An Answer For Cyberbullying in Singapore PDF

Group No: 5116
Nanyang Business School
SOCIAL MARKETING:
AN ANSWER FOR
CYBERBULLYING IN SINGAPORE
Ang Xue Ling
U0910563F
Koh Peck Hoon Cecilia
U0910727F
Soh Yiming Anders
U0910967B
Supervisor:
Assoc Prof (Adj) Gerard Dionicio Gonzales
Applied Research Project submitted to the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological
University in partial fulfilment for the degree of Bachelor of Business
Academic Year 2011/2012
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
We would like to express our most sincere gratitude and thanks to our Applied Research project
supervisor, Adj. Associate Professor Gerard Gonzales, for his patient guidance and continued
support throughout the duration of our project. Without his experience and guidance, the
completion of this project would not have been possible.
We would also like to extend our appreciation to Mr. Gilbert Goh, the founder of the Dont
Cyberbully forum for taking time out to provide us with his valuable insights and expertise in
the area of cyberbullying in Singapore. In addition, we would like to give special thanks to Ms.
Sylvia Ang from the Singapore Childrens Society for providing us with a better understanding
of the Societys work on bullying and cyber-wellness.
Lastly, we would also like to thank all the participants of our survey and all those who have also
helped us in the preparation of this study in one way or another.
ABSTRACT
Cyberbullying, referring to the wilful, deliberate and repeated harm through the use of electronic
devices such as computer, cell phones and other electronic devices, has increased in prevalence
with the rising usage of the Internet and social media. Unfortunately, this social issue is not
extensively studied in Singapore and hence this research study aims to obtain an in-depth and
holistic picture of the cyberbullying scene in Singapore.
A two pronged approach was adopted in this study. Interviews were first conducted with local
field experts to obtain a greater understanding of the cyberbullying situation in Singapore. After
which, a pre-designed questionnaire was distributed to respondents to obtain their attitudes and
motivations of cyberbullying, as well as their perspectives of certain social marketing strategies.
A total of 294 responses were collated.
The findings of this research has revealed that Singapore youths tend to engage in indirect
cyberbullying behaviours instead of direct cyberbullying behaviours and they prefer taking a
preventive approach when dealing with cyberbullying. Insights in social marketing strategies
include the effectiveness of personal recount as a campaign message strategy, the importance of
counsellors in addressing this social issue and social media being an effective campaign
promotional tool to Singapore youths.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGEMENT................................................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Significance of Study ...................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Scope and Limitation ..................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Organization of paper .................................................................................................... 4
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Cyberbullying ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Causes of Cyberbullying ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Gender Differences in Perpetrators and Victims of Cyberbullying .............................................. 9
2.1.3 Coping with Cyberbullying........................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Social Marketing .......................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Target Segment and Competition ............................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Product ........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Pricing ......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Place ............................................................................................................................................ 16
2.2.5 Promotion.................................................................................................................................... 17
3.
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Research Approach ...................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Research Design............................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Data Collection Method ............................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Exploratory research ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.2 Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.3 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.4 Pre-test Survey ............................................................................................................................ 21
iii
3.4 Data Collection Instrument ......................................................................................... 22

3.5 Sampling Design ........................................................................................................... 25
3.5.1 Target Audience .......................................................................................................................... 25
3.5.2 Sampling Size ............................................................................................................................. 25
3.5.3 Sampling Method ........................................................................................................................ 26
3.5.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 27
3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 27

3.7 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 27
4.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 29

4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Data Cleaning ............................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Internet and Mobile Usage and Competency ............................................................ 31
4.4 Cyberbullying Behaviours ........................................................................................... 33
4.4.1 Traditional bullying .................................................................................................................... 33
4.4.2 Cyberbullying ............................................................................................................................. 33
4.5 Methods to Deal with Cyberbullying.......................................................................... 40

4.6 Competition, Barriers and Benefits ............................................................................ 41
4.6.1 Barriers........................................................................................................................................ 41
4.6.2 Competitive behaviours .............................................................................................................. 42
4.6.3 Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 42
4.7 Social Marketing Strategies......................................................................................... 43

4.7.1 Product ........................................................................................................................................ 43
4.7.2 Price ............................................................................................................................................ 43
4.7.3 Place ............................................................................................................................................ 44
4.7.4 Promotions .................................................................................................................................. 44
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................. 46

5.1 Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 46
5.2 Limitations of Study ..................................................................................................... 48
6.
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 50
7.
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 51
8.
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A: Email to Request for Interview regarding Cyberbullying ........................ 54
iv
Appendix B-1: Email interview with Gilbert Goh, Dontcyberbully.com ...................... 55

Appendix B-2: Email interview with Singapore Childrens Society ............................... 56
Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire for Cyberbully Experts ...................................... 58
Appendix D-1: Pre-test Survey Feedback Questions........................................................ 59
Appendix D-2: Comments and Feedbacks of Pre-test Survey ......................................... 59
Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................... 61
Appendix F: Data Cleaning Outputs ................................................................................. 72
Normality Testing .................................................................................................................. 72
Factor Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 75
Reliability Testing.................................................................................................................. 76
ANOVA Testing .................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix G: Internet and Mobile Usage and Competency ............................................. 83
Appendix H: Cyberbullying Behaviours ........................................................................... 85
Appendix I: Methods to Deal with Cyberbullying............................................................ 89
Appendix J: Social Marketing Barriers ............................................................................ 90
Appendix K: Social Marketing Strategies ......................................................................... 92
List of Charts, Tables and Figures

Table 1: A Comparison between Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying .................................... 7
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying .......................... 75
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying ..................... 76
Table 4: Reliability Statistics for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency ................................. 76
Table 5: Item-Total Statistics for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency ................................. 77
Table 6: Reliability Statistics for Risky Internet Behaviours ....................................................... 77
Table 7: Reliability Statistics for Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited ........................... 77
Table 8: Reliability Statistics for Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited ......................... 77
Table 9: Reliability Statistics for Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered ....................... 78
Table 10: Reliability Statistics for Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered .................. 78
Table 11: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Acceptance ..................... 78
Table 12: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Avoidance ...................... 78
Table 13: Reliability Statistic for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Social Support .................. 78
Table 14: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention ...................... 79
Table 15: Reliability Statistics for Social Marketing Barriers ...................................................... 79
Table 16: Item-Total Statistics for Social Marketing Barriers...................................................... 79
Table 17: Reliability Statistics for Social Marketing Benefits ..................................................... 79

Table 18: Summary of Cronbach's Alphas of Dimensions ........................................................... 80
Table 19: ANOVA of Internet Competencies between Religion ................................................. 80
Table 20: Descriptives of Internet Competencies between Religion ............................................ 81
Table 21: ANOVA of Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between No. of Siblings
....................................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 22: Descriptives of Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between No. of
Siblings ......................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 23: ANOVA of Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between Type of Housing
....................................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 24: Descriptives of Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between Type of
Housing ......................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 25: Frequency for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency ............................................... 83
Table 26: Frequency for Hours Spent on Internet Daily............................................................... 83
Table 27: Frequency for Risky Internet Behaviours ..................................................................... 84
Table 28: Frequency for Disapproval of Traditional Bullying ..................................................... 85
Table 29: Chi-Square Test for Correlation between Disapproving Traditional Bullying and
Cyberbullying and Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited ............................................................. 85
Table 30: Chi-Square Test for Correlation between Internet Competency and Cyberbullying
Behaviours Exhibited .................................................................................................................... 85
Table 31: Paired Samples Test for Direct and Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited ..... 86
Table 32: Chi-square Test for Correlation between Risky Internet Behaviours and Cyberbullying
Behaviours Encountered ............................................................................................................... 86
Table 33: Independent Samples Test for Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited and Encountered
by Males and Females ................................................................................................................... 87
Table 34: Chi-Square Test for Correlation between Number of Hours Spent on Internet and
Cyberbullying Behaviours exhibited ............................................................................................ 87
Cyberbullying Behaviours encountered ........................................................................................ 88
Table 36: Paired Samples Test for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention and using
Avoidance ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Table 37: Independent Samples Test for Differences in Methods to Dealing with Cyberbullying
between the Age Groups 17-25 and 26-34 ................................................................................... 89
Table 38: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Cyberbullying Barriers .......................................... 90
Table 39: Paired Samples Test for Competitive Behaviours to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying
Behaviours .................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 40: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Benefits that will Motivate Individuals not to
Cyberbully..................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 41: Frequency for Helplines ............................................................................................... 92
Table 42: Frequency for Dedicated Websites ............................................................................... 92
vi
Table 43: Frequency for Counsellors ............................................................................................ 93

Table 44: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Products..................................... 93
Table 45: Frequency for Fines ...................................................................................................... 94
Table 46: Frequency for Shame .................................................................................................... 94
Table 47: Frequency for Rehabilitation Classes ........................................................................... 94
Table 48: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Prices ......................................... 95
Table 49: Frequency of Schools ................................................................................................... 95
Table 50: Frequency of Community Centres ................................................................................ 96
Table 51: Frequency of Online Channels ..................................................................................... 96
Table 52: Frequency of Home ...................................................................................................... 96
Table 53: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Places ........................................ 97
Table 54: Frequency of Personal Recount of Cyberbullying Victims .......................................... 97
Table 55: Frequency of Celebrity Endorsement ........................................................................... 98
Table 56: Frequency of Professional Opinion of Psychologist .................................................... 98
Table 57: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Promotional Tools ..................... 99
Table 58: Frequency of Advertising ........................................................................................... 100
Table 59: Frequency of Printed Materials .................................................................................. 100
Table 60: Frequency of Special Promotion Items....................................................................... 100
Table 61: Frequency of Signboards ............................................................................................ 101
Table 62: Frequency of Popular Entertainment Media ............................................................... 101
Table 63: Frequency of Product Placement in Movies ............................................................... 101
Table 64: Frequency of Social Media ......................................................................................... 102
Table 65: Frequency of Websites ............................................................................................... 102
Table 66: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Promotion Channels ................ 103
Figure 1: Transactional Model Adaptive for Reactive Coping ..................................................... 12
Figure 2: Transactional Model Adaptive for Preventive Coping.................................................. 13
Figure 3: The Integrated Social Marketing Idea ........................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Sample Size Formula..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5: Breakdown of Age Groups ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 6: Breakdown of Occupation of Respondents ................................................................... 29
Figure 7: Frequency for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency ............................................... 32
Figure 8: Frequency for Risky Internet Behaviours ..................................................................... 32
Figure 9: Frequency for Disapproval of Traditional Bullying ...................................................... 33
Figure 10: Frequency for Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited by Youths in Singapore ............ 34
Figure 11: Means of the Different Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited by Singapore Youths .. 35
Figure 12: Means of the Different Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered by Singapore Youths
....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 13: Frequency for Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered .............................................. 38
Figure 14: Means for Methods used to Deal with Cyberbullying ................................................ 40
Figure 15: Means of Cyberbullying Barriers to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying Behaviours ..... 42
vii
Figure 16: Means of Cyberbullying Competitive Behaviours to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying

Behaviours .................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 17: Means of Benefits that will Motivate Individuals not to Cyberbully .......................... 43
Figure 18: Histogram of Internet and Mobile Phone Competency ............................................... 72
Figure 19: Histogram of Risky Internet behaviours ..................................................................... 72
Figure 20: Histogram of Cyberbullying behaviours exhibited ..................................................... 72
Figure 21: Histogram of Cyberbullying behaviours encountered................................................. 73
Figure 22: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Avoidance..................................... 73
Figure 23: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Acceptance ................................... 73
Figure 24: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Social Support .............................. 74
Figure 25: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention..................................... 74
Figure 26: Histogram for Social Marketing Barriers .................................................................... 74
Figure 27: Histogram for Social Marketing Benefits ................................................................... 75
Figure 26: Eigenvalue Screen Plot for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying ......................... 75
Figure 27: Means of Social Marketing Products .......................................................................... 92
Figure 28: Means of Social Marketing Prices............................................................................... 93
Figure 29: Means of Social Marketing Places .............................................................................. 95
Figure 30: Means of Social Marketing Promotion Tools ............................................................. 97
Figure 31: Means of Social Marketing Promotion Channels........................................................ 99
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
With an increased usage of the Internet and the pervasiveness of social media, a new form of
bullying, cyberbullying has emerged. Cyberbullying can cause victims to have a higher risk of
stress-related disorders, such as helplessness, anxiety and terror, and in some cases, suicide
(Nemours, 2009).
Singapore too, has had its share of cyberbullying incidents. Recently in February 2012, a case of
online sexual harassment was reported in the Nanyang Technological University. A male
undergraduate was accused of tricking female students into exposing certain parts of their body
through their webcams. He was also accused of hacking into a female students Facebook
account and masquerading as her. In a case of victims turning into bullies, the victims then
decided to take revenge online, by exposing his name and information in a note on Facebook to
alert their friends (The New Paper, 2012).
According to Internet World Stats, an international statistics website, Facebook has a penetration
of 56.1% of the Singapore population as at 31 December 2011. With Internet communication
vehicles being termed as the digital communication backbone of teens daily lives (Lenhart,
Madden, & Hitlin, 2005), this greater digital connectivity has lead to the emergence of the
cyberbullying phenomenon. This has thus compelled many countries to look into ways to deal
with the rise of cyberbullying (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008).
Since most studies are done in America, more research needs to be carried out to understand the
issue of cyberbullying in Singapore. Moreover, interviews with experts on this matter also
reemphasized the lack of research done here (Appendix B).
1
Social marketing has intrigued and interested many academic marketers in many aspects, mostly
by the way it uses traditional commercial marketing techniques to help influence change in
behaviours of society. Its main aim is to sell ideas, behaviours and attitudes with the primary
beneficiary being society.
With the general acceptance of social marketing in our society today, social marketing
techniques are extensively used in international health programmes to tackle various social
problems such as tobacco use and littering.
Hence, social marketing can be seen as a solution to cyberbullying. With some initiatives already
done to address this issue, one such being an online Bully-free campaign (Singapore Children's
Society, 2012) by the Singapore Childrens Society, there is potential for social marketing to
play a bigger role to reduce cyberbullying. This study seeks to examine cyberbullying through
the lens of social marketing. As there is a lack of research data on cyberbullying, there is a
pertinent need to study cyberbullying in Singapore before social marketing can be used as a
solution to effectively tackle this issue.
1.2
Research Questions
With the lack of information on cyberbullying in Singapore, this study aims to study the current
cyberbullying situation in Singapore. It hopes to shed light on certain insights about the
behaviours, attitudes and motivations Singapore youths have towards cyberbullying, as well as to
gather insights regarding social marketing strategies that will be effective to the target audience.
Hence, this study aims to address the following questions:
1. What is the typical profile of a cyberbully/victim of cyberbullying?
2. What behaviors and attitudes do youths exhibit that make them more prone to
carrying out/falling victim to acts of cyberbullying?
3. What are the common types of cyberbullying behaviours committed in Singapore?
4. What are the motivations behind cyberbullying in Singapore?
5. How do youths in Singapore respond to acts of cyberbullying?
6. What are the social marketing strategies that will be effective in addressing
cyberbullying issues among youths in Singapore?
1.3
Research Objectives
With the research questions formed, this research aims to achieve the following research
objectives:
1. To find out the current state of cyberbullying among youths in Singapore.
2. To study and evaluate the effects of cyberbullying on youth victims in Singapore.
3. To assess the motivations of youth cyber bullies in Singapore.
4. To investigate the barriers and competitive behaviours to the adoption of noncyberbullying behaviours.
5. To recommend social marketing strategies to combat cyberbullying among youths in
Singapore.
1.4
Significance of Study
The findings will interest two main groups of institutions, and the wider community.
Non-profit organizations, such as Melrose Home, a philanthropic organizations for youths (The
Children's Aid Society, 2009), will benefit as preventive measures against cyberbullying and
strategies to deal with cyberbullying incidents recommended in this study can be looked into and
implemented to ensure a safer Internet environment. The Singapore Childrens Society will also
find the insights useful in improving their current and future campaigns.
Furthermore, government ministries such as the Ministry of Community, Youths and Sports
(MCYS) and Ministry of Education (MOE) will benefit from a more in-depth understanding of
cyberbullying. This will allow such organizations to create more effective measures and policies.
Finally, this research will interest stakeholders such as social media sites and educators. Being
the final gatekeepers, they have the ability to prevent cyberbullying, evident recently in the
change of privacy settings on Facebook, which eliminated the problems of spiteful tagging of
images, commonly used by cyber bullies (BBC, 2011).
1.5
Scope and Limitation
Due to resource constraints, such as financial and time restrictions, this research study is focused
on youths working or studying in Singapore between the ages of 17 years to 34 years old as it
allows data to be gathered from the population that are both studying and working, allowing for
meaningful comparison and analyses.
Cyberbullying through the internet will entail through the means of mobile phone applications,
instant messaging tools and social media platforms.
1.6
Organization of paper
Chapter one gives an overview of the research, including the research questions and objectives
and benefits that this study can bring. Chapter two features the review of literature and insights
obtained of the social issue at hand. Chapter three touches on the methodology used to conduct
the research, including the research approach, research design, data collection method, sampling
design, analysis to be employed and finally concludes with ethical considerations. Chapter four
documents the results of this study and lastly, chapter five sums up the research analyses, as well
as the proposed recommendations and limitations of this study.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Cyberbullying
As cyberbullying is a fairly new phenomenon, a singular and uniform conceptualization does not
exist for it currently. According to Hinduja and Patchin, cyberbullying can be defined as the
willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones and other
electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 1978), while Kowalski and Limber defined
cyberbullying as bullying through email, instant messaging, in a chat room, on a website, or
through digital messages or images sent through to a cell phone (Kowalski & Limber, 2007).
Some studies have shown cyberbullying to be an extension of traditional bullying (Raskauskas &
Stoