are the transactional model (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) and the approach-avoidance model (Roth & Cohen, 1986). Turning first to the
transactional model, coping is defined in terms of their functions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Billings & Moos, 1981). In this functional approach, an individuals reaction to the stressor (e.g.,
being victimized by a cyber bully) is classified as either problem-focused coping or emotionfocused coping. Individuals who use adaptive problem-focused coping, are active in trying to
face and solve the problem, and ask others for help (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). For example, a
cyber victim using a problem-focused coping strategy may directly stand up to the cyber bully or
tell a parent or teacher so they can intervene (Parris et al., 2012). In contrast, those who adopt
emotion-focused coping strategies ignore the problem at hand, concentrate solely on themselves,
and react to the problem emotionally. Cyber victims using emotion-focused coping may try to
manage their problems by crying, venting their feelings, or focusing on the positive things in
their life (Parris et al., 2012). The transactional model includes a process of primary and
secondary appraisal. The primary appraisal involves assessing the situation (e.g., a text message)
to decide if it is a threat (e.g., cyber bullying) (Parris et al., 2012). This occurs when there is an
appraisal of whether the event is a threat. The secondary appraisal occurs when an individual

40

chooses a particular coping strategy, which is conducive to the resources they have at that time
(Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
In the approach-avoidance model (Roth & Cohen, 1986), the individual decides whether
they have the resources for coping with the problem and then chooses either the approach or
avoidance mode (Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyers, & Parris, 2011). Approach coping involves
focusing on a direct solution to the problem, and taking action that could either resolve the
stressful situation or could lead to increased anxiety (Tenenbaum et al., 2011, p.266). For
example, an individual using this strategy may confront the cyber bully in person rather than
ignoring the incident (Parris et al., 2012). Approach strategies are best used when the individual
believes they have control over the situation and feels that they have the necessary resources to
deal with the problem (Roth & Cohen, 1986). On the other hand, avoidance coping involves
escaping the stressor and the threatening stimuli, failing to resolve the problem (Roth & Cohen,
1986). For example, an individual using this strategy may delete threatening messages, ignore
the cyber bully, or say that cyber bullying does not bother them (Parris et al., 2012). Avoidance
strategies are best used in situations that cannot be controlled and when the resources needed to
deal with the problem are limited (Roth & Cohen, 1986). In both of these models, the
individuals decision as to whether they have the necessary resources for a solution to the
problem is the most important aspect (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).
2.10.2 Overview of traditional bullying and coping strategies
Coping strategies play a vital role in the reduction of cyber-victimization and have
received considerable focus in recent literature (Tokunaga, 2010; Price & Dalgleish, 2010; Lan
& Frydenberg, 2009). Lazarus defined coping as not a single act but a constellation of many
acts and thoughts engendered by a complex set of demands that may stretch out over time

41

(1998, p. 207). Specifically, coping strategies represent both the cognitions and behaviours that
individuals use to face and overcome stressful situations (Boekerts, 1996). Depending on the
coping strategy used in the face of a cyber bullying incident, victimization experiences will differ
(Boerkerts, 1996). As a result, the specific coping strategy carried out can either improve or
worsen the situation at hand. Child victims of bullying are often fearful of telling others about
bullying incidents, leaving adults unaware of the scope of the problem (Olweus, 1993).
Therefore, the coping strategies that children use, such as telling someone about a bullying
situation, are important to be addressed as they can be used to help manage adverse cyber
bullying situations (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2003). Traditional bullying research has
found that victimized children express sadness, rarely ask for help after negative experiences,
and use reactive aggression as a coping mechanism (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005). In addition,
victims are more likely to use avoidant styles of coping to manage their thoughts and feelings
towards the stressor, but are often unsuccessful in stopping the stressor itself (Causey & Dubow,
1992). As a result, adolescents who use avoidant coping strategies and manage their feelings,
rather than stopping the negative situation, are more likely to experience continued victimization.
In contrast, children with adaptive coping strategies approach the problem by trying to find a
solution to the negative event, which allows them to moderate stressful situations related to
bullying and victimization.
2.10.3 Empirical review of coping strategies and cyber bullying victimization
Recently, researchers have attempted to identify students strategies to cope with cyber
bullying (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008; Hinduja &
Patchin, 2007; Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith, Mandavi, et
al., 2008; Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012). In order to conduct a review of the current

42

literature on cyber bullying victimization and coping strategies, a computerized search from the
year 2000-2012 was conducted, using the PsychINFO and ERIC databases and the key terms
coping, cyber bullying, and cyber bully victimization. Articles were selected based on
their inclusion of adolescent subjects, who were between the ages of 12 and 18. Articles selected
also directly investigated coping strategies in individuals who were cyber bullying victims. The
reference lists of these articles were also searched for other relevant studies. Based on this search
7 available studies were obtained. The findings of these studies are discussed in the following
section.
Research conducted with child and adolescent cyber victims has demonstrated that there
are several different types of coping mechanisms used to prevent further cyber bullying
incidents. In particular, results indicate that preventative, or technological coping strategies such
as deleting or blocking threatening messages are commonly used by cyber victims (Agatston et
al., 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2008; Smith, Mahdavi, et al., 2008). For
example, Aricak et al. (2007) found that when faced with an adverse cyber bullying incident,
30.6% of the students reported finding active coping solutions such as blocking the cyber bully,
instituting strict privacy settings, changing their username and/or e-mail address. Similarly,
Juvonen & Gross (2008) found that prevention strategies such as blocking a screen name was the
most commonly used tactic (33%), whereas 26% of the sample reported switching a screen
name, and 25% sent a warning to the cyber bullying to prevent another incident from occurring.
Agatston and colleagues also reported that some individuals ignored the cyber bullying situation,
whereas others pretended to ignore it. Although employing stricter privacy settings and changing
online identities may stop cyber bullying incidents temporarily, the overall effectiveness of these
strategies is still unknown (Tokunaga, 2010). Furthermore, Kowalski and colleagues (2008)

43

looked at preventative coping strategies and gathered student-generated suggestions for parents
to address cyber bullying victimization (Parris et al., 2011). The students suggestions included
setting age appropriate limits on technology use, banning certain websites, monitoring their
childs technological activities, sharing evidence of cyber bullying with the school, and not
blaming the victim or punishing them by restricting their use of technology (Parris et al., 2011
p.287).
Avoidant strategies are used less frequently by cyber victims when facing an adverse
bullying experience (Tokunaga, 2010). A study conducted by Patchin and Hinduja (2006) reveals
that 24.8% of cyber victim respondents said they did nothing in response to being cyber bullied.
Ignoring encounters of cyber bullying was also seen in a study conducted by Dehue et al., 2008,
who looked at the nature of cyber bullying and how children and adolescents coped with
victimization. Results indicate that 6.9% of cyber victims ignored the bully and avoided thinking
about the problem altogether in order to physically escape from it (Dehue et al., 2008). A recent
study conducted by Parris and his colleagues (2012) found that cyber bully victim used
acceptance strategies such as recognizing that cyber bullying was a part of life, in order to
decrease the adverse effects of victimization. Passive strategies may be effective if the cyber
bullying event occurs only once, but as the frequency and intensity of the threats increase,
different coping strategies are likely to emerge (Tokunaga, 2010).
Active coping strategies are used in trying to face the problem and include confronting
the bully to inform them to end the aggressive behavior in collaboration with threatening to tell
an adult or another person if the harmful behavior continues (Tokunaga, 2010). Parris et al.,
(2012) examined how high school students prevented cyber bullying and found that students
reported talking in person before further victimization occurred. The students in this study

44

indicated that electronic communication often creates misunderstandings due to the inability to
detect tone and sarcasm. Therefore, they believe that it is important to have a face-to-face
conversation with the other person, which may prevent future occurrences of cyber bullying.
Active coping strategies can also include telling an adult about the cyber bullying victimization.
Seeking social support was reported by student is some studies (Dehue et al., 2008; Kowalski et
al., 2008; Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith, Mahdavi, et al., 2008).
Although some cyber bully victims report incidents of cyber bullying to friends or parents, these
victims of cyber bullying are less likely than traditional bullying victims to seek help (Parris et
al., 2012; Dehue et al., 2008; Li, 2006; Slonje & Smith, 2008). For example, Slonje and Smith
(2008) surveyed 360 adolescents from various Swedish high schools and found that 50% of the
cyber victims surveyed did not tell anyone about bullying incidents, 35.7% told a friend, 8.9%
told a parent or guardian, 5.4% told someone else, and no one reported telling their teacher.
Therefore, victims are more likely to seek social support from friends than adults. Similar to
previous studies, Dehue et al. (2008) found that most students did not talk to an adult about being
victimized, as only 3.3% told a parent. Cyber victims were more likely to tell a friend at school
(8.8%) over telling a parent, teacher or sibling. (Dehue et al., 2008). Another possibility for not
seeking social support may be the victims lack of confidence that cyber bullying can be stopped
(Smith, Mahdavi et al., 2008; Mishna et al., 2009). When seeking social support from an adult,
individuals must perceive them as trustworthy and believe that the adult can offer them useful
resources to end the cyber bullying victimization (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Smith, Mahdavi et
al., 2008).
Although teens often threaten to tell an adult if the cyber bullying behaviour continue, a
common finding in the cyber bullying literature is that youth rarely tell adults about their

45

experiences of online victimization in order to prevent future incidents (Aricak et al., 2008;
Dehue et al., 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2007; Juvonen & Gross, 2008). A study conducted by Smith
et al. (2008) examined middle school cyber bully victims and their coping strategies. Five
hundred and thirty-three participants were recruited from 5 schools and completed an anonymous
self-report questionnaire that asked about whether or not they had told anyone about being cyber
bullied (Smith et al., 2008). Results from this study reveal that 56% reported told a friend, 15.5%
told a parent or guardian, and only 8.5 told a class teacher or another adult at school. The
reported rates of victims of cyber bullying telling someone in order to get help (56%) appear to
be relatively low compared to rates for victims of traditional bullying (Whitney & Smith, 1993).
Data from these studies suggests that when victims do tell, it is often a friend and they usually
never report the incident to someone at school (Smith et al., 2008; Dehue et al., 2008; Slonje &
Smith, 2007).
Despite the possible benefits of this strategy, the reluctance to speak with an adult may be
due to the perceived ineffectiveness of speaking out (Price & Dalgleish, 2010). Therefore,
children and adolescents need additional information on the benefits of seeking help, how to seek
help, and whom they can turn to for support (Price & Dalgleish, 2010). Findings suggest that
when cyber victims do tell someone, it is often friends and not someone at school (Smith et al.,
2008; Dehue et al., 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2007). This may be due to the fact that school is
perceived as less relevant, because cyber bullying often occurs outside of school (Smith et al.,
2008). When faced with adverse behaviours online, students reported seeking more active
solutions than passive ones to cope with cyber bullying (Aricak et al., 2008). Traditional bullying
research suggests that active strategies are the more helpful in dealing with bullying experiences,
but due to the repeated harassment that cyber victims endure, it is also worth researching whether

46

ignoring or avoidance strategies may be more effective (Smith et al., 2008). Therefore, having a
clearer understanding of protective coping strategies can help to reduce further incidents of being
victimized in cyberspace.
2.10.4 Measurement of coping strategies and cyber bullying victims
Research studies conducted on the relationship between cyber-victimization and coping
have frequently used correlational, self-report questionnaires (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). All
of the studies reviewed used correlational, quantitative methods to provide an in-depth
examination of coping with cyber bullying. Several studies used an anonymous online approach
to collect data (Price & Dalgleish, 2010; Riebel et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006). For example, Patchin and Hinduja (2006) created an online survey linked from a
Website of a popular music artist. This survey was designed to collect data on cyber bullying
practices and experiences. The authors believe that the primary benefit in utilizing such a
format concerns the ability to reach a wide number of participants at an economical cost
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006, pp. 157). The subject matter of cyber victimization was appropriate
for this methodology, as it concerns a global phenomenon that occurs exclusively on-line
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Because there does not exist a sampling frame with contact
information of possible cyber bullying offenders and victims, the best way to seemingly reach
such a population is to select a number of Internet sites whose visitors possessed demographic
characteristics similar to the studys target population. As such, the survey instruments used in
online studies are usually linked to several websites that target adolescents (Price & Dalgleish,
2010; Riebel et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Although this methodology seems to be
efficient, several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results of these studies.
First, online studies can lead to a sample bias towards help-seekers, which may prevent

47

generalizability of the results to other groups (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Also, studies using
online data must consider the inflexibility of the survey instruments and the inability to verify the
authenticity of self-reported anonymous surveys (Price & Dalgleish, 2010).
In contrast, the remaining studies gathered data from local schools and administered
surveys to students who agreed to participate (Aricak et al., 2008; Delhue et al., 2008; Slonje &
Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). For example, Dehue et al. (2008) recruited 1,211 students from
34 primary schools and seven secondary schools who completed a survey collected by the
Regional Public Health Service in the Netherlands. Two questionnaires were developed (one for
the student and one for the parent), and items measuring coping behaviors were derived from
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire and from assessment scales of the Amsterdam bullying
questionnaire (Dehue et al., 2008). Similarly, Smith et al. (2008) and Slonje and Smith (2007)
randomly selected between 5 and 8 local schools and surveyed students between the ages of 12
and 20. In both studies, coping was measured using a questionnaire adapted from Smith et al.
(2006), asking who, if anyone was told about the incident and what were the best ways to stop
cyber bullying. These studies did not use scales from traditional coping and bullying research,
and measured coping using one multiple-choice question asking whom they had told. The only
study that looked at different types of coping was conducted by Riebel et al. (2008) who created
four factors to measure different kinds of coping: social, aggressive, cognitive, and helpless
coping (Riebel et al., 2009). Results from this study indicate that cyber bully victims have similar
coping strategies to traditional bully victims and that three out of the four scales were almost
identical (Riebel et al., 2008). Although the factors used to measure coping did not follow the
general coping strategies found in other bullying studies (i.e., active coping, emotion-focused
coping, avoidant coping, and problem-focused coping), the authors argue that their factors do not

48

differ from traditional measures. Therefore, studies that measure different categories of coping
strategies provide a more in-depth look at both the cognitions and behaviours that cyber victims
use to face and overcome stressful bullying situations.
Overall, methods and tools used to measure cyber bullying behaviour in schools might be
context-dependent and be influenced by educational systems, school climates, and cultural
norms, which differ from country to country (Huang & Chou, 2010). Therefore, future studies
should employ other methods such as focus groups, in-depth interviews, and observations to
ensure more reliable results (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
2.11. Overview of Cyber-victimization, Parenting Styles, and Coping Strategies
Research should strive to examine the overall relationships and interactions between
demographic, situational, and behavioral variables that increase ones risk of cyber bullying
victimization (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). As previously highlighted, few studies have looked at
the associations between parenting styles, coping strategies and cyber bullying victimization.
Despite the evidence suggesting important associations between these psychological variables
and traditional bullying (Hay & Meldrum, 2010; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008),
direct examinations between all of these variables are not available. Investigating the
interrelationships between these three variables is deemed a very important area of study in
todays society, as researchers are hopeful in identifying protective factors that will decrease the
frequency of cyber-victimization incidents (Ubertini, 2011).
To date, no studies have investigated the linkages between cyber-bullying victimization,
parenting style, and coping strategies. However, traditional bullying research has thoroughly
examined the effects of victimization on parenting styles and coping strategies (Baldry &
Farrington, 2005; Bowers et al., 1994; Haynie, Nansel, & Eitel., 2001). For instance, a study

49

conducted in Italy examined the role played by protective factors including parenting styles, and
coping strategies, in moderating the effects of risk actors over bullying victimization in a sample
of 702 students with an age range from 14 to 19. It was found that victims with conflicting
parents or punitive parents were associated with more instances of being bullied, whereas having
highly supportive parents had a strong buffering effect against being victimized (Baldry &
Farrington, 2005). Furthermore, results indicate that students who adopt emotion oriented coping
strategies are more likely to report being victimized, whereas those who use problem solving
strategies actively faced the problem and reported fewer levels of victimization experiences
(Baldry & Farrington, 2005). Highly supportive parenting was found to have a significant
buffering effect on adolescents who dealt with their problems in an emotional way. Therefore,
the effect of protective factors such as authoritative parents and active, problem-solving coping
strategies can likely prevent the arising of victimization, by making the child more resilient
(Rutter, 1987). A challenge for research is to understand how.
As mentioned previously, few studies have considered the relationship between parenting
styles and cyber-victimization. Overall, research findings suggest that parenting styles affect teen
Internet behaviour (Rosen et al., 2008; Eastin et al., 2006; Valke et al., 2010; Dehue et al., 2009).
First, authoritative parents use evaluative monitoring strategies such as co-viewing or discussing
content, and restrictive techniques such as placing time or content limits, more often than
authoritarian and indulgent parents (Eastin et al., 2008). Furthermore, neglectful parents set the
fewest limits and monitor their childrens Internet use the least (Rosen et al., 2008). Results
from these studies indicate that parents who enforced stricter rules, had more involvement and
more mediation in their childs Internet behaviours, were less likely to have children that were
targeted for harassment (Leung & Lee, 2011).

50

Second, childrens perceptions of their parents parenting styles may affect the
prevalence of being a cyber bullying victim (Leung & Lee, 2011; Hay & Meldrum, 2010).
Studies revealed that children who perceived an authoritative parenting style were cyber bullied
less often than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style. Moreover, results indicate that
high quality authoritative parenting appears to help children cope with cyber bullying in ways
that reduce their thoughts about suicide (Hay & Meldrum, 2010).
In summary, the nature of the relation between parenting styles and cyber bullying
victimization is not completely understood. Authoritative parenting styles may be a protective
factor against cyber bullying victimization (Hay & Meldrum, 2010; Eastin et al., 2008; Rosen et
al., 2008), but this finding is not always supported (Aoyama et al., 2011). Thus, further study is
needed to clarify the relationship. Specifically, the goal of the present study was to determine the
extent to which levels of cyber bullying victimization were lower for individuals based on their
perceptions of their parents parenting styles.
In regard to the relationships between coping and cyber-victimization, few studies have
been conducted (Aricak et al., 2008; Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006; Dehue et al., 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2007; Riebel et al., 2009; Price & Dalgleish,
2010). In general, the available evidence suggests that less incidents of cyber-victimization
positively relates to active coping and negatively relates to avoidance coping (Price & Dalgeish,
2010; Smith et al., 2008). Also, related research suggests that very few victims are choosing to
speak out to either adults or peers about their bullying experiences, despite the high efficacy of
this strategy (Price & Dalgleish, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). As previously mentioned,
Smith et al. (2005) indicated that one-third to over one-half of students who were cyber bullied
did not report the incident to a parent or adult, while Juvonen and Gross (2008) reported 90% did

51

not tell an adult. In addition, 63% of adolescents go online everyday (Pew Internet and American
Life Project, 2001). As a result, future research should investigate the frequency of
communication use and the lack of disclosure of victimization as it relates to cyber bullying
(Taitrol, 2010).
As previously presented, there is a scarcity of research examining the interrelationships
among and between cyber-victimization, parenting styles, and coping strategies in Canadian
community-based school-age children. Similarly, there is limited understanding of how different
parenting styles influence child and adolescent coping strategies. As such, the field would benefit
from further research on the relations between and among cyber-victimization, parenting styles,
and coping strategies, particularly in Canadian school-age children. Therefore, the current study
wishes to address the gap in the literature by identifying potential protective factors that may
inhibit the negative outcomes of cyber-bullying victimization.
2.12 Delineation of the Research Problem
Cyber bullying and victimization is a relatively new phenomenon, as it does not appear
that articles have been published on cyber bullying before 2004 (Tokunaga, 2010). Currently, the
majority of research on cyber bullying victimization reports mixed findings making it difficult
for practitioners and families to take the necessary precautions to prevent cyber bullying. Several
critical concerns need to be addressed in order to produce a clear body of research that brings
meaningful progress to the field (Tokunaga, 2010). Issues include methodological drawbacks
relating to the conceptualization of cyber bullying, the absence of a cyber bullying theory, the
over reliance on self-report, correlational, and cross sectional data, and the lack of studies
conducted on the interrelationships between cyber bullying variables (Tokunaga, 2010).
2.12.1. Present Study

52

Cyber bullying victimization is a relatively new area of research that needs to be further
explored (Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002; Finn, 2004; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Hinduja &
Patchin, 2008). For example, research should focus on the possible relationship between cyber
bullying involvement, reporting, coping, and the parenting styles and parents commitment with
their children (Heirman & Walrave, 2008). Due to the possibility that the perpetration and
victimization of cyber bullying could be related to detrimental online and offline risk taking and
coping behaviours, future research should aim at gaining further insight into risk factors in order
to prevent the accumulation of harmful effects of cyber bullying (Heirman & Walrave, 2008).
Although the number of published studies looking at the effectiveness of coping strategies for
dealing with cyber bullying victimization has increased in recent years, research is still
somewhat limited (Price & Dalgleish, 2010). Similarly, research examining the effects of
parenting styles on cyber-victimization is extremely limited. To date, no studies have examined
the relationship between parenting styles and cyber-victimization; however researchers have
investigated the relationship between traditional bullying and parenting styles. Therefore, it is
important to look at possible protective factors such as coping strategies and parenting styles that
may moderate the negative outcomes for victims of cyber-bully victims. This is a critical area of
research as it has been supported in the literature that children and adolescents who have
supportive and authoritative parents and use problem solving coping strategies are less likely to
experience bullying and victimization (Baldry & Farrington, 2005). It is therefore believed that
through the identification of potential protective factors such as adopting active coping strategies
and having parents with supportive parenting styles, that there will be a decrease in the level of
negative outcomes for victimized youth (Baldry & Farrington, 2005).

53

The present study has been framed from previous research findings and theoretical
perspectives that suggest that there are significant relationships between cybervictimization,
parenting style, and coping strategies. In this regard, it is logical to assume that there will be
differences between victims and non-victims of cyber bullying with respect to parental
characteristics and types of coping strategies utilized. It is expected that this study will better
clarify the nature of these relationships and provide some understanding of possible protective
factors for children and youth relative to cyber bullying.
2.12.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses.
2.12.2.1 Question and hypothesis one
Is there a significant relationship between parenting style and being a cyber bullying victim?
Though few studies have investigated the relationships between parenting styles and cyber
bullying, a significant relationship is expected between low parental warmth and cyber bully
victims given the finding that childrens perceptions of their parents parenting styles may affect
the prevalence of being a cyber bullying victim (Leung & Lee, 2011; Hay & Meldrum, 2010).
Prior work has found that children who perceived an authoritative parenting style were cyber
bullied less often than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style (Hay & Meldrum, 2010)
and these relationships are also anticipated in this study.
2.12.2.2 Question and hypothesis two
Is there a significant relationship between coping style and being a cyber-bullying victim? Given
previous research by Price & Dalgeish (2010), it is hypothesized that active coping will have a
significant positive relationship with non-cyber victims, whereas avoidant and distraction coping
will have a significant negative relationship with cyber victims. Given the relationships found
between avoidant and distraction coping and cyber bullying in previous studies (Smith et al.,

54

2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006), significant negative associations are also anticipated in this
study.
2.12.2.3 Question and hypothesis three
What is the most common coping strategy reported by victims of cyber bullying? It is expected
that the most common coping strategy used by cyber victims is active coping. This hypothesis
stems from similar findings from other studies with adolescent cyber bullying victims (Sleglova
& Cerna, 2011; Parris et al., 2011; Price & Dalgleish., 2010).
2.12.2.4 Question and hypothesis four
Are there sex and age differences with respect to the measured variables (parenting style, coping
style, and being a cyber bullying victim? In terms of sex differences, it is hypothesized that no
difference will be found in relation to perceived parenting styles, but that females will report
greater levels of active coping and incidents of cyber victimization.
Previous research with cyber bullying victims and age differences suggests that one sex is
not targeted in victimization more than the other (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009; Hinduja
& Patchin, 2008; Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Li, 2006, 2007a; Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006; Topcu et al., 2008; Varjas et al., 2009; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wolak et al.,
2007; Ybarra, 2004; Ybarra et al., 2007). A similar finding is expected in this study, with no sex
differences in reporting cyber bullying victimization. Given previous research by Dehue et al.
(2009), it is hypothesized that females would report greater levels of authoritative parenting
styles than males. In addition, it is also hypothesized that females would report greater levels of
active coping strategies than males based on a critical review by Tokunaga (2010).
Given that the majority of studies demonstrate a lack of association between age and
cyber-victimization (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009; Juvoven & Gross, 2008; Katzer et

55

al., 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009; Wolak
et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004), it is hypothesized that no significant age differences will be found for
cyber bullying victims. Similarly, it is expected that no significant age differences will be found.
This hypothesis is based on previous studies with similar findings that no age differences were
found between reported parenting styles and coping strategies (Hay & Meldrum, 2010; Eastin et
al., 2008; Rosen et al., 2008; Sleglova & Cerna, 2011).

56

Chapter Three: Methods

3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to outline the design and procedures used to examine
parenting styles and coping strategies in students who are cyber victims. First, a description of
the participants is provided, followed by an outline of the sampling procedures. Second, the
instruments used in the study are described. Third, the procedures used for data collection are
presented, followed by ethical considerations and safeguards that were incorporated into the
study. Finally, a brief overview of the methods used for analysis is provided.
3.2 Participants
The participants in this study consisted of 125 adolescent students (42 boys and 82 girls)
in grades 7-9, between the ages of 12 and 15 years old, who were selected from two junior high
schools in Calgary. Schools were randomly selected and only those adolescents with signed
consent were permitted to participate. Students completed an online survey via Survey Monkey
within their classrooms. Participants were informed that they were not obligated to complete the
questionnaire and not to record their names to ensure anonymity. Approximately 60 minutes was
required to complete the questionnaire.
3.3 Sampling Procedures
Due to the need for school board, administrator, parent, and student consent, convenience
sampling was used in this study. Once the study had received ethics approval from the
University of Calgary, the Calgary Board of Education was contacted about the study. An
application was submitted for review to Accountability Services at the school board. Boardlevel permission was granted and several administrators from junior high and senior high
schools were contacted to determine their level of interest in the participating study. The

57

administrators were provided with an information letter via email (see Appendix A) outlining
the purposes and procedures of the study. Two administrators, both from junior high schools
contacted the researcher to express an interest in the study. The researcher then met with the
administrators directly at their schools to discuss the details of the study. At this meeting, the
participation of the schools was confirmed and data collection procedures were established.
Through the administrators at both schools, parental consent forms (see Appendix B), and
child assent forms (see Appendix C) were sent home to the parents of all students in grades
9-12. This group consisted of 270 students at the first junior high school, and 450 students
and the second. Of the 720 students, 130 returned their consent forms to their homeroom
teacher. The homeroom teachers followed up with the students for two weeks and collected
consent forms from those who wished to participate. The administrator of each school was
then asked to select the most appropriate class from which to access the students who
returned consent forms. It was recommended that this class be health and wellness due to the
overlap between the present study and the curriculum guideline. However, administrators
chose the class that was least disruptive to conduct the surveys. Data was collected over two
separate dates at each school in May and June 2012 from a total of 125 of these students. The
remaining five students were either absent or unable to leave their classes to participate on
both data collection dates. The researcher contacted the administrator of both schools and
requested a second distribution of consent forms to students from grades 7-9. However, due
to their time restraints, the school was unable to organize a third distribution to their students.

58

3.4 Measures and Procedures

3.4.1Cyber-victimization
Cyber bullying is a relatively new phenomenon, and as a result, few instruments have been
developed to measure cyber bulling and victimization (Li, 2010). Cyber bullying is most often
measured through the use of surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. These self-report methods
are most widely used to provide basic demographic information about cyber bullying such as
information about the bullies, victims, frequency, incidents, and attitudes of children towards
cyber bullying (Leff et al., 2004). In order to assess students experiences with cybervictimization, the Cyber victim Questionnaire was created based on the revised Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996) (see Appendix D). In discussion with the
Ethics Board, minor concern with the use of the words victim and victimization in the study
materials was noted. Therefore, the Ethics Board requested that the term victim and
victimization be replaced with target and target of cyber bullying in the consent forms,
recruitment, and debrief documents in order to minimize the potential for long-term harm.
However, in terms of the discussion of the findings, the term victim and victimization was
used in correspondence with current empirical literature on cyber bullying.
First, students were provided with the definition and examples of cyber bullying. This is
important because it helps to avoid students subjective interpretation of cyber bullying. (Li,
2007). A definition was given to participants at the beginning of the survey and was created
based on the one provided on the OBVQ:
Here are some questions about being cyber bullied by other students. Before we start with
questions about cyber bullying, we will first define or explain the word cyber bullying. We say a
student is being cyber bullied when another student, or several other students

59

Say mean and harmful things or make fun of him or her and call him or her mean and
hurtful names via email, text messages, instant messages (IM) and/or online.
Completely ignore or exclude him or her by their group of friends or leave him or her out
of things on purpose online.
Tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send him or her mean notes and try to
make other students dislike him or her; and
Do other hurtful things like that online.
When we talk about cyber bullying, these things happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the
student being cyber bullied to defend him or herself. We also call it cyber bullying, when a
student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. Cyber bullying can happen through text
messages/pictures/clips/email/messages etc. sent to you, but also when text
messages/pictures/clips/email/messages etc. are sent to others, about you.
The survey instrument consisted of 26 multiple choice questions including demographic
information, questions about students cyber victim experiences. Examples of items include: I
was bullied with mean names about my race or colour, and Other students told lies about me or
tried to make others dislike me (Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, 2006). Response choices
were the same as on the OBVQ scale. Several times a week (coded as 5), Once a week (4),
2 or 3 times a month (3), Only once or twice in the past 6 months (2), and Never happened
(1). Other Participants were instructed that there were no right or wrong answers and that they
should choose the response that best describes their cyber victim experiences.
3.4.2 Parenting Styles
To measure parenting style, The Parenting Style Questionnaire (PSQ, Lamborn, Mounts,
Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) was administered to the students (see Appendix E). This selfreport measure is based on Maccoby and Martin's (1983) revision of Baumrind's (1971)
conceptual parenting style framework, and has been used in previous studies that examined the
association of parenting style with adolescents online behaviours (Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier,

60

2008). The revised PSQ contains three subscales, parental warmth/involvement (9 items) and
psychological autonomy (9 items), and behavioural control (8 items) asking children to relate the
questions to the parent(s)/ guardian that they live with. For the present study, only warmth and
psychological autonomy were investigated. Previous studies have shown the behavioural control
subscale to have poor reliability when used as a continuous variable. In a study conducted by
Rayner and Moore (2007), alpha levels for the behavioural control subscale was 0.71, 0.60 and
0.37, respectively. As a result, the unacceptably low alpha for the behavioural control scale
meant that results from this study must be interpreted with caution. These authors suggest that
future studies use this scale as a categorical variable, in order to differentiate parents rated high
or low on the dimension by their children (Rayner & Moore, 2007). Steinberg has suggested two
methods of forming categorized of parenting styles from the Parenting Style Questionnaire. The
first method involves using only the warm involvement and behavoural control scales, dividing
each score at their medians to form four groups: authoritarian, authoritative, neglectful, and
indulgent (Steinberg et al., 1994). The second method involves measuring the degree of
authoritativeness. Here, the subscales are divided at their medians, and parents in the high
category on the subscales are categorized as the most authoritative (Rayner & Moore, 2007).
Warm involvement is defined by the degree to which the child perceives their parent as loving,
responsive and involved and psychological autonomy is the extent to which the child perceives
parents as democratic and non-coercive in their discipline (Rayner & Moore, p. 88). Students
rated 18 items about the parent(s) on 4-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. Sample items of the warmth/involvement subscale include I can count on
my parent to help me out if I have some kind of problem, while the psychological autonomy
scale includes items such as, My parents say I shouldnt argue with adults. High scores

61

indicated high rates of Authoritative parenting (high strictness, high warmth), based on
Baumrinds (1971) parenting stylesAuthoritarian (high strictness, low warmth), Authoritative
(high strictness, high warmth), Indulgent (low strictness, high warmth) and Neglectful (low
strictness, low warmth). The coding was subsequently reversed on the psychological autonomy
items, so that for both warmth/involvement and psychological autonomy subscales a high score
would indicate high rates of authoritative parenting. According to Lamborn et al. (1991) the
internal consistency of the measure is high, with alphas of .72 for warm involvement and .82 for
psychological autonomy granting. Steinberg et al., (1994) outline a method of forming categories
of parenting style from scores on the PSQ. In this method, the degree of authoritativeness is
measured based on all the two subscales respective medians (Steinberg, 1992). The parents who
score in the high category on all subscales are labeled the most authoritative (4), two high
scores are categorized into moderately authoritative (3), one high score as somewhat
authoritative (2) and zero as not at all authoritative (1) (Rayner & Moore, 2007). In the current
study, the parental warmth and psychological autonomy subscales were measured and divided at
their medians to form high and low categories.
3.4.3 Coping Strategies
The Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist Revised1 (CCSC-R1; Ayers, Sandler,
West, & Roosa, 1996) was used to assess participants coping strategies (see Appendix F). This
54-item self-report inventory was designed for children and adolescents and takes approximately
10 minutes to administer. The 54 items are grouped into 10 subscales that cluster to make 4
factors: active coping, distraction coping, avoidant coping, and social support-seeking coping.
Students responded to the 54 statements by indicating how often each statement seemed to
describe them in the past month, using a 4-point Likert scale that ranged from Never (1) to Most

62

of the time (4). Children are asked to rate how often they used different strategies, in the past
month, to make themselves feel better when they got upset about something.
The active coping strategies scale included six five-item subscales: (a) cognitive decision
making (e.g., thinking about what you could do before you did something, thinking about what
would happen before you decided what to do), (b) direct problem solving (e.g., do something to
make things better, do something to solve the problem), (c) seeking understanding (e.g., think
about why it happened, think about what you could learn from the problem), (d) positive
thinking (e.g., reminding yourself that overall things are pretty good for you), (e) optimistic
thinking (e.g., Telling yourself that it would be OK), (f) control (e.g., telling yourself that you
can handle the problem). The avoidant coping strategies scale included three four-item
subscales: (a) avoidant action (e.g., avoiding it by going to your room), (b) repression (e.g., tries
to ignore it, try to put it out of your mind), (c) wishful thinking (e.g., wishing bad things
wouldnt happen).
Support seeking coping strategies consisted of two four-item subscales: (a) support for
actions (e.g., talking to someone who could help you solves the problem), and (b) support for
feelings (e.g., talking about your feelings with someone who really understood). Finally,
distraction coping strategies consisted of two four-item subscales: (a) physical release of
emotions (e.g., you went bicycle riding), and (b) distracting actions (e.g., you watched TV). The
items for each dimension were averaged to compute the score for the dimension.
The CCSC-R1 manual provides evidence of moderate to good reliability and validity of
the measure. The test-retest reliability correlations of the four factors (active strategies,
avoidance strategies, distraction strategies, and support seeking strategies) were .80, .64, .79, and
.79). In terms of internal consistency, alpha coefficients for the individual factors of active

63

coping, distraction strategies, avoidance strategies, and support seeking strategies were .88, .72,
.77, and .75. In the current study, groups were formed using a median split. Participants who
scored above the median for each factor were in the high group, and those below the median
were place in the low group.
3.5 Procedure
Students were asked to complete an anonymous online survey through a program called
Survey Monkey, which included the Cyber victim Questionnaire based on the revised Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996) (see Appendix D), the Parenting Style
Questionnaire (PSQ, Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) (see Appendix E), and
the Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist Revised1 (CCSC-R1; Ayers, Sandler, West, &
Roosa, 1996) (see Appendix F). The time of year was consistent across the sample, with students
completing the surveys in either May or June 2012. The researcher administered the surveys to
groups of students during a class designated by the school administrator. The survey took a total
time of approximately 50-60 minutes to administer.
Two weeks prior to data collection, the purpose and method of study was sent home to
the participants parents along with the consent form and child assent form (see Appendix B and
C) to provide the students and their parents with adequate information regarding the study. This
form was also sent to the classroom teachers to provide them with the basis for the explanation
of the current study. The standard definition of cyber bullying, provided on the RBVQ was first
read aloud, and then instructions for each measure were read aloud to the group (see Appendix G
for OBVQ, PSQ, and CCSC-R1 instructions). Students were encouraged to ask questions and
consult with the experimenter as necessary, in order to promote comprehension and accurate
completion of all items. To ensure that surveys were completely anonymous and confidential,

64

participants collected were assigned a numeric code with no identifying information (i.e., names
of children). Students were brought to either the computer lab in their school or to their
classroom where they were asked to log-in to a website housing the survey. All surveys were
completed anonymously and students were spread out to ensure they could not see each others
computer monitors. Moreover, the Consent Forms were stored separately from the survey, so that
it was not possible to associate a name with any given set of responses. Upon completion of the
questionnaires, subjects were instructed to submit their surveys electronically. Participants were
given the opportunity to ask questions before, during, and after completion of questionnaires.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
As previously mentioned, both parent and student consent was required for participation in
the study. The consent form explained both the nature of the student participation and the
procedures for confidentiality. Students and parents had the right to withdraw consent at any
point in the study. Contact information was provided to allow parents to discuss any questions
with the researcher directly. To maintain confidentiality, numbers were assigned to all
participants. These numbers were used instead of names on all surveys. Only the researcher had
access to the list of names recorded on the consent forms, which was kept in a locked filing
cabinet in the researchers home. Although participating schools and parents were offered a
presentation on the overall findings of the study, individual student results were not released to
school personnel or to parents. Students were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study
and of all confidentiality procedures immediately before completing the surveys.
3.7 Data Analysis
Six dependent variables were included in this study: PSQ Autonomy, PSQ Warmth, Active
coping, Avoidance coping, Distraction coping, and Support coping. Descriptive statistics were

65

used in order to assess the normality of the distribution of each dependent variable and to
determine the appropriateness of using parametric statistical procedures (i.e., ANOVA, t-tests) in
the primary analyses. The descriptive statistics included means, standard deviations, values for
skewness and kurtosis, range of scores, and minimum and maximum values for each dependent
variable.
In order to answer the research questions, independent-sample t-tests, analysis of variance
(ANOVA), and a Pearson correlation were used. As the demographic variables might have been
relevant to this study, ANOVA was conducted to examine the differences between demographic
variables (e.g., grade, race, and ESL differences in all the variables used (e.g., PSQ Autonomy,
PSQ Warmth, Active, Distraction, Avoidance, Support). Similarly, the variable of grade was
examined. In order to determine if the six dependent variables differed significantly on age, a
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted.
The first two research questions of the study were as follows: (1) Is there a significant
relationship between parenting style and being a cyber bullying victim? And (2) Is there a
significant relationship between coping style and being a cyber bullying victim? An independentsamples t-test was conducted to compare if the cyber victim group differed significantly on the
two variables of parenting style (PSQ Autonomy and PSQ Warmth) and on the four variables of
coping strategies (Active, Distraction, Avoidance, Support). The third research question
addressed in this study was the following: What is the most common coping strategy reported by
victims of cyber bullying? The means from the descriptive statistics table were used to determine
which coping strategy is most commonly used by cyber victims. Finally, the fourth research
question addressed was the following: (4) Are there sex and age differences with respect to the
measured variables (parenting style, coping style, and being a cyber bullying victim)?

66

Independent-samples t-tests were used to examine if sex differences existed between each of the
six dependent variables. Similarly, a Pearson moment correlation was conducted to determine if
age was significantly related to any of the dependent variables in the study. A Kruskal-Wallis
test was conducted to evaluate differences among the four variables of coping strategies and the
two variables of parenting styles and age. The Mann-Whitney test was conducted to evaluate
differences among the four variables of coping strategies and the two variables of parenting
styles and sex. In order to avoid the risk of Type 1 errors, the Sidak correction was used to lower
the cut-off value of P, for all multiple comparisons.

67

Chapter Four: Results

4.1 Introduction
This chapter will present the results of the data analysis in four sections. First, an
overview of the findings will be provided. Second, the results of the preliminary analyses will be
presented. These will include the demographic characteristics of the children contained within
the present study, as well as descriptive statistics for the six dependent variables. Also included
in the preliminary analyses are the results of a univariate one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) conducted to investigate significant differences between grades on each of the six
dependent variables (parental autonomy, parental warmth, active, distraction, avoidance, and
support). Third, four specific research questions will be addressed. The results of an
independent-samples t-test will be presented to answer the question of significant relationships
between parenting style and being a cyber bullying victim. To define parenting style groups, a
median split on each scale was conducted. Authoritative families were those who scored above
the median on both nurturance and amount of control. The other parenting style groups were:
authoritarian (low nurturance, high control), indulgent (high nurturance, low control), and
uninvolved (low nurturance, low control). Similarly, the results of an independent-samples t-test
will be presented to answer the question of significant relationships between coping strategies
and being a cyber victim. The means of the cyber victim group and the coping strategies will
then be discussed to examine the most common coping strategy used by cyber victims. Results of
independent-samples t-tests will then be discussed to examine if sex differences existed between

68

each of the six dependent variables. The results of a correlational analysis to investigate the
variable of age will also be presented.
All data analyses were conducted using the statistical software program SPSS 19. Most
analyses were based on the standard alpha level of .05 except when multiple comparisons were
made which altered the alpha value (i.e., SIDAK Correction, Kruskal-Wallis Test, and MannWhitney Test). Sidaks correction was carried out for all multiple comparisons.
4.2 Overview of Findings
Contrary to expectations, no significant relationships were found between grade and each
of the six dependent variables. In terms of parenting styles, students who were non-cyber victims
reported significantly higher levels of parental autonomy, but did not differ significantly from
their cyber victim peers on parental warmth. Students who were cyber victims reported
significantly higher levels of avoidance coping strategies than their non-cyber victim peers. The
most common coping strategy for cyber victims is distraction coping. Furthermore, females
reported significantly higher levels of parental warmth and avoidance coping strategies than
males in this study. Finally, a significant positive correlation between age and parental autonomy
was found.
4.3 Preliminary Analyses
4.3.1Demographic description of the sample
The demographic characteristics of students in the survey are summarized in Table 1.
Gender, age, grade, race, and ESL of each child are reported.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Students Surveyed

69

Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Age
12
13
14
15
Grade
7
8
9
Race
White
Asian
Black
Other
ESL
Yes
No

Total

Percentage

42
82

33.9
66.1

50
33
30
12

40
26.4
924
9.6

72
27
26

57.6
21.6
20.8

96
18
2
9

76.8
14.4
1.6
7.2

15
110

12
88

The demographic composition of the sample consisted of 125 students in grades 7

through 9. The sample included approximately twice as many females (66.1%) than males
(33.9%) and more seventh grade students (57.6%) than any other grade level. Of the 125
participants, 40% (n= 50) were 12 years old, 26.4% (n= 33) were 13 years old, 24% (n= 30) were
14 years old, and 9.6% (n= 12) were 15 years old. The survey categorized race as White, Asian,
Black, and Other Ethnicity. Most students (76.8%) identified themselves as White (n= 96),
14.4% identified as being Asian (n= 18), 1.6% identified as being Black (n=2), and 7.2%
reported other racial backgrounds. Further, 12% of participants indicated that English was their
second language whereas 88% reported that English was their primary language.
4.3.2 Description of variables
Two parenting style variables and four coping strategy variables were utilized in this study. The
two parenting style variables consisted of participants total scores on the following scales:

70

Warm Involvement and Psychological Autonomy. The four coping style variables consisted of
participants total scores on the following scales: Active, Distraction, Avoidance, and Support.
For each of the variables, the mean, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis, range, minimum and
maximum values are presented (Table 2). All the variables are based upon the childs self-report.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Variables
n

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Minimum

Maximum

-0.202

Range
of
Scores
2.44

PSQ_Autonomy

125

2.6

0.51

-0.131

1.44

3.89

PSQ_Warmth

125

3.3

0.51

-1.12

-1.14

3.0

1.00

4.00

Active

125

2.53

0.43

-0.814

1.6

2.83

1.08

3.54

Distraction

125

2.51

0.53

-0.414

-0.114

2.33

1.11

3.44

Avoidance

125

2.44

0.44

-0.47

0.862

2.5

1.08

3.58

Support

125

2.2

0.53

0.282

-0.488

2.67

1.11

3.78

Skewness and kurtosis values indicate distributions of data in each variable. Data sets
with skewness greater than 3.0 are considered extremely skewed. Data sets with kurtosis values
around 10.0 may suggest a problem, while values greater than 20.0 indicate a serious problem
(Kline, 1998). According to the values presented in Table 2, each variable was normally
distributed. To assess the normality of distribution of the variables for the total sample, the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was conducted. Non-significant results were found for the parental
autonomy, active coping, distraction coping, avoidance coping, and support coping variables,
indicating a normal distribution of scores. However, a significant result (Z= 1.67, p = .01) was
found for the parental warmth variable, suggesting a non-normal distribution. As the majority of

71

the variables met the assumption of a normal distribution, parametric tests were used in the
subsequent analyses.
4.4 Analysis of Variance
Analyses of variance were conducted to examine the differences between grade and the
six dependent variables used (e.g., PSQ Autonomy, PSQ Warmth, Active, Distraction,
Avoidance, and Support). Differences between grades for each dependent variable are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3. Mean Comparisons for Variables and Grade 7, 8, 9 Students
Variable

Grade 7
n

Grade 8

Grade 9

d.f.

p-value

S.D.

S.D.

S.D.

PSQ_Autonomy 72

2.8

.50

27

2.6

.46

26

2.9

.56

1.92

(2, 122)

.151

PSQ_Warmth

72

3.3

.51

27

3.2

.47

26

3.2

.54

1.03

(2, 122)

.360

Active

72

2.5

.47

27

2.6.

.35

26

2.5

.38

.612

(2, 122)

.544

Distraction

72

2.6

.54

27

2.5

.50

26

2.3

.53

2.01

(2, 122)

.132

Avoidance

72

2.5

.47

27

2.5

.42

26

2.4

.39

.538

(2, 122)

.59

Support

72

2.2

.63

27

2.0

.64

26

2.1

.69

.822

(2, 122)

.44

* p < .05
No grade differences emerged on any of the dependent variables as shown in Table 3.
4.5 Results for the Research Questions
4.5.1Is there a significant relationship between parenting style and being a cyber bullying
victim?
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare each of the two parenting style
variables and the cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups. It was hypothesized that significant

72

group differences would be found; with cyber victims reporting lower levels of parental warm
involvement and parental psychological autonomy. Results of the independent- samples t-tests
revealed a statistically significant difference between cyber victims (M= 2.7, SD= 0.453) and
non-cyber victims (M= 2.86, SD= 0.454), t (122) = 2.12, p = .036 for the parental autonomy
variable. Cohens d for the parental autonomy variable revealed a small effect size d= 0.3856.
Simple effects testing using the Sidaks correction showed that there was no significant difference
between cyber victims and non-cyber victims for parental autonomy (p= 0.069) and parental
warmth (0.087) variables. A summary of the t-test results is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of independent t-tests for the non-cyber victim and cyber victim group
Variable

Non Cyber

Cyber victim

d.f.

p-value

victim
M

SD

SD

PSQ_Autonomy 2.86 0.454 56 2.7

0.453 68

2.12

122

0.036*

PSQ_Warmth

3.35 0.52

0.52

68

1.73

122

0.87

Active

2.54 0.464 56 2.53

0.41

68

0.37

122

0.97

Distraction

2.48 0.55

56 2.543 0.53

68

-0.63

122

0.53

Avoidance

2.31 0.47

56 2.536 0.4

68

-2.9

122

0.004**

Support

2.2

68

0.58

122

0.95

56 3.2

0.681 56 2.2

0.62

* p < .05,** p< .01

4.5.2Is there a significant relationship between coping style and being a cyber bullying victim?

73

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare each of the four coping strategy
variables and the cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups. It was hypothesized that significant
group differences would be found, with cyber victims reporting greater levels that significant
group differences would be found between cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups, with cyber
victims reporting greater levels of distraction and avoidance coping strategies. Results of the
independent-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between cyber victims
(M= 2.54, SD= 0.40) and non-cyber victims (M= 2.31, SD= 0.47), t (122) = -2.9, p = .004 for the
avoidance coping strategy variable, whereby individuals who are cyber victims use more
avoidance coping strategies. Cohens d for the avoidance coping variable revealed a medium
effect size d=-0.527. Simple effects testing using the Sidaks correction showed that there was no
significant difference between cyber victims and non-cyber victims for support coping (p=
0.954), distraction coping (p= 0.530), and the active coping (p= .970), but there were significant
mean differences for avoidance coping (p= .004). A summary of the t-test results is presented in
Table 4.
4.5.3What is the most common coping strategy reported by victims of cyber bullying?
Independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean coping strategy scores of
participants in the cyber victim group (see Table 4). It was hypothesized that cyber victims
would report greater levels of active coping strategies, than avoidance, distraction or support
strategies. Results indicate that cyber victims reported significantly higher levels of avoidance
(M = 2.536, SD= 0.39) t (122) = -2.9, p=.004 coping strategies than active (M = 2.53) or support
(M = 2.20, SD= 0.41) Thus, the hypothesis that cyber victims adopt higher levels of avoidance
and distraction coping strategies than non-cyber victims was not supported in this study. Cohens
d for the avoidance coping variable revealed a medium effect size d= -0.527.

74

4.5.4 Are there sex and age differences with respect to the measured variables (parenting style,
coping style, and being a cyber bullying victim)?
Independent-samples t-tests were conducted between each of the six dependent variables
and the sex and age variables (see Table 5). In terms of sex differences, it was hypothesis that no
difference would be found in relation to perceived parenting styles, but that females would report
greater levels of active coping and incidents of cyber victimization. Results of the independent ttests revealed a statistically significant difference between females (M= 3.31, SD= 0.473) and
males (M= 3.17, SD= 0.561), t (122) = 1.46, p = .0147 for the parental warmth variable. Cohens
d for the parental warmth variable revealed a small effect size d= 0.2792. Furthermore, results
indicate revealed a statistically significant difference between females (M= 2.50, SD= 0.402) and
males (M= 2.31, SD= 0.491), t (122) = 2.27, p = 0.025 for the avoidance coping variable.
Cohens d for the avoidance coping variable revealed a small effect size d= 0.4342.
Table 5. Summary of independent t-tests for the male and female groups
Variable

Male
M

Female
SD

SD

d.f.

p-value

PSQ_Autonomy 2.77

0.465 42 2.75 0.536 82 -.183

122

0.855

PSQ_Warmth

3.17

0.561 42 3.31 0.473 82 1.46

122

.0147*

Active

2.45. 0.518 42 2.58 0.372 82 1.64

122

0.104

Distraction

2.50

0.629 42 2.51 0.473 82 0.007

122

0.995

Avoidance

2.31

0.491 42 2.50 0.402 82 2.27

122

0.025*

75

Support

2.06

0.669 42 2.21 0.629 82 1.150

122

0.252

p < .05,** p< .01

4.6 Age Differences
Pearson product moment correlations were conducted between each of the six dependent
variables and the age variable. Furthermore, in terms of age differences with respect to the
measured variables, it was hypothesized that no significant age differences would be found
between parenting styles, coping strategies, or cyber bullying victims. The data set was examined
in relation to the assumptions of Pearsons correlation. To examine the assumptions of linearity
and homoscedasticity, scatterplots were run between each dependent variable and the grade, sex,
age, race, and ESL variables. These plots suggested a linear relationship between the variables
and a fairly even amount of variability in scores. Thus, the assumptions of Pearsons correlation
were confirmed.
Results of the correlation analyses using the total sample revealed significant and positive
relationships between age and parental autonomy. The Pearson product moment correlations for
the total sample are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Correlations between Age and Dependent Variables for Total Sample
Variable

Age

PSQ_Autonomy

-.013*

PSQ_Warmth

-.067

Active

-.068

Distraction

-.166

Avoidance

-.072

Support

-.087

76

*p < .05
4.7 Summary of Results
Results from the independent-samples t-test revealed significant differences between the
cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups on the parental autonomy variable. However, no
significant differences were found between cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups on the
parental warmth variable. Therefore, the hypothesis that significant group differences would be
found between cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups, with cyber victims reporting lower
levels of parental warm involvement and parental psychological autonomy was partially
supported.
Results from the independent-samples t-test also revealed significant differences between
cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups on the distraction and avoidance coping strategies
variable. Thus, the hypotheses that significant group differences would be found between cyber
victim and non-cyber victim groups, with cyber victims reporting greater levels of distraction
and avoidance coping strategies was supported in this study.
Furthermore, results indicate that the most common coping strategy for cyber victims is
distraction coping strategies. Therefore, the hypothesis that the most common coping strategy for
cyber victims is active coping was not supported in the current study.
Results from the independent-samples t-test revealed a positive, significant relationship
between females and the parental warmth variable. Furthermore, a positive, significant
relationship was found between females and avoidance coping strategies. In terms of sex
differences, the hypothesis that no difference would be found in relation to perceived parenting
styles, but that females would report greater levels of active coping and incidents of cyber
victimization was partially supported.

77

Results from the correlation analyses revealed a significant positive correlation between
age and parental autonomy. Therefore, the hypothesis that no significant age differences would
be found between parenting autonomy and parental warmth was partially confirmed.

Chapter Five: Discussion

5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed discussion of the results of the current
study on the interrelationship among and between parenting styles, coping strategies and victims
of cyber bullying. First, the results of the study will be discussed as they relate to the primary
research questions. Second, the results will be compared with previous research. Third, the
implications of the study, both in theoretical and practical terms, will be discussed. Fourth, an
overview of the limitations of the study and the implications that these limitations have for the
interpretation of the results will be presented. Finally, the conclusions drawn from this study will
be discussed along with the suggestions for future research in the area of parental styles and
coping strategies for cyber bully victims.
5.2 Overview of Findings
This study extends our understanding of cyber bullying victims by demonstrating a link
between students perceived parenting styles and coping strategies. The main results of the
present study indicate that 1) cyber bullying victims reported significantly lower levels of
parental autonomy than their non-cyber victim peers, but did not differ in levels of parental
warmth; 2) cyber victims reported significantly higher levels of avoidance coping strategies than
their non-cyber victim peers; 3) the most common coping strategy for cyber bullying victims is

78

distraction coping; and 4) females reported significantly higher levels of parental autonomy and
avoidance coping strategies than males. No differences were found between age, parenting
styles, and coping strategies.
5.3 Discussion Relative to the Primary Research Questions
5.3.1 Is there a significant relationship between parenting style and being a cyber bullying
victim?
The hypothesis that significant group differences would be found between cyber victim
and non-cyber victim groups, with cyber victims reporting lower levels of parental warm
involvement and parental psychological autonomy was partially supported. The current study
confirms previous research indicating that parenting style is related to being a cyber bullying
victim (Leung & Lee, 2011; Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier, 2008; Dehue, Bolman, Vollink and
Pouwelse, 2009; Hay & Meldrum, 2010). In particular, the findings that cyber bullying victims
report lower levels of parental autonomy in comparison with their non-cyber victim peers are
generally consistent with the findings of Dehue, Bolman, Vollink and Pouwelse (2009), who
examined the influence of parenting style on cyber bullying. In terms of cyber bullying victims,
Dehue et al., (2009) found that children who perceived an authoritative parenting style were
cyber bullied less than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style. However, after the
Sidak correction was carried out on the multiple comparisons, results proved not to be
significant.
However, the finding that cyber victims did not report significantly different levels of
parental warmth in contrast to their non-cyber victim peers differs to other previous research
findings. For example, Dehue et al. (2009) found that children who perceived greater levels of
parental warmth were cyber bullied less than those who perceived a neglectful parenting style.

79

Similarly, in their study of cyber-victimization and exposure to authoritative parenting in

adolescents, Hay and Meldrum (2010) found that exposure to high parental warmth and selfcontrol reduced the probability of externalizing aggression when experiencing bullying
victimization.
A possibility that should be considered in interpreting the parental warmth and cyber
bullying findings of this study is that the nature of the sample may have contributed to the
unexpected results. The majority of the cyber victims in this study were drawn from a public
school setting in middle SES range. Sontag, Clemans, Graber, & Lyndon (2011) found that on
average, adolescent cyber victims demonstrated a higher SES score than those in the non-victim
groups. In addition, Cohn and Koa (1989) found that parental warmth is negatively correlated
with SES. Therefore, because many of the cyber victims in the current study had middle class
SES, it is possible that this affected differences between cyber victims and non-cyber victims
reports of parental warmth.
5.3.2 Is there a significant relationship between coping style and being a victim of cyber
bullying?
The hypothesis that significant group differences would be found between cyber victim
and non-cyber victim groups, with cyber victims reporting greater levels of distraction and
avoidance coping strategies was supported in this study. The cyber victim group reported
significantly higher levels of avoidance coping than the non-cyber victim group. These findings
are consistent with previous research on cyber bullying and coping strategies. For example,
Smith et al., (2008) found that the most popular strategies for cyber bullying victims were
avoidance coping mechanisms such as blocking or deleting unwanted messages. Although
several researchers have replicated this finding, other results on this question have been mixed.

80

Parris et al., (2012) found that cyber bully victims used acceptance strategies such as recognizing
that cyber bullying was a part of life, in order to decrease the adverse effects of victimization,
whereas other researchers have found that avoidant and distraction strategies are used less
frequently by cyber victims when facing an adverse bullying experience (Tokunaga, 2010;
Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Dehue et al., 2008). Tokunaga (2010) speculates that avoidant
strategies may be effective if the cyber bullying event occurs only once, but as the frequency and
intensity of the threats increase, different coping strategies are likely to emerge (Tokunaga,
2010).
5.3.3 What is the most common coping strategy for victims of cyber bullying?
Contrary to expectations, results indicate that cyber victims most commonly use
distraction coping strategies. Previous studies have generally found that telling someone about
being cyber bullied followed by ignoring or enduring it is the most commonly used coping
strategy (Naylor, Cowie, & del Ray, 2001; Tokunaga, 2010; Dehue et al., 2008; Kowalski et al.,
2008). Participants in this study completed the Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist Revised 1,
which did not ask questions about coping with cyber bullying. Aforementioned, previous studies
on cyber bullying victimization and coping measured this relationship by using a questionnaire
adapted from previous researchers asking whom, if anyone was told about the incident and what
were the best ways to stop cyber bullying (Smith et al., 2006). Other studies have looked at
different types of coping to provide a more in-depth look at both the cognitions and behaviours
that cyber victims use to face and overcome stressful bullying situations. Riebel et al., (2009)
developed four different types of coping strategies related to cyber bullying: social, aggressive,
cognitive, and helpless coping. They found that coping strategies did not significantly differ
between physical, verbal, and cyber bullying. These studies did not use scales from traditional

81

coping and bullying research, and measured coping using a few multiple-choice question asking
whom they had told. Therefore, it is possible that due to these differences in measurement tools,
the results of the current study contrast those of previous researchers.
5.3.4 Are there sex and age differences with respect to the measured variables (parenting style,
coping style, and being a victim of cyber bullying)?
In terms of sex differences, the hypothesis that no difference would be found in relation
to perceived parenting styles, but that females would report greater levels of active coping and
incidents of cyber victimization was partially supported. Male and female students differed in
terms of their reported parental warmth levels, where females reported greater levels of
perceived parental warmth than males in the current study. Previous research findings on gender
differences confirm the results of the present study. For example, Dornbusch et al., (1987)
reported small sex differences in the parenting styles reported by the students. They found that
females reported a slightly lower level of authoritarian parenting compared to males (Dornbusch
et al., 1987). Furthermore, significant differences were found between female and male
participants in reported levels of avoidance coping, where females reported significantly higher
levels than males. One possible explanation for this finding is that girls may pretend that peer
problems are not happening and may be reluctant to share their experiences with others, thereby
missing the opportunity to prevent future incidents of victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd &
Skinner, 2003).
Contrary to expectations, male and females did not differ in terms of their rate of cyber
bullying victimization. There are several hypotheses why male and female students did not differ
in the rates of cyber bullying victimization. First, it is possible that female students, who usually
report higher levels of victimization (Li, 2007; Smith et al., 2006; Kowalski and Limber, 2007),

82

may have underreported for fear of being identified as a victim. This label may lower their social
status (Macklem, 2004), and, hence, deter reporting. This lower rate of cyber victimization for
girls may mask the possible male and female differences in prevalence of bullying. Another
explanation is that the definition of cyber bullying was only offered to the students at the
beginning of the study, and therefore there could have been some confusion as to which
behaviours constituted cyber bullying and more general acts of aggression may have been
reported.
The hypothesis that no significant age differences would be found between parental
autonomy and parental warmth was partially confirmed. Previous studies did not examine the
relationship between age, parenting styles and cyber victims. As such, the current study
examined the relationship and found a significant relationship between parental autonomy and
age. This finding is consistent with traditional bullying studies that found differences among
perceived parenting styles increase with adolescents age and as their demands for maturity
increase (Smetana, 1995). The results in the current study reveal that age differences were not
significantly related to parental warmth, which may have been due to the limited age range
studied here. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the 12-16 year old age
groups and coping strategies. Contrary to expectations that older cyber victims would be less
likely to use active coping strategies, no significant differences were found between age, active
coping, distraction coping, avoidance coping, and support coping. These results are inconsistent
with some of the finding in previous research. Price & Dalgeish (2010) examined age differences
in cyber bullying victims between the ages of 5 and 16 and their use of coping strategies. They
found that the use of active and preventative coping strategies such as blocking the bully,
removing them from their friend list, and changing their mobile number were more common

83

among older victims aged 15-16 years (Price & Dalgeish, 2010). The current study included a
narrow age range of participants, including adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15, which as
noted earlier, may have affected the findings. In regards to the relationship between age and
cyber bullying victims, no significant effects or interactions were found. As previously outlined,
this finding is consistent with the majority of studies, which demonstrate the lack of association
between age and cyber-victimization (Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et al., 2009; Juvoven & Gross,
2008; Katzer et al., 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Varjas, Henrich, &
Meyers, 2009; Wolak et al., 2007; Ybarra, 2004). In order to further explore age differences in
cyber bullying victims, researchers must study a wider range of students to investigate age trends
in cyber bullying in more detail and at which age it begins to become a significant problem
(Smith et al., 2008).
5.4 Theoretical Implications of the Study
To date, research on cyber bullying has been carried out largely in the absence of a theory
(Tokunaga, 2010). In the cyber bullying research, although there is a high demand for the
development of a theory, attempts at theory building have not been made. In her critical review
of research on cyber bullying victimization, Tokunaga (2010) suggests several ways to model
cyber bullying and cyber bullying victimization. These suggestions are outlined below.
The initial step that researchers must agree upon is whether to classify cyber bully
victims from cyber bullies and model each individually or to integrate them in order to
investigate the influence of interdependence on their personal behaviours (Tokunaga, 2010, p.
285). The integrative model requires that cyber victims know and have access to their cyber
bullies, although in data collection this is sometimes impossible due to the covert nature of cyber
bullying. Several attempts have been made to establish theories in technology, mass media, and

84

traditional bullying, which may also help to explain the effects of cyber bulling (Tokunaga,
2010).
First, Li (2005) suggests the application of theorized planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen,
1985, 1991) to cyber bullying. The TPB theory posits the individual has volitional control,
which suggests that an argument must be made that cyber bullying is beyond ones volition for a
person to judge the self and response-efficacy of bullying behaviours (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 285).
Li (2005) and does not explain the significance for the theory in relation to cyber bullying, but
suggests its application. Second, Mayer (2008) suggests a socio-cultural discourse approach,
which views learning as a social process that is communicated through mediated reactions
(Vygotsky, 1978). This framework explains cyber bullying as a product of the minimal social
cues, or anonymity, available on the online media through which the bullying occurs. Internetsupported technologies such as chat rooms, e-mails, and instant messengers offer fewer social
cues than traditional inter-personal interactions, which renders divergent learning practices and
behaviours (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 285). Looking at cyber bullying from a socio-cultural lens may
help to better explain the power struggles between, and within groups and will bring greater
awareness to online harassment as a problem in schools (Rigby, 2004). Theories in which
derived predictions can me made have also been suggested. For example, the social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986, 1989) may help to explain why victims or bystanders of cyber bullying
of cyber bullying may become cyber bullies themselves. This occurs through the process of
social learning from direct experiences or observations (Tokunaga, 2010). Another theory that
has gained support in the cyber bullying literature is the general strain theory (Agnew, 1992,
2001). Several researchers have examined bullying as a source of strain (Hinduja & Patchin,
2007; Wallace, Patchin, & May, 2005) and most studies confirm the central hypothesis that

85

strainful events and relationships are positively related to involvement in delinquency (Hay &
Meldrum, 2010, p.130). In addition, the negative effects of strain on delinquent behaviours seem
to be partially mediated by increased levels of anger and frustration (Piquero & Sealock, 2000).
Researchers note that bullying related to having a response to strain makes sense when explained
within the context of the general strain theory. With respect to cyber bullying, the negative
feelings of strain create pressure that makes us feel angry, depressed, and anxious, and so
bullies want to do something so that they will not feel as bad (Agnew, 2000). Therefore, strained
adolescents who want to stop these negative feelings may engage in cyber bullying behaviours to
improve the way they feel about themselves (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). All of the theories
mentioned above provide some contribution in explaining or predicting cyber bullying
experiences (Tokunaga, 2010). Psychosocial variables such as parenting styles and coping
strategies may also be possible factors from which theoretically-derived predictions can be made.
These variables in terms of their theoretical frameworks and how they relate the cyber bullying
victimization are discussed below.
The interrelationship suggested between parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber
bullying victimization was upheld by the results of this research. As Eastin et al. (2006)
suggested, parenting style is related to the type of household-level mediation strategies, such as
restrictive and evaluative methods. Aforementioned, parents can attempt to influence the
behaviours of their children through the use of control, adopting one of three parenting stylespermissive, authoritarian, and authoritative (Baumrind, 1967, 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
These three parenting styles largely influence the degree of open communication between the
parent and child, and are associated with different outcomes (Byrne & Lee, 2011). Parent-child
relationships that are hindered by communication problems are linked to multiple negative

86

outcomes such as mental health issues, and social and academic problems (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dombusch, & Darling, 1992). Therefore, poor communication between the parent and child, as
well as an authoritarian parenting style, is associated with disagreement between the parent and
child on mediation strategies used to prevent negative effects of the Internet (Fujioka & Austin,
2002). Importantly, this finding was true for cyber victims who reported less parental autonomy
levels than their non-cybervictim peers. These results suggest that parenting style variables
should be included in future models of cyber bullying victimization as authoritarian parenting
style may predict parent-child disagreement on support for protective strategies used to prevent
negative effects of the Internet.
Another finding in this study that carries theoretical implications is the difference
between the cyber victim and non-cyber victim groups in reporting avoidance coping strategies.
In this study, a significant difference was found between cyber victims and non-cyber victims in
avoidance coping strategies. Furthermore, the most common coping strategy reported by cyber
victims was distraction coping. The coping strategies reported by students in this study had
expected and unexpected connections to current models of coping (Lazarus & Folman, 1984;
Roth & Cohen, 1986). Aforementioned, the transactional theory of coping (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) provides a psychological framework for examining coping processes as they outline both
coping strategies and factors influencing the choice of one strategy over another. Empirical
studies examining coping theories and cyber victims have discovered that victims of cyber
bullying negatively react to the experience and cope in a variety of different ways (Dehue et al.,
2008; Smith et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Results from the current study supported
previous findings that cyber victims were more likely than non-cyber victims to report using
avoidance strategies when compared with other possible coping mechanisms (Dehue et al., 2008;

87

Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski et al., 2008). Although the current findings are related to
previous research findings, theoretical models of coping must be re-examined to include specific
strategies for coping with cyber bullying. As previously outlined, Parris et al. (2011) provided an
in-depth examination of coping with cyber bullying and found three primary coping themes:
reactive coping, preventative coping, and no way to prevent cyber bullying. Cyber bullying
victims who adopted reactive coping, avoided the cyber bullying situation by deleting or
ignoring the messages, those who adopted preventative coping strategies talked in person and
increased security and awareness, and finally some students reported that there was no way to
stop cyber bullying incidents (Parris et al. 2011). These findings carry theoretical implications
for coping and cyber victimization research because although some strategies fit within the
categories of the transactional model (Lazarus & Folman, 1984), some strategies for coping with
cyber bullying such as avoidance could be described as both problem-focused and emotionfocused (Tenenbaum et al., 2011). Therefore, coping with cyber bullying may not be completely
understood using previous models of coping (Parris et al., 2011). Future research should focus on
developing a new comprehensive model of coping in order to provide a more accurate theoretical
description of coping with cyber bullying.
Variables that may influence the cyber bully-victim relationship should also be explored.
Researchers have investigated various factors in which cyber bullying victimization is associated
with. These disturbances range from minimal levels of distress and frustration to serious
psychosocial and life problems (Tokunaga, 2010). Three variables have received considerable
attention in the previous research on victims of cyber bullying: academic performance (Beran &
Li, 2007), the quality of family relationships, and the development of psychosocial and affective
disorders (Didden et al., 2009; Juvoven & Gross, 2008). In terms of academic problems and

88

cyber bullying experiences, Beran & Li (2007) found that cyber victims report a sudden drop in
grades, greater absences and truancy (Katzer et al., 2009), and perceptions that school is not a
safe place (Varjas et al., 2009). As a result of poorer concentration and greater levels of
frustration with the victimization incidents, their academic performance is negatively impacted.
In addition, approximately one fourth of cyber victims report that their home life has suffered
from being cyber bullied (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). In terms of psychosocial and affective
problems, researchers have found that those who are cyber bullied report greater levels of
depressive symptoms (Ybarra, 2004), social anxiety (Juvoven & Gross, 2008) and lower levels
of self-esteem (Katzen et al., 2009). Furthermore, victimization may be related to affective
disorders as well (Tokunaga, 2010). Several studies have shown that emotional distress, anger,
and sadness toward the cyber bully and the victimizing experience are correlates of victimization
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Ybarra, 2004; Topcu et al., 2008). Future research investigating these
variables may provide additional insight into the role of psychosocial factors in cyber victims
and may inform the development of more complex theoretical models.
As Tokunaga (2010) notes, research in the area of cyber bullying victimization is in its
preliminary stages. Furthermore, research on cyber bullying has been conducted largely in the
absence of theory and there have not been faithful attempts made at theory building in the cyber
bullying literature (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 284). Thus, there is a need for the development of
theoretical models to explain not only the relationship between parenting styles, coping
strategies, and cyber victims, but also to explain the differences that may exist in this relationship
for adolescents who are cyber bullies.
5.5 Practical Implications of the Study

89

In addition to having implications for theories of cyber bullying victimization, the

findings of the current study have implications for practice. To begin with, significant
differences were found between cyber victims and non-cyber victims on parental autonomy
scores, where cyber victims reported lower levels of parental autonomy. Researchers note that
many adults of the current parental generation are not aware of the varied potential of mobile
phones and the Internet, to the same extent as young people (Smith et al., p. 384). Therefore, it
is important to include anti-cyber bullying policies and materials for teachers and parents in
order to provide guidance for children and young people (Smith et al., 2008). From a practical
perspective, parents and care-givers should be encouraged to ensure active and open
communication with their children about online victimization, which has been shown to reduce
the resistance from the child towards household rules employed to protect them (Byrne & Lee,
2011). Previous researchers have found that having an open conversation with children about
online victimization may allow the child to develop critical thinking skills related to media use
(Fujioka & Austin, 2002). Therefore, parents who are democratic and non-coercive in their
discipline may have a significant buffering effect on children experiencing cyber bullying. This
finding could mean that students who have supportive parents can strengthen themselves and be
less victimized (Baldry & Farrington, 2005).
Differences between the groups in terms of coping strategies should also be noted. To
begin with, the finding in the current study and in many previous studies that cyber bullying
victims have higher avoidance and distraction coping strategies is important. As noted earlier,
students who were cyber victims reported significantly higher levels of avoidance coping
strategies than their non-cyber victim peers. Thus, the current finding underscores the essential
need for research and intervention programs that teach effective coping strategies targeted at

90

elementary, middle, and high school students. Specific interventions to address coping strategies
for cyber bullying victims should be implemented based on traditional bullying intervention
methods (Riebel et al., 2009). Due to the fact that researchers have found a large overlap
between traditional bullying and cyber bullying, we can presume that the same methods should
have a positive effect on cyber bullying victims. Therefore, at a starting point, it would be
sufficient to teach students how to cope with cyber bullying, by identifying the most successful
strategies. For example, strengthening self-efficacy, and understanding ones own feelings and
cognitions in a situation of cyber bullying can be taught as techniques to be used in order to help
reduce avoidance and distraction reactions (Riebel, 2009). Another difference revealed in the
current study was that females reported greater levels of parental warmth than males. Therefore,
gender might contribute to cyber bullying, as significant differences were found in the degree to
which the child perceived their parent as loving, responsive and involved. This could ultimately
affect the degree to which the cyber bullying victims cope with the adverse situation at hand,
reduces further incidents of victimization.
As technology is rapidly becoming a means to which peers engage in negative
interactions with each other, it is essential to approach the problem on numerous levels
(Campfield, 2006). The results of the current research also have implications for practitioners
working in the mental health professions. The involvement of parents, teachers, school
counsellors and psychologists are necessary to reduce the occurrence of cyber bullying
victimization. Parents may influence the occurrence of cyber bullying and victimization and the
negative outcomes by providing increased monitoring and supervision of their childs online
activities. For example, paying attention to childrens Internet behaviour can allow the parent to
create an environment in which the child feels comfortable and safe in telling others about

91

involvement in cyber bullying victimization. As previously discussed, cyber victims often feel
reluctant to share their cyber bullying experiences with authority figures because they feel that
their online or cell phone privileges may be restricted or revoked completely. Therefore, creating
a safe atmosphere in which cyber bullying victims can openly talk about cyber bullying
experiences will increase the probability that they will seek help and support from their parents.
In addition, parents can also educate their children about the detrimental effects of cyber bullying
victimization and outline expectations for behaving responsibly online.
Educators and school psychologists can promote increased awareness of potential
negative psychological problems that are common amongst individuals who are victimized by
their peers. Although online bullying incident often take place outside the school, the negative
impact often carries over into the school environment (Campfield, 2006). The social and
emotional effects that follow victimization incidents may disrupt students ability to concentrate
and be successful in educational activities. Therefore, educators need to enforce a zero-tolerance
policy and outline consequences to these types of behaviours. It is also important for parents and
teachers to be made aware of common symptoms of cyber bullying victimization displayed in
children and adolescents. As a result, those trained to recognize more covert forms of
victimization can provide students with support and problem solving strategies in order to
prevent the bullying.
In previous program evaluation projects, many students reported that they would feel
comfortable reporting negative online experiences to their teachers and parents (Wing, Lam, &
Frydenberg, 2009). Therefore, parents and teachers must acknowledge that cyber bullying is a
serious problem and efforts must be made to help reduce incidents of victimization. For example,
teachers can promote positive online practices within school communities, whereas parents can

92

provide adolescents with more parental monitoring and encourage positive Internet habits (Wing,
Lam, & Frydenberg, 2009).
An important component of intervention and prevention is to educate youth about the
possible consequences of cyber bullying and victimization (Campfield, 2006). The finding that
cyber bully victims reported lower levels of parental autonomy and higher levels of avoidance
coping strategies imply that victims will benefit from increased awareness about strategies to
protect victims. Thus, students need to become more aware of what cyber bullying is, how to
help prevent it, and how to address the cyber bullying that has occurred (Kowalski, 2007). In
terms of creating and implementing interventions, previous researchers have suggested
intervention in the form of coping skills training (Best of Coping program: BOC) and teaching
cyber safety (Cyber Savvy Teens Program: CST) both of which were shown to optimise
adolescents ability to deal with cyber victimization (Wing et al., 2009).
5.6 Limitations of the Study
Although the current study makes some contributions to the research literature in the area
of parenting styles and coping strategies in cyber bullying victims, there are some limitations to
this research that should be noted. Limitations will be presented in relation to the variables,
sample, instruments, procedures, and analysis of the study.
5.6.1 Variables
Several extraneous variables were identified as having the potential to impact cyber
bullying victims in students, but were beyond the scope of this study. These variables may have
had an influence on the results. For example, although extraneous variables of age and gender
were examined in this study, variables such as different levels of socio-economic status (SES)
were not. In their study of cyber bullying victimization among Turkish students, Topcu, Erdur-

93

Baker, and Capa-Aydin (2008) found that economic resources play an important role in
predicting incidents of cyber bullying. These researchers found that students who came from
families with higher SES reported greater levels of being a cyber bully or cyber victim (Topcu et
al., 2008). This finding could be explained by the fact that greater economic resources lead to
easier access to technological resources, whereas individuals with lower SES may have difficulty
accessing these tools, which lower their probability of being a cyber victim. Therefore, the
extraneous variables of SES may have influenced the results of the current study.
In terms of identifying indicator variables, additional factors may predict cyber
victimization, other than those presented in the current study. There are several factors that could
be examined to further predict cyber victimization. These factors can include psychosocial
variables such as the students general health, psychopathology, psychosomatic symptoms,
traditional bullying behaviours, substance use, and school environment, which may impact the
results. A study conducted by Souander et al., (2010) revealed that students who had cyber
victim-only status were associated with living in a family that did not have two biological
parents, and who experienced perceived difficulties, had emotional and peer problems,
headaches, recurrent abdominal pain, sleeping difficulties, and were not feeling safe at school.
These results indicate that cyber victims experience a great deal of emotional and peer problems,
which are in line with previous studies examining traditional bullying and cyber bullying
victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Therefore, perhaps by
examining other factors such as emotional and peer problems, more variance would be accounted
for when measuring levels of cyber bullying victims. Through the examination of additional
latent or indicator variables within existing latent variables, the factors related to being a cyber
bullying victim may become more apparent.

94

5.6.2 Sample
The greatest limitations in this study are related to the use of non-probability sampling.
Due to the consent procedures for conducting research in schools, convenience sampling was
used, which may pose threats to the external validity of the present study. In addition, the
sampling procedure may limit the generalizability of results. As subjects were not selected
randomly, this sample cannot be considered to be representative of the entire population of
adolescent cyber bully victims. Subjects in this study were drawn from two public schools in
Calgary. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to adolescents in other school and in other
regions. It is possible that schools that were interested in participating in this study differed from
those who did not. Based on these limitations, the results of this study must be interpreted with
caution.
5.6.3 Instruments
Although the instruments in this study were selected based on their psychometric
properties, their adequate definition of the constructs to be measured, and their appropriateness
for the participants, there are some limitations that are related to these measures. To begin with,
only self-report measures were included in this study. Requesting students to self-report about
their attitudes and behaviours regarding cyber bullying may have led to more accurate and open
responses, but it may have also caused inaccuracy in responses. The social desirability Theory
(Edwards, 1957) suggests that the more negatively perceived a behaviour is, the less likely
someone will admit to it. As a result of recent popular media surrounding cyber bullying, it has
been publicly stigmatized through popular media, which may have caused the students to not
admit to participating in the behaviour.

95

In terms of specific instruments, the manual states that for the Parenting Styles
Questionnaire (Lamborn et al., 1999) a limitation to this measure is the lack of a Canadian
standardization group. It is possible that adolescents in the American norm group differ from the
Canadian adolescents in their perceived parenting styles. Another limitation is that a given
parenting style is not necessarily translated into the same behaviours by all parents (Brown et al.,
1993). Also, the latent variable parenting styles was derived from student self-report ratings of
their perceived parents parenting style, rather than a combination of both parent and child
ratings. Thus, there may have been differences in reported parenting styles that were not
identified by cyber bullying victims through the self-report measures in this study.
Some limitations to this study are also related to the Childrens Coping Strategies
Checklist-Revision 1 (CCSC-R1). This instrument relies on childrens self-reports of coping
strategies and therefore coping efficacy may have been limited by the childrens unwillingness to
report using unsuccessful coping strategies (Compas et al., 2001). In addition, no Canadian
norms are provided for junior high and high school students. However, on both the Parenting
Styles Questionnaire and the Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist-Revision 1, the use of a
control group in this study places less emphasis on the Canadian norm limitation. Rather than
simply comparing Canadian students with American norms, this study compared two groups of
Canadian students scores.
Furthermore, due to the disagreement over the definition of cyber bullying, the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire response alternatives (occurred once or twice in the past months or
several times a week) make it difficult to distinguish between all cyber bullying incidents. As
previously mentioned, a large debate exists about what is considered repeatedly and over how
long a period of time bullying must occur (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Ferdon & Hertz, 2007; Li,

96

2007). Therefore, it is debatable whether or not all incidents of reported bullying in this study
should be called cyber bullying. For example, if the cyber bullying incident occurred only once
or twice in the past months it may be considered incidental rather than repetitive in nature
(Veenstra, 2011). The most commonly used definition for cyber bullying seems to be
problematic because it is difficult to determine the elements of repetition, intention and power
imbalance in cyberspace.
5.6.4 Procedures
The use of group administration at school allowed more data to be collected, however,
the school setting may have influenced some students when completing their online surveys. The
online, anonymous questionnaire may have led to incomplete responses or an increased nonresponse rate (Healey, 2007). Students may have chosen to respond to only parts of questionnaire
because their responses could not be linked to their identity. Although the researcher provided
scripted directions indicating the seriousness of the research and asked participants for their best
efforts, response rates could have been affected.
5.6.5 Analysis
The analyses used in the study were conducted on data collected at a single point in time,
and are not longitudinal in nature. Thus, causal inferences cannot be made and all the factors in
the study may mutually influence each other. For example, it is possible that coping strategies
deteriorate with repeated incidents of cyber bullying victimization, but it is also possible that
victims learn more effective coping strategies, thereby decreasing further incident of being a
cyber bully victim, after an initial increase. Thus, the results of this study should be interpreted
with caution and need to be replicated using a longitudinal research design.
5.7 Future Research

97

The answers to each of the four research questions suggest important avenues for future
research. Limitations within the current study also provide guideline for future research. Each
will be discussed in the following section.
Despite the stability of cyber bullying over time (Olweus, 2012; Gradinger, Strohmeier,
Schiller, Stefanek, & Spiel, 2012; Beran, 2008; Cappadocia, 2010), the lack of longitudinal
studies warrants investigation of potential long-term effects of parenting styles and coping
strategies on being a cyber bullying victim. Although the current study did not examine
longitudinal data, future research should include longitudinal or prospective studies to extend the
current findings that parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber bullying victimization are
significantly related. Such studies would provide information on the direction of the relationship
and answer the question whether parenting styles and coping strategies are a causal factor in
cyber bullying victimization. Tokunaga (2010) outlines the benefits for obtaining longitudinal
data in cyber bullying victimization studies. Based on her critical review and synthesis of
research on cyber bullying victimization she notes that there is a distinct possibility that
psychosocial problems may serve as both an antecedent condition, making individuals more
exposed to cyber bullies, and negative outcome, identifying its reciprocal role in the process (p.
285). The use of longitudinal data allows researchers to test whether psychosocial disorders
related to cyber bullying are causes or effects of these victimization incidents (Tokunaga, 2010).
Several researchers have considered the possible long-term effects of cyber bullying and its
potential to produce outcomes more severe than that of traditional bullying (Kowalski, Limber &
Agatson, 2008; Willard, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Therefore, it is apparent that it is
necessary for researchers to carryout longitudinal analyses in order to make claims of causality
over time.

98

The current study examined the effects of parenting styles and coping strategies on cyber
bullying victimization. To date, there is a lack of studies focusing on the risk and protective
factors of cyber bullying (Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009). Future research may
attempt to examine the relationship between additional risk and protective factors and physical
and psychological types of bullying and victimization. For example, it would be interesting to
examine protective factors such as having a healthy family context, and having intact
friendships, which can help children who are at a high risk of engaging in bullying/ victimization
behaviour (Baldry & Farrington, 1998).
Although victimization has been studied extensively in a variety of fields, victimization
through on-line violence is a relatively new area of research that needs to be further explored
(Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002; Finn, 2004; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Hinduja & Patchin,
2008). Future research on cyber bullying victimization should focus on the type of technology in
which the cyber bullying takes place and the potential moderating effect it may have on cyber
bullying relationships (Tokunaga, 2010). For example, the anonymity of cyber bullies and the
use of technology can be used to examine whether the frequency of cyber bullying incidents,
negative outcomes, and coping strategies are moderated by anonymity (Tokunaga, 2010). In
addition, research should focus on the possible relationship between cyber bullying involvement,
reporting, coping, and parents commitment with their children (Heirman & Walrave, 2008).
There is a great possibility that the perpetration and victimization of cyber bullying could be
related to detrimental online and offline risk taking and coping behaviours. Future research
should aim at gaining further insight into risk factors in order to prevent the accumulation of
harmful effects of cyber bullying (Heirman & Walrave, 2008).

99

Although self-reporting of cyber bullying behaviours is a common method of data

collection (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Hay & Meldrum, 2010; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen &
Gross, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Beran & Li, 2007; Didden et
al., 2009), self-reports can be self- incriminating when used to identify cyber bullies and victims.
Even with assurances of anonymity, children that are involved in cyber bullying tend to under
report (Belsey, 2005). Additionally, complex questions cannot be addressed by surveys,
questionnaires, or interviews because children may not understand the severe nature of cyber
bullying, thereby biasing the findings (Craig & Pepler, 1997). Therefore, utilization of parent
reports (e.g., Dehue et al., 2008) may provide more accurate indications of cyber bullying
victimization. In addition, child reports or interviews may be used for identifying participants in
cyber bullying (Campfield, 2006; Mesch, 2009). The use of qualitative methods such as
participant observation and in-depth interviews would allow researchers to uncover new
perspectives, views and experiences of all individuals involved with cyber bulling (Vandebosch
& Van Cleemput, 2009). For these reasons, future researchers may want to supplement selfreports with other methods of measuring cyber bullying.
In terms of identifying latent variables, future research should examine additional factors
that may predict cyber bullying victimization, other than those presented in the current study.
Since age did not explain much of the variance within or between variables, other factors besides
age may substantially contribute to differences in cyber bullying victimization levels. There are
several factors that could be examined further to predict cyber bullying victimization. Such
factors may include frequency of Internet use, and several offline behavioural problems such as
truancy, cheating, suspension, involvement in traditional bullying, and drug use, which has been
linked to higher levels of being involved in cyber bullying (Berson et al. 2002; Ybarra &

100

Mitchell 2004). For example, previous studies have shown that children who are cyber bully
victims are likely to use the Internet more frequently than individuals who have not been
victimized (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Perhaps by examining these additional factors, more
variance would be accounted for when measuring levels of cyber bullying. Through the
examination of additional latent variables, the factors related to cyber bullying victimization may
become more apparent.
Since it has been demonstrated that parenting styles and coping strategies are related to
being a cyber bully victim, one may assume that this could be a reciprocal relationship. For
example, researchers could examine whether family variables such as parent-child interactions
function as a reciprocal mechanism in which children learn positive or negative peer interaction
skills, leading them to be involved in being a bully or victim (Parke & Ladd, 1992). Although not
examined in the current study, future studies may benefit from examining the aforementioned
link to reduce the number of cyber bully victims and to develop appropriate strategies to ensure
childrens safety on the Internet.
5.8 Summary and Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between cyber victims and psychosocial variables,
including parenting styles, and coping strategies in students between the ages of 12 and 15 years
old. The current study incorporated several statistical and research considerations identified in
the literature, including using a definition that includes the most important identifiers of cyber
bullying: an intentional, repeated, aggressive, hostile, or harmful act that is carried out by the
bully through any type of electronic device, examining family and individual factors related to
cyber victimization, and studying gender differences.

101

The present study adds valuable information to existing research on the relationship
between 12- 15-year old Canadian students parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber
bullying experiences. Parenting styles were found to contribute to cyber victims, with cyber
victims reporting significantly higher levels of parental autonomy. In addition, students who
were cyber victims reported significantly higher levels of avoidance coping strategies than their
non-cyber victim peers. The most common coping strategy for cyber victims is distraction
coping. Furthermore, females reported significantly higher levels of parental warmth and
avoidance coping strategies than males in this study. Finally, a significant positive correlation
between age and parental autonomy was found. While further research is needed to determine
longitudinal effects of bullying on victimization and additional latent variables, the current study
shows that an important relationship between parenting styles, coping strategies, and cyber
victims exists.

102

References
Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students perspectives on cyber bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S59-S60. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003
Agnew, R. 1992. Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency.
Criminology, 30(1), 47-87. doi: 10.1177/0022427801038004001
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of
strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 38(4), 319361. doi: 10.1177/0022427801038004001
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both
families. Social Psychology of Education, 7(1), 35-54. doi:
10.1023/B:SPOE.0000010668.43236.60
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognitions to behaviors (pp. 1139). New York:
Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179211. Retrieved from
http://www.cas.hse.ru/data/816/479/1225/Oct%2019%20Cited%20%231%20Manage%20
THE%20THEORY%20OF%20PLANNED%20BEHAVIOR.pdf.
Aoyama, I., Barnard-Brak, L., & Talbert, T. (2011). Cyber bullying Among High School
Students: Cluster Analysis of Sex and Age Differences and the Level of Parental
Monitoring. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology, and Learning, 1(1), 25-

103

35. doi: 10.4018/ijcbpl.2011010103, ISSN: 2155-7136

Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., &
Memmedov. C. (2008). Cyber bullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11, 253261. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0016
Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). A dispositional and situational
assessment of childrens coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of
Personality, 64(4), 923-958. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00949.x
Baldry, A. C. & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and

victimization.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 237254. doi: 10.1111/j.20448333.1998.tb00364.x

Baldry, A. C. & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal

characteristics

and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 1731.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)10:1<17::AID-CASP526>3.0.CO;2-M
Baldry, A. C. & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in
adolescence bullying. Social Psychology, 8(3), 263-284. doi: 10.1007/s11218-005-5866-5
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175
1184. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126611

104

Baumrind, D. (1968) Manual for the preschool behavior Q-Sort. Institute of Human
Development, University of California, Berkeley.
Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today
and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 4388.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4(1), 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R.
Lerner, & A.C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746- 758). New
York: Garland.
Bauwens, J., Pauwels C., Lobet-Maris, C., Poullet, Y. and Walrave, M. (2009), Cyberteens,
cyberrisks, cybertools: teenagers and ICT, risks and opportunities, Academia Press.
Retrieved from http://www.fundp.ac.be/pdf/publications/68259.pdf.
Belsey, B. (2005). Cyber bullying: An emerging threat to the always on generation. Retrieved
from http://www.cyberbullying.ca
Besley (2009). Cyber bullying. Retrieved from http://www.cyberbullying.org
Beran, T. & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265-277.
doi: %3A10.2190%2F8YQM-B04H-PG4D-BLLH

105

Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyber bullying and school bullying. Journal
of Student Wellbeing, 1, 1533. Retrieved from
http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/JSW/article/view/172/139
Beran, T. (2008). Consequences of being bullied at school. In D. Pepler & W. Craig (Eds.),
Understanding and Addressing Bullying: An International Perspective (pp. 44-66).
Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
Berson, L., Berson, M., Ferron, J. (2005). Emergency risks of violence in the digital age: Lessons
for educators from an online study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of
School Violence, 8 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2002/cyberviolence/
Billings, A. G. & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in
attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(2), 139157. doi:
10.1007/BF00844267
Boekerts, M. (1996). Coping with stress in childhood and adolescence. In M. Zeidner & N. S.
Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. New York: Wiley; (pp.
130).
Borg, M. G. (1998). The emotional reaction of school bullies and their victims. Educational
Psychology, 18(4), 433-444. doi: 10.1080/0144341980180405

Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(1), 7387. doi: 10.1111/j.20448279.1992.tb010

106

Bowers, L., Smith, P.K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family relationships of bullies, victims,
and bully/victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(2),
215-232. doi: 10.1177/0265407594112004
Brewer, E. (2011). Fighting fire with fire: The use of a multimedia webquest in increasing
middle-school students understandings of cyber bullying (Masters dissertation).
Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3473579)
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer
group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64(2), 467-482. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.1993.tb02922.x
Byrne, S. & Lee, T. (2011) Toward Predicting Youth Resistance to Internet Risk Prevention
Strategies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(1), 90-113. doi:
10.1080/08838151.2011.546255
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analysis for the social
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L.Erlbaum Associates.
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger, and sadness in
bullies and victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 186-197. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00347.x
Campfield, D. C. (2006). Cyber bullying and victimization: Psychosocial Characteristics of
Bullies, Victims, and Bully-victims (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/.../umi-umt-1107.pdf
Cappadocia, M.C. (2008). Cyber bullying And Cybervictimization: Prevelenge, Stability, Risk

107

And Protective Factors, And Psychosocial Problems, Unpublished Masters Thesis, York
University Toronto, Ontario.
Causey, D. L. & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for
elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 4759. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp2101_8
Chen, J. J., Chen, T., & Zheng, X. X. (2012). Parenting styles and practices among chinese
immigrant mothers with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 182(1), 1-21.
doi: 10.1080/03004430.2010.533371
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen, A. and Wadsworth, M. E.
(2001) Coping with Stress During Childhood and Adolescence: Problems, Progress, and
Potential in Theory and Research, Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87127. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87
Craig, W., & Pepler, D.J. (1998). Observations of bullying and victimization on the schoolyard.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology,13(2), 41-60. doi: 10.1177/082957359801300205
Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological
adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x
Darling, N. (1999). Parenting style and its correlates. Retrieved from
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1999/darlin99.pdf.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
David-Ferdon, C. & Hertz, M.F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An

108

emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S1-S5. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.020
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vllink, T. (2008). Cyber bullying: Youngsters' experiences and
parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217-223. doi:
10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vllink, T, & Pouwelse, M. (2009, submitted). Relation between
parenting style and cyber bullying.
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, 14(5), 297-302. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0108.
Didden, R., Scholte, R. H. J., Korzilius, H., De Moor, J. M. H., Vermeulen, A., OReilly, M., et
al. (2009). Cyber bullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in
special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 146151. doi:
10.1080/17518420902971356
DiGiulio, R. C. (2001). Educate, medicate, or litigate? What teachers, parents, and administrators
must do about student behavior. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Corwin Press, Inc.
Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyber bullying versus face-to-face bullying: A
theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182188. doi:
10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The

109

relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58(5),

1244-1257. doi: 10.2307%2F1130618
Eastin, M. S., Greenberg, B. S., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Parenting the Internet. Journal of
Communication, 56(3), 486504. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x
Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research.
New York: Dryden.
Eisenberg, M.E., Aalsma, M.N., 2005. Bullying and peer victimization: position paper of the
society for adolescent medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health 36, 8891. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.004
Erdur-Baker, (2010). Cyber bullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender,
frequent and risky usage of Internet mediated communication tools. New Media and
Society, 12(1), 109126. doi: 10.1177/1461444809341260
Ericson, N. (2001). Addressing the problem of juvenile bullying. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on bullying and victimization: What have
we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383.
Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail?sid=d8ae9fc7-a179-49d588a2313715c02607%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2
ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=11213476

110

Finn, J. 2004. A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence 19(4), 468-483. doi: 10.1177/0886260503262083
Fujioka, Y., & Austin, E. W. (2002). The relationship of family communication patterns to
parental mediation styles. Communication Research, 29(6), 642665. doi:
10.1177/009365002237830
Georgiou, S.N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 78(1), 109-125. doi: 10.1348/000709907X204363
Gladstone, G.L., Parker, G.B. & Malhi, G.S. (2006). Do bullied children become anxious and
depressed adults? The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194(3), 201-208. doi:
10.1097/01.nmd.0000202491.99719.c3
Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Laurence, L. T., & Ritter, P. L. (2006). Parenting styles,
adolescents attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous high schools.
Child Development, 68(3), 507-529. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01955.x
Gradinger, P., Stroheimer, D., Schiller, M. E., Stefanek, E., & Spiel, C. (2012). Cybervictimization and popularity in early adolescence: Stability and predictive associations.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 228-243. doi:
10.1080/17405629.2011.643171

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-455. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00629

111

Hay, C., & Meldrum, R., (2010): Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: Testing
hypotheses from general strain theory. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(5), 446-459. doi:
10.1007/s10964-009-9502-0
Haynie, D., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A., Saylor, K., & Yu, K. (2001). Bullies, victims and
bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-49.
doi: 10.1177/0272431601021001002
Healy, S. (2007) Foreword, in Learning Partnerships for Social Inclusion: Exploring Life- long
Learning Contexts, Issues & Approaches, Cork, Oak Tree Press, pp.xvii xix.
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2008). Assessing concerns and issues about the mediation of
technology in cyber bullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 2(2), Retrieved from http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2008111401&article=1.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence
and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112. Internet Safety Technical Task
Force. (2008). Enhancing child safety & online technologies. Cambridge, MA: Berkman
Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related
to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129156. doi:
10.1080/01639620701457816
Hinduja, S., & Patchin. J. W. (2011). High Tech Cruelty. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 48-52.
Retrieved from

112

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/HighTech_Cruelty.aspx
Hines, A.R. & Paulson, S.E. (2006). Parents and teachers perceptions of adolescent storm and
stress: Relations with parenting and teaching styles. Adolescence 41(164), 597-614.
Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/detail?sid=7e411a54-10484eed8f186437efeb0a8f%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qtb
Gl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=s3h&AN=23600971
Hines, H. N. (2011). Traditional bullying and cyber-bullying: Are the impacts on self-concept
the same? (Masters dissertation). Retrieved from
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/wcu/f/Hines2011.pdf.
Holt, M. K., Finkelhor, D., & Kantor, G. K. (2007). Multiple victimization experiences of urban
elementary school students: Associations with psychosocial functioning and academic
performance. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(5), 503515. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.006
Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: perceptions of adolescent victims in
midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13(1), 5-16. doi:
10.1177/0143034392131001
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyber bullying among junior
high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1581-1590.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.proxy.iwu.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005;
http://ovidsp.ovid.com.proxy.iwu.edu/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&P

113

AGE=fulltext&D=psyc&AN=2010-18140-043
Jordan, T. (1999) Cyberpower. The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and the Internet.
London: Routledge.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505. doi: 10.1111/j.17461561.2008.00335.x
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyber bullying: Who are the victims? A
comparison of victimization in Internet chatrooms and victimization in school. Journal of
Media Psychology, 21(1), 2536. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.25
Keith, S., & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 224-228. Retrieved from
http://hermes.webster.edu/browntim/Cyberbullying%20Project/cyberbullying_creating_a_culture_of_respect_in_a_cyber_world.pdf.
Kennell, B. L. (1994). The relationship between parenting style and epistemological beliefs
(Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/handle/10057/662
Kiriakidis, S. P., & Kavoura, A. (2010). Cyber bullying: A review of the literature on harassment
through the internet and other electronic means. Family & Community Health: The Journal
of Health Promotion & Maintenance, 33(2), 82-93. Retrieved from www.csa.com
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford
Press.

114

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. & Skinner, K. (2002). Childrens Coping strategies: Moderators of the

Effects of Peer Victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 267278. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.267
Kordi, A. (2010). Parenting attitude and style and its effect on childrens school achievements.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(2), 217-222. Retrieved from
www.ccsenet.org/ijps
Kowalski, R. M. & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatson, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S., Zane, K., & Hassenfedt, T. (2008). Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the
Digital Age. Paper presented at the annual meeting at the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Charlotte, NC.
Kowalski R. M. (2009). Cyber Bullying. Unpublished manuscript.
Kowalski, R. M. & Witte, J. (2006) Youth internet survey. Unpublished manuscript, Clemson
University.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C. & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the Revised Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 781801. doi: 10.1348/000709905X53499
Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkvqvist, K., Bertz, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school
children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23(1), 45-52. doi:

115

10.1111/j.1467-9450.1982.tb00412.x
Lam, C. W. C., & Frydenberg, E. (2009). Coping in the cyberworld: Program implementation
and evaluation A pilot project. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 19(2),
196-215. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.19.2.196
Lambourn, S.D., Mounts, N.S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent,
and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.1991.tb01588.x
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004). Outcome measures to assess the
effectiveness of bullying-prevention programs in the schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.
Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on
prevention and intervention (pp. 269 293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, January 7). Social networking websites and teens: An
overview. Pew Internet & American Life Project Teens and Parents Survey, Oct.-Nov.
2006. Retrieved January, 2008 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/211/report_display.asp.
Leung, L., & Lee, P.S.N (2011). The influences of information literacy, internet addiction and
parenting styles on internet risks. New Media and Society, 14(1), 117-136. Retreived from
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/14/1/117
Li, Q. (2006). Cyber bullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology

116

International, 27(2), 157-170. doi: 10.1177/0143034306064547

Li, Q. (2005). Cyber bullying in schools: Nature and extent of Canadian adolescents experience.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyber bullying in schools: A research of gender differences. Social Psychology
International, 27(2), 157170. doi: 10.1177/0143034306064547
Li, Q. (2007a). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyber bullying and cyber
victimization. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435454. Retrieved
from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~qinli/publication/bullyingInNewPlayground_AJET2007.pdf.
Li, Q. (2007b). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyber bullying in schools. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23(4), 17771791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005
Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents experience related to cyber bullying.
Educational Research, 50(3), 223234. doi: 10.1080/00131880802309333
Li, Q. (2010). Cyber bullying in high schools: A study of students behaviors and beliefs about
this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(4), 372-392.
doi: 10.1080/10926771003788979
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers' use of
social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New Media & Society,
10(3), 393-411. doi: 10.1177/1461444808089415
Ma, X. (2002). Bullying in middle school: Individual and school characteristics of victims and

117

offenders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(1), 6389. doi:

10.1076/sesi.13.1.63.3438
Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent- child
interaction. In B. K. Barber (Ed.). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in childrens groups. New York:
Kluwer Academic.
Marchant, G.J., Paulson, S.E., & Rothlisberg, B.A. (2001). Relations of middle school students
perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in the
Schools, 38(6), 505519. doi: 10.1002/pits.1039
Mayer, D. (2008). Cyber bullying: An ethnographic case study of one Australian upper primary
school class. Youth Studies Australia, 27(4), 5057. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10453/10386
Maynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the Multidimensional Peer-Victimization
Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26(2), 169-178. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)10982337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A
Maxwell S, Delaney H. 1993. Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(1),181190. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.181
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyber bullying definition and measurement: Some critical
considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230232. doi: 10.1027/0044-

118

3409.217.4.230
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youths
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222-1228.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
Mura, G., Topcu, C., Erdur-Baker, O., & Diamantini, D. (2011). An international study of cyber
bullying perception and diffusions among adolescents. Social and Behavioral Sciences,
15(2), 3805-3809. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.377
National Childrens Home (2002). NCH Survey 2002. Retrieved from http://www.
actionforchildren.org.uk/
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in
response to being bullied. Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 114-120. doi:
10.1111/1475-3588.00333
Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but
names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of
peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 37-48. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_4
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:
Hemisphere (Wiley).
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.

119

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo. Bergen, Norway:
University of Bergen, Research Center for Health Promotion.
Olweus, D. (2001). Olweus core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher
handbook. Bergen, Norway: Research Centre for Health Promotion (Hemil Center).
Olweus, D. (2012). Invited expert discussion paper Cyber bullying: An overrated phenomenon?
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 1-19. Retrieved from:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/Cyberbullying,%20Olweus.pdf.
OMoore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin schools. Irish Journal of Psychology,
10(3), 426441. Retrieved from
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/calgary?sid=OVID%3APsycIN
FO&id=pmid%3A&id=doi%3A&issn=03033910&isbn=&volume=10&issue=3&spage=426&pages=426441&date=1989&title=The%20Irish%20Journal%20of%20Psychology&atitle=Bullying%
20in%20Dublin%20schools.&aulast=O%27Moore&pid=%3Cauthor%3EO%27Moore%2
C%20A.%20Mona%3BHillery%2C%20B%3C%2Fauthor%3E&%3CAN%3E199010966-001%3C%2FAN%3E=
Parker, G., Roussos, J., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., & Mitchell, Wilheml, K., & Austin M. P. (1997).
The development of a refined measure of dysfunctional parenting and assessment of its
relevance in patients with affective disorders. Psychological Medicine, 27(5),11931203.

120

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S003329179700545X
Parke, R. D., & Ladd, G. W. (1992). Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2011). High School Students Perceptions of
Coping With Cyber bullying. Youth & Society, 20, 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0044118X11398881
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148-169. doi: 10.1177/1541204006286288
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant
message generation and the Internets impact on friendships and family relationships.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 5, 2012 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf
Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An examination of
an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 449-484. doi:
10.1080/07418820000094631
Price, M., & Dalgleish, J. (2010). Cyber bullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as
described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia, 29(2), 51-59. Retrieved
from: http://www.boystown.com.au/downloads/rep/BT-Article-Cyberbullying.pdf.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among
adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564
Rayner, M., & Moore, S. (2007). Stress and ameliorating factors among families with seriously

121

ill or disabled child. E-journal of Applied Psychology, 3(1), 86-93. Retrieved from
http://ojs.lib.swin.edu.au/index.php/ejap/article/view/83/110
Rigby, K. (1993). School childrens perceptions of their families and parents as a function of
peer relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(5), 501-513. doi:
10.1080/00221325.1993.9914748
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools and what to do about it. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Rigby, K. (1998). The relationship between reported health and involvement in bully/victim
problems among male and female secondary schoolchildren. Journal of Health Psychology,
3(4), 465476. doi: 10.1177/135910539800300402
Riebel, J., Jger, R. S., & Fischer, U. C. (2009). Cyber bullying in Germany an exploration of
prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies. Psychology Science
Quarterly, 51, 298-314.
Roland, E. (2002). Bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research,
44(1), 55-67. doi:10.1080/00131880110107351
Rosen, Larry D., Nancy A. Cheever, and L. Mark Carrier. 2008. The association of parenting
style and child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 29(6), 459471. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.005
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American
Psychologist, 41(7), 813-819. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813

122

Rutter, M. (1987). Temperament, personality, and personality disorder. British Journal of

Psychiatry, 150, 443-458.
Saputo E., Pisano L., (2008). Cyberbullismo indagine esplorativa sul fenomeno delle prepotenze
online. Retrieved from www.cyberbullismo.com
Schrock, A., & Boyd, D. (2008). Online threats to youth: solicitation, harassment, and
problematic content. Literature Review Prepared for the Internet Safety Technical Task
Force. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/isttf
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2009). Social- behavioral correlates of cyber
bullying in a German student sample. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 224226. doi:
10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.224
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive
perfectionistic self representations: the mediational link between psychological control and
adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 487498.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.008
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239-268. doi: 10.1002/ab.10047
Sontag, L., Clemans, K.H., Graber, J.A., & Lyndon, S.T. (2011). Traditional and Cyber
Aggressors and Victims: A Comparison of Psychosocial Characteristics. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 40(4), 392-404. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9575-9
Sourander, A., Klomek , A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M. Ristkari,

123

T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Cyber bullying
Among Adolescents: A Population-Based Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7),
720-728. Retrieved from: http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/
lglov, V., & ern, A. (2011). Cyber bullying in Adolescent Victims: Perception and Coping.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 5(2). Retrieved from:
http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2011121901&article=1
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyber bullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x
Snider, M., & Borel, K. (2004). Stalked by a cyber bully. Macleans, 117(21/22), 76-77.
Smetana, J.G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence.
Child Development, 66, 299-316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00872.x
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyber
bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in
cyber bullying. Research Brief No. RBX03-06. London: DfES.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber
bullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Smith, P. K & Myron-Wilson, R. (1998). Parenting and school bullying. Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 3(3), 405411. doi: 10.1177/1359104598033006
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R., & Liefooghe, A.P.D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A
comparison of terms used, and age and sex differences, in a 14-country international

124

comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 11191133. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M. & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63(5), 12661281. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.1992.tb01694.x
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., & Darling, N. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and
competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful
families. Child Development, 65(3), 754770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00781.x
Striegel-Moore, R. H., Dohm, F.-A., Pike, K. M., Wilfley, D. E., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002).
Abuse, bullying, and discrimination as risk factors for binge eating disorder. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 159(11), 19021907. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.11.1902
Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in junior school. In D. P. T. D. A. Lane (Ed.),
Bullying in schools (pp. 45-58). Stroke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2005). When teens turn cyber bullies. Education Digest, 71(4), 3541.
Tenenbaum, L. S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Parris, L. (2011). Coping strategies and perceived
effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School Psychology
International, 32(3), 263-287. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402309.
Thorp, D. (2004). Cyberbullies on the prowl in schoolyard. Retrieved from
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,9980900^15322^^nbv^15306,00.html.

125

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyber bullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Topu, ., Erdur-Baker, ., & apa-Aydin, Y. (2008). Examination of cyber bullying
experiences among Turkish students from different school types. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11(6), 643-648. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0161
Turnage, A. (2007). Email flaming behaviors and organizational conflict. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 13(1), 43-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00385.x.
Ubertini, M. (2010). Cyber bullying may reduce adolescents well-being: Can life satisfaction
and social support protect them? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations &
Theses database. (UMI No. 3431797)
Valcke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots, I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the impact
on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55(2), 454464. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyber bullying: A qualitative research
into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
Vandebosch, H., Van Cleemput, K., Mortelmans, D., & Walrave, M. (2006). Cyber-cullying
among youngsters in Flanders. Brussel: viWTA. Retrieved from
http://www.saferinternet.be/docs/06_sy0506_nl.pdf.

126

Van den Eijnden R, Vermulst A, Van Rooy T, Meerkerk G (2006). Bullying on internet and
psychosocial well-being of youth. Rotterdam: IVO, Rotterdam; 2006.
Varjas, K., Henrich, C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students perceptions of
bullying, cyber bullying and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8(2), 159-176. doi:
10.1080/15388220802074165
Veenstra., R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel., A. J., De Winter, A. F., 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.
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, L. H., Patchin, J. W., & May, J. D. (2005). Reactions of victimized youth: Strain as an
explanation of school delinquency. Western Criminology Review, 6(1), 104-116. Retrieved
from: https://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/manuscripts/wallace.pdf.
Whitney, I., & Smith, PK. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle
and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25. doi:
10.1080/0013188930350101
Willard, N. (2006). Flame Retardant: Cyberbullies torment their victims 24/7: Heres how to stop
the abuse. School Library Journal, 52(4), 54-56.
Williams, K., & Guerra, N. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14S21. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018

127

Williams, K.D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute bullying? An
exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S51S58. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.019
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet harassment
among young regular Internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(2), 247257.
doi:10.1089/109493104323024500
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004a). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A
comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004b). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations
with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of
Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, J. K. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of
places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2),
e350e357. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0693
Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Examining characteristics and
associated distress related to Internet harassment: Findings from the Second Youth Internet
Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118, e1169e1177. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0815

128

Appendix A
Purpose and Method of Study
My name is Krista Bergman, and I am a Masters student within the School and Applied Child
Psychology Program at the University of Calgary, conducting a study on the interrelationship of
students experiences of being targets of cyber bullying and psychosocial constructs such as
parental styles and coping strategies. For this research study, your child will be asked to
complete a survey through Survey Monkey, an online software vehicle that permits the design
and execution of surveys over the Internet. This study is being conducted under the supervision
of Professor Dr. Jac Andrews at the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary Conjoint
Faculty Research Ethics Board (CFREB) has given approval for me to approach schools in order
to ask people (principals, teachers, and students) within the schools to participate in my research
study.
Description/Purpose: This study will focus on cyber bullying targets and the parental styles and
coping strategies that may protect children and adolescents from the impact of cyber bullying.
Cyber bullying has been referred to as electronic bullying, online bullying or cyber bullying.
This method of bullying utilizes technological means such as e-mail, instant messaging,
websites, and chat rooms to intimidate, put down and hurt targets. Research has focused
extensively on cyber bullying rates and the effects on students, but little is known about the
relationship between the protective nature of parental styles and coping strategies for targets of
cyber bullying. Such knowledge and understanding may lead to better prevention and
intervention techniques for child and adolescent cyber bullying targets. Therefore, the proposed
research is intended to close this gap by examining the parental style and coping strategies
among groups of children that are targets of cyber bullying. Building upon limitations of
previous research, a self-report approach to identify cyber bullying behaviour with a standard
definition and validated cut-off scores will be used. Research relative to the investigation of
protective factors such as parental styles and coping strategies for cyber bullying targets has yet
to be conducted with a Canadian school sample.
Method: Children who bring back signed consent forms from their parent/guardian will be
informed of their rights at the beginning of data collection. Participants will be asked to complete
an online survey via Survey Monkey within their school. These include: (1) the Olweus Revised
Bully-Target Questionnaire (39 items, approximately 20 minutes to complete), (2) the Parental
Style Index (18 items, approximately 10 minutes to complete), and (3) the Childrens Coping
Strategies Checklist-Revised1 (54 items, approximately 20 minutes to complete). It is estimated
that in a group format, total completion of all three rating scales will take approximately 60
minutes, including explanation of the study and instructions. The purpose of the study and limits
to confidentiality will be explained, as well as the suggestion to discuss experiences with parents
and/or teachers, particularly if students are being bullied. Contact information for the Bullying
Help Phone line will also be given to all participating students. The standard definition of cyber
bullying provided on the RBVQ will first be read aloud, and then instructions for each measure
will be read aloud to them. Students will be encouraged to ask questions and consult with the
experimenter as necessary, in order to promote comprehension and accurate completion of all

129

items. Following, students will be debriefed by the primary researcher and given an Explanation
of Study with various resources for youth attached. It will be clearly stated on the Explanation of
Study form that if students experience any distress following participation, that they are to
contact the primary researcher or supervisor in order to be guided to the appropriate resources.
Risks and Benefits: Although there are risks to every situation, the risks of that you will
experience by participating in this research project are minimal. There is a small possibility that
some students may feel uncomfortable answering some of the survey questions. However, all
student participants are free to choose not to answer any question that makes them feel
uncomfortable. There is also a risk that some students may realize that they are at risk of
encountering cyber bullying, and therefore, may experience a negative emotional reaction. As a
precaution, contact information for the toll-free Kids Help Phone and other related services are
provided on the survey for any students in need.
The following circumstances constitute the need to break confidentiality: if the participant
informs the interviewer about any sexual or physical abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; and if
the participant indicates that she intends to harm herself or someone else. In the event that either
or both of these situations occur during data collection, the researcher is required by law to report
this information to law enforcement and other appropriate agencies.
The results of this survey will be presented in summative form for the participants who wish to
know the results of the study. You may benefit from the research study by increasing your
understanding of cyber bullying targets in Canada and the possible protective factors such as
parental styles and coping strategies that can reduce further incidents of being targeted. These
results may help parents and school professionals to increase their understanding of Albertas
students experiences with cyber bullying. Finally, this research will be beneficial to parents,
educators, and practitioners who can use the information obtained in this study to aid in the
development and implementation of school-wide prevention and intervention programs aimed to
decrease cyber bullying among children and adolescents.
Time Commitment: This survey is relatively short in nature and should take approximately 60
minutes to complete.
Confidentiality: Data may also be used for scholarly publication. However, no identifying
information of the participants or their schools will be included in the final report or subsequent
publications. Analyses will be reported according to group trends rather than reporting individual
responses.
Physical data collected (e.g., consent form, electronic data) will be stored on the hard drive of the
primary researchers laptop computer under password protection. A back up disc/drive will also
be used to store electronic data and stored in the primary researchers locked filing cabinet. In
order to ensure privacy and confidentiality for each participant, names will only be recorded on
the consent forms. All student consent forms will be assigned a research number that will match
all rating scales in the survey. My supervisor and I are the only individuals who will have access
to the data. The data will be stored within the researchers computer in a secure environment at
the University of Calgary for five years, at which time, it will be permanently erased. Feedback
regarding the results of the study will be available by the primary researcher for you to review
should you wish to see the outcome. Parents will not be able to see any of their childs specific

130

survey responses on any reports of the study and the names of participating schools will not be
identified in any report from this study.
Right to Withdraw: The participation in this study is entirely voluntary. The participants may
choose not to participate without any adverse consequences. Participants have the right to stop
the survey at any time. However, should you choose to participate and later wish to withdraw
from the study, there is no way to identify your anonymous document after it has been turned
into the investigator. If you are participating in an anonymous online survey, once you submit
your response, the data cannot be linked to you and cannot be withdrawn.
Questions/Concerns
If you have any further questions or want to seek a clearer understanding of the study prior to
signing the parental permission, please contact:
Principal Researcher: Ms. Krista Bergman
Educational Studies in Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 612 7218
Email: knbergma@ucalgary.ca
Supervisor: Dr. J. W. Andrews
Educational Studies in School Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 220-67503
Email: jandrews@ucalgary.ca

131

Appendix B
Parental Consent for Participation

______________________________________________________________________________
________
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone, & Email
Miss Krista Bergman | Faculty of Education | Educational Studies in Psychology | 403 612 7218 |
knbergman@ucalgary.ca
Supervisor:
Dr. J. W. Andrews | Faculty of Education | Educational Studies in School Psychology | 403 22067503 | jandrews@ucalgary.ca
Title of Project:
The Relationships Among and Between Psychosocial Variables and Cyber bullying in SchoolAge Children
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed
consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included
here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any
accompanying information.
The University of Calgary conjoint faculties research ethics board and the Calgary Board of
Education has approved this research study.
Purpose and Use of Research
My name is Krista Bergman, and I am a Masters student in the School and Applied Child
Psychology Program at the University of Calgary. I am requesting your permission to allow your
child to participate in a research study that is required for fulfillment of a Masters degree. Your

132

child is being invited to voluntarily participate in a research study investigating the relationships
between psychosocial variables and cyber bullying. The purpose of this study is to examine the
relationship between the protective nature of parental styles and coping strategies for schoolaged targets of cyber-bullying. This task will be accomplished by administering an anonymous
online survey to junior high and high school students between the ages of 11 and 17 within urban
Calgary schools. Your childs help is needed to understand cyber bullying and to prevent further
incidents of being a target of cyber bullying. Such knowledge and understanding may lead to
better prevention and intervention techniques for child and adolescent cyber bullying targets.
Therefore, I would like to include your child in this study.
The data obtained from this study will be used in the generation of reports, research publications,
and presentations. All data will remain confidential and the information gained from this study
will be removed of all identifiable characteristics and remain anonymous. That is, information
collected will be assigned a numeric code with no identifying information (i.e., names of
children).
What Will My Child Be Asked To Do?
For this research study, your child will be will be asked to complete an anonymous online survey
through a program called Survey Monkey and respond to questions focusing on her/his
experiences with cyber bullying and psychosocial constructs such as parental styles and coping
strategies. The online survey is being administered by Survey monkey, an American software
company. As such, your responses are subject to U.S. laws, including the USA Patriot Act. The
risks associated with participation are minimal, however, and similar to those associated with
many e-mail programs, such as Hotmail and social utilities spaces, such as Facebook and
MySpace. The survey consists of: the Olweus Bully/Target Questionnaire, the Parental Style
Index, and the Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist-Revised1. It is estimated that the total
completion of all three rating scales will take approximately 60 minutes, including explanation of
the study and instructions. The standard definition of cyber bullying will first be read aloud, and
then instructions for each measure will be read aloud to the group. Students will be encouraged
to ask questions and consult with the experimenter as necessary, in order to promote
comprehension and accurate completion of all items. Students will then be debriefed by the
primary researcher and given an explanation of the study with various resources for youth
attached. It will be clearly stated on the Explanation of Study form that if students experience
any distress following participation, that they are to contact the primary researcher or supervisor
in order to be guided to the appropriate resources. Your childs participation in the study is
voluntary and child(ren) may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
What Type Of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
Should your child agree to participate, your child will be asked to provide their gender and age.
Their responses will be completely confidential and we will not collect identifying information
such as his/her name, email address or IP address. All data collected will be confidentially coded
with no personal distinguishing identity markers. In order to ensure confidentiality, consent
forms will be kept separate from the questionnaires. In addition, students will be instructed not to
provide any identifying information on Survey Monkey.

133

Are There Risks Or Benefits If My Child Participates?

Although there are risks to every situation, the risks of that your child will experience by
participating in this research project are minimal. There is a small possibility that some students
may feel uncomfortable answering some of the survey questions. However, all student
participants are free to choose not to answer any question that makes them feel uncomfortable.
There is also a risk that some students may realize that they are at risk of encountering cyber
bullying, and therefore, may experience a negative emotional reaction. As a precaution, contact
information for the toll free Kids Help Phone and other related services are provided on the
survey for any students in need.
The following circumstances constitute the need to break confidentiality: if the participant
informs the interviewer about any sexual or physical abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; and if
the participant indicates that she intends to harm herself or someone else. In the event that either
or both of these situations occur during data collection, the researcher is required by law to report
this information to law enforcement and other appropriate agencies.
The results of this survey will be presented in summative form for the participants who wish to
know the results of the study. Your child may benefit from the research study by increasing
his/her understanding of cyber bullying targets in Canada and the possible protective factors such
as parental styles and coping strategies that can reduce further incidents of being targeted. These
results may help parents and school professionals to increase their understanding of Albertas
students experiences with cyber bullying. Finally, this research will be beneficial to parents,
educators, and practitioners who can use the information obtained in this study to aid in the
development and implementation of school-wide prevention and intervention programs aimed to
decrease cyber bullying among children
What Happens To The Information My Child Provides?
The information collected will be used by the primary researcher to complete her Masters thesis.
Data may also be used for scholarly publication. However, no identifying information of the
participants or their schools will be included in the final report or subsequent publications.
Analyses will be reported according to group trends rather than reporting individual responses.
Physical data collected (e.g., consent form, electronic data) will be stored on the hard drive of the
primary researchers laptop computer under password protection. A back up disc/drive will also
be used to store electronic data and stored in the primary researchers locked filing cabinet. In
order to ensure privacy and confidentiality for each participant, names will only be recorded on
the consent forms. All student consent forms will be assigned a research number that will match
all rating scales in the survey. My supervisor and I are the only individuals who will have access
to the data. The data will be stored within the researchers computer in a secure environment at
the University of Calgary for five years, at which time, it will be permanently erased.
Feedback regarding the results of the study will be available by the primary researcher for you
and your child to review should you wish to see the outcome. Parents will not be able to see any
of their childs specific survey responses on any reports of the study and the names of
participating schools will not be identified in any report from this study.
Signatures (written consent)

134

Your signature on this form indicated that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the information
provided to you about your childs participation in this research project, and 2) agree for your
child to participate as a research subject.
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved
institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this
research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information
throughout your participation.
Parents Name (please print): __________________________________________
Parents signature: ________________________ Date: ____________________
Researchers Name (please print): _____________________
Researchers Signature: ______________________________ Date: _________________
Questions/Concerns
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Principal Researcher: Ms. Krista Bergman
Educational Studies in Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 612 7218
Email: knbergma@ucalgary.ca
Supervisor: Dr. J. W. Andrews
Educational Studies in School Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 220-67503
Email: jandrews@ucalgary.ca
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep your records and reference. The
investigator has kept a copy of the consent form

135

Appendix C
Child Assent for Participation

______________________________________________________________________________
________
Name of Researcher, Faculty, Department, Telephone, & Email
Miss Krista Bergman | Faculty of Education | Educational Studies in Psychology | 403 612 7218 |
knbergman@ucalgary.ca
Supervisor:
Dr. J. W. Andrews | Faculty of Education | Educational Studies in School Psychology | 403 22067503 | jandrews@ucalgary.ca
Title of Project:
The Relationships Among and Between Psychosocial Variables and Cyber bullying in SchoolAge Children
This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed
consent. If you want more details about something mentioned here, or information not included
here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any
accompanying information.
The University of Calgary conjoint faculties research ethics board has approved this research
study.
Purpose of Study
My name is Krista Bergman, and I am a Masters student in the School and Applied Child
Psychology Program at the University of Calgary. I am requesting your permission to participate
in a research study that is required for fulfillment of a Masters degree. You are being invited to
voluntarily participate in a research study investigating the relationships between psychosocial
variables and cyber bullying. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between
the protective nature of parental styles and coping strategies for school-aged targets of cyberbullying. This task will be accomplished by administering an anonymous online survey to junior

136

high and high school students between the ages of 11 and 17 within urban Calgary schools. Your
help is needed to understand cyber bullying and to prevent further incidents of being a target of
cyber bullying. Such knowledge and understanding may lead to better prevention and
intervention techniques for child and adolescent cyber bullying targets. Therefore, I would like to
include you in this study. The data obtained from this study will be used in the generation of
reports, research publications, and presentations. All data will remain confidential and the
information gained from this study will be removed of all identifiable characteristics and remain
anonymous. That is, information collected will be assigned a numeric code with no identifying
information (i.e., names of children).
What Will I be asked To Do?
For this research study, you will be will be asked to complete an anonymous online survey
through a program called Survey Monkey and respond to questions focusing on your experiences
with cyber bullying and psychosocial constructs such as parental styles and coping strategies.
The online survey is being administered by Survey monkey, an American software company.
As such, your responses are subject to U.S. laws, including the USA Patriot Act. The risks
associated with participation are minimal, however, and similar to those associated with many email programs, such as Hotmail and social utilities spaces, such as Facebook and MySpace.
The survey consists of: the Olweus Bully/Target Questionnaire, the Parental Style Index, and the
Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist-Revised1. It is estimated that the total completion of all
three rating scales will take approximately 60 minutes, including explanation of the study and
instructions. The standard definition of cyber bullying will first be read aloud, and then
instructions for each measure will be read aloud to the group. Students will be encouraged to ask
questions and consult with the experimenter as necessary, in order to promote comprehension
and accurate completion of all items. Students will then be debriefed by the primary researcher
and given an explanation of the study with various resources for youth attached. It will be clearly
stated on the Explanation of Study form that if students experience any distress following
participation, that they are to contact the primary researcher or supervisor in order to be guided
to the appropriate resources. Your participation in the study is voluntary and you may withdraw
from the study at any time without penalty.
What Type Of Personal Information Will Be Collected?
Should you agree to participate, you child will be asked to provide their gender and age. Their
responses will be completely confidential and we will not collect identifying information such as
your name, email address or IP address. All data collected will be confidentially coded with no
personal distinguishing identity markers. In order to ensure confidentiality, consent forms will be
kept separate from the questionnaires. In addition, students will be instructed not to provide any
identifying information on Survey Monkey.

Are There Risks Or Benefits If I Participate?

137

Although there are risks to every situation, the risks of that you will experience by participating
in this research project are minimal. There is a small possibility that some students may feel
uncomfortable answering some of the survey questions. However, all student participants are
free to choose not to answer any question that makes them feel uncomfortable. There is also a
risk that some students may realize that they are at risk of encountering cyber bullying, and
therefore, may experience a negative emotional reaction. As a precaution, contact information
for the toll-free Kids Help Phone and other related services are provided on the survey for any
students in need.
The following circumstances constitute the need to break confidentiality: if the participant
informs the interviewer about any sexual or physical abuse, neglect, or domestic violence; and if
the participant indicates that she intends to harm herself or someone else. In the event that either
or both of these situations occur during data collection, the researcher is required by law to report
this information to law enforcement and other appropriate agencies.
The results of this survey will be presented in summative form for the participants who wish to
know the results of the study. You may benefit from the research study by increasing your
understanding of cyber bullying targets in Canada and the possible protective factors such as
parental styles and coping strategies that can reduce further incidents of being targeted. These
results may help parents and school professionals to increase their understanding of Albertas
students experiences with cyber bullying. Finally, this research will be beneficial to parents,
educators, and practitioners who can use the information obtained in this study to aid in the
development and implementation of school-wide prevention and intervention programs aimed to
decrease cyber bullying among children and adolescents.
What Happens To The Information I Provide?
The information collected will be used by the primary researcher to complete her Masters thesis.
Data may also be used for scholarly publication. However, no identifying information of the
participants or their schools will be included in the final report or subsequent publications.
Analyses will be reported according to group trends rather than reporting individual responses.
Physical data collected (e.g., consent form, electronic data) will be stored on the hard drive of the
primary researchers laptop computer under password protection. A back up disc/drive will also
be used to store electronic data and stored in the primary researchers locked filing cabinet. In
order to ensure privacy and confidentiality for each participant, names will only be recorded on
the consent forms. All student consent forms will be assigned a research number that will match
all rating scales in the survey. My supervisor and I are the only individuals who will have access
to the data. The data will be stored within the researchers computer in a secure environment at
the University of Calgary for five years, at which time, it will be permanently erased.
Feedback regarding the results of the study will be available by the primary researcher for you to
review should you wish to see the outcome. Parents will not be able to see any of their childs
specific survey responses on any reports of the study and the names of participating schools will
not be identified in any report from this study.
Signatures (written consent)
Your signature on this form indicated that you 1) understand to your satisfaction the information
provided to you about your participation in this research project, and 2) agree to participate as a

138

research subject.
In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the investigators, sponsors, or involved
institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from this
research project at any time. You should feel free to ask for clarification or new information
throughout your participation.
Students Name (please print): __________________________________________
Students signature: ________________________ Date: ____________________
Researchers Name (please print): ______________________________________
Researchers Signature: ______________________________ Date: _________________
Questions/Concerns
If you have any further questions or want clarification regarding this research and/or your
participation, please contact:
Principal Researcher: Ms. Krista Bergman
Educational Studies in Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 612 7218
Email: knbergma@ucalgary.ca
Supervisor: Dr. J. W. Andrews
Educational Studies in School Psychology
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary
Ph: 403 220-67503
Email: jandrews@ucalgary.ca
A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep your records and reference. The
investigator has kept a copy of the consent form.

139

Appendix D
Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996)
Grade:________ Gender: ______________________Date:______________
You will find items in this questionnaire about your experiences with being cyber bullied. There
are several answers next to each question. Answer the question by clicking the box next to the
answer that best describes your experience with being cyber bullied. Please mark only one box to
answer each question.
No one will know how you have answered these questions, but it is important that you answer
carefully and share how you really feel. Sometime it is hard to decide what to answer; in this
case mark the answer that comes closest to your view. If you have questions, raise your hand.
Questionnaire about Being Cyber bullied by Other Students
Here are some questions about being cyber bullied by other students. Before we start with
questions about cyber bullying, we will first define or explain the word cyber bullying. We say a
student is being cyber bullied when another student, or several other students
Say mean and harmful things or make fun of him or her and call him or her mean and
hurtful names via email, text messages, instant messages (IM) and/or online.
Completely ignore or exclude him or her group of friends or leave him or her out of things
on purpose online.
Tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send him or her mean notes and try to
make other students dislike him or her; and
Do other hurtful things like that online.
When we talk about cyber bullying, these things happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the
student being cyber bullied to defend him or herself. We also call it cyber bullying, when a
student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. Cyber bullying can happen through text
messages/pictures/clips/email/messages etc. sent to you, but also when text
messages/pictures/clips/email/messages etc. are sent to others, about you.
1. Have you ever been bullied?
__ Yes
__ No
2. How often have you been cyber bullied in the past couple of months?
__ I have not been cyber bullied in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week

140

3. I was called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in a harmful way via email,
facebook, chat room, cell phone etc.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
4. Other students left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends,
or completely ignored me through e-mail, IM, text message, a chat room, or/and a
website.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
5. Other students told lies or spread false rumours about me and tried to make others dislike
me through e-mail, IM, text message, a chat room, or/and a website.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
6. I was threatened or forced to do things I didnt want to do via e-mail, IM, text message, a
chat room, or/and a website.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
7. I was cyberbullied with mean names or comments about my race or colour.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
8. I was cyber bullied with mean names, comments, or gestures with a sexual meaning.
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week

141

9. I was cyberbullied with mean or hurtful messages, calls, or pictures, or in other ways on
my cell phone or over the Internet. (Please remember that it is not cyber bullying when it
is done in a friendly or playful way).
__ It hasnt happened to me in the past couple of months
__ It has only happened once or twice
__ 2 or 3 times a month
__ About once a week
__ Several times a week
10. If you were cyber bullied on your cell phone, through e-mail, IM, text message, a chat
room, or/and a website, how was it done?
__ Only on the cell phone
__ Only through e-mail
__ Only through IM
__ Only through text message
__ Only through a chat room
__ Only through a website
__ In more than one way
Please describe in what way __________________________________________
11. In which class (es) is the student or students who cyber bully you?
__ I havent been bullied at school in the past couple of months
__ In my class
__ In a different class but same grade (year)
__ In a higher grade
__ In a lower grade
__ In different grades
12. On average, how many students have you been cyber bullied by at one time?
__ I havent been bullied at school in the past couple of months
__ Mainly by 1 student
__ By a group of 2-3 students
__ By a group of 4-9 students
__ By a group of more than 9 students
__ By several different students or groups of students
13. How long has the cyber bullying lasted?
__ I havent been bullied at school in the past couple of months
__ It lasted one or two weeks
__ It lasted about a month
__ It lasted about 6 months
__ It lasted about a year
__ It has gone on for several years

142

14. Where have you been cyber bullied?

__ I havent been bullied at school in the past couple of months
__ I have been cyber bullied in one or more of the following places in the past couple of
months (continue below)
Please put an X if you have been cyber bullied:
__ Only on the cell phone
__ Only through e-mail
__ Only through IM
__ Only through text message
__ Only through a chat room
__ Only through a website
13a. on the cell phone
13b. through e-mail
13c. through IM
13d. through text message
13e. through a chat room
13f. through a website
13d. somewhere else __ In this case, please write where:
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
15. Have you told anyone that you have been cyber bullied in the past couple of months?
__ I havent been bullied at school in the past couple of months
__ I have been cyber bullied, but I have not told anyone
__ I have been cyber bullied, and I have told somebody about it (continue)
Please put an X if you have told:
16a. your class teacher __
16b. another adult at school (a different teacher, the principal/headmistress, a Life
Orientation teacher/Guidance Counsellor, etc.) __
16c. your parent(s)/ guardian(s) __
16d. your brother(s) or sister(s) __
16e. your friend(s) __
16f. a health professional (e.g., nurse, psychologist, social worker, doctor) __
16g. somebody else __ In this case, please write where:
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
16. How often do the teachers or other adults at school try put a stop to it when a student is
being cyber bullied?
__ Almost never
__ Once in a while
__ Sometimes
__ Often
__ Almost Always

143

17. How often do other students try to put a stop to it when a student is being cyber bullied?
__ Almost never
__ Once in a while
__ Sometimes
__ Often
__ Almost Always
18. Has any adult at home contacted the school to try and stop your being cyber bullied in the
past couple of months?
__ I havent been cyber bullied in the past couple of months
__ No, they havent contacted the school
__ Yes, they have contacted the school once
__ Yes, they have contacted the school several times
19. When you see a student your age being cyber bullied, what do you feel or think?
__ That is probably what he/ she deserves
__ I dont feel much
__ I feel a bit sorry for him/ her
__ I feel sorry for him/her and want to her him/ her

144

Appendix E
The Parenting Style Questionnaire (PSQ, Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991)
Please answer the next set of questions about the parents (or guardians) you live with. If you
spend time in more than one home, answer the questions about the parents (or guardians) who
have the most say over your daily life.
If you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, put a 4 on the line next to it. If you AGREE
SOMEWHAT with the statement, put a 3 on the line next to it. If you DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT with the statement, put a 2 on the line next to it. If you STRONGLY
DISAGREE with the statement, put a 1 on the line next to it.
____ 1. I can count on my parents to help me out, if I have some kind of problem.
____ 2. My parents say that you shouldn't argue with adults.
____ 3. My parents keep pushing me to do my best in whatever I do.
____ 4. My parents say that you should give in on arguments rather than make people angry.
____ 5. My parents keep pushing me to think independently.
____ 6. When I get a poor grade in school, my parents make my life miserable.
____ 7. My parents help me with my schoolwork if there is something I don't understand.
____ 8. My parents tell me that their ideas are correct and that I should not question them.
____ 9. When my parents want me to do something, they explain why.
____ 10. Whenever I argue with my parents, they say things like, "You'll know better when you
grow up."
____ 11. When I get a poor grade in school, my parents encourage me to try harder
. ____ 12. My parents let me make my own plans for things I want to do.
____ 13. My parents know who my friends are.
____ 14. My parents act cold and unfriendly if I do something they don't like.
____ 15. My parents spend time just talking with me.
____ 16. When I get a poor grade in school, my parents make me feel guilty.
____ 17. My family does things for fun together.
____ 18. My parents won't let me do things with them when I do something they don't like.

145

Appendix F
The Childrens Coping Strategies Checklist Revised1 (CCSC-R1; Ayers, Sandler, West, &
Roosa, 1996)
Sometimes children and adolescents have problems or feel upset about things. When this
happens, they may do different things to solve the problem or to make themselves feel better. For
each item below, choose the answer that BEST describes how often you usually did this to solve
your problems or make yourself feel better during the past month. There are no right or wrong
answers, just indicate how often YOU USUALLY did each thing in order to solve your problems
or make yourself feel better during the past month.
1. When you had problems in the past month, you thought about what you could do before
you did something.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
2. You tried to notice or think about only the good things in your life.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
3. You tried to ignore it.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
4. You told people how you felt about the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
5. You tried to stay away from the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
6. You did something to make things better.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
7. You talked to someone who could help you figure out what to do.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time

146

8. You told yourself that things would get better.

Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
9. You listen to music.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time.
1
2
3
4
10. You remind yourself that you are better off than a lot of other kids.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
11. When you had problems in the past month, you daydreamed that everything was okay.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
12. You went bicycle riding.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
13. You talked about your feelings to someone who really understood.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
14. You told other people what you wanted them to do.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
15. You tried to put it out of your mind.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
16. You thought about what would happen before you decided what to do.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4

147

17. You told yourself that it would be OK.

Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
18. You told other people what made you feel the way you did.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
19. When you had problems in the past month, you told yourself that you could handle this
problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
20. You went for a walk.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
21. You tried to stay away from things that made you feel upset.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
22. You told others how you would like to solve the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
23. When you had problems in the last month, you tried to make things better by changing
what you did.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
24. You told yourself you would have taken care of things like this before.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
25. You played sports.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
26. You thought about why it happened.

148

Never Sometimes Often Most of the time

1
2
3
4
27. You didnt think about it.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
28. You let other people know how you left.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
29. You told yourself you could handle what ever happens.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
30. You told other people what you would like to happen.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
31. You told yourself that in the long run, things would work out for the best.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
32. You read a book or magazine.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
33. When you had problems during the past month, you imagined how you'd like things to
be.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
34. You reminded yourself that you knew what to do.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
35. You thought about which things are best to do to handle the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time

149

36. You just forgot about it.

Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
37. You told yourself that it would work itself out.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
38. When you had problems during the past month, you talked to someone who could help
you solve the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
39. You went skateboard riding or roller skating.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
40. You avoided the people who made you feel bad.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
41. You reminded yourself that overall things are pretty good for you.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
42. You did something like video games or a hobby.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
43. You did something to solve the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
44. When you had problems in the last month, you tried to understand it better by thinking
more about it.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4

150

45. You reminded yourself about all the things you have going for you.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
46. You wished that bad things wouldnt happen.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
47. You thought about what you needed to know so you could solve the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
48. When you had problems in the last month, you avoided it by going to your room.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
49. You did something in order to get the most you could out of the situation.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
50. You thought about what you could learn from the problem.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
51. You wished that things were better.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
52. You watched TV.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
53. You did some exercise.
Never Sometimes Often Most of the time
1
2
3
4
54. You tried to figure out why things like this happen.

151

Never Sometimes Often Most of the time

1
2
3
4

Appendix G
Instructions for Participants
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. I am here today to conduct research for
my thesis and I really appreciate your participation!. I would like to know about your
experiences regarding cyber bullying, the use of the Internet, and other electronic tools. I also
want to know about your parent relationships and coping strategies. Your help is needed to
understand cyber bullying and to prevent further incidents of being targets of cyber bullying.

152

This survey should only take about one hour of your time. It is very important for you to
understand that you do not have to participate if you do not feel comfortable doing so. If this is
the case, please do not sign the assent form given to you. It is okay if you do not feel comfortable
participating and there is no penalty if this is what you decide to do. Also, if you initially agree to
participate, but then feel uncomfortable throughout the study, you do not have to continue
participating you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty. Again, thank-you very
much for your time and all of the information you provide me with will increase my
understanding of the ways students communicate online.
You will be assigned to a computer to fill out the surveys online through a program called
Survey Monkey. Just to clarify, all information you provide me with will remain anonymous and
confidential which means I will not know how each of you responded specifically. Does
anyone have any questions?
In order to progress through this survey, please use the following navigation buttons:

Click the Next button to continue to the next page.

Click the Previous button to return to the previous page.
Click the Exit the Survey Early button if you need to exit the survey.
Click the Submit button to submit your survey.

Read each question carefully and try not to leave any questions blank. If you have any
questions, please ask me. Please begin and turn in the form when you are done.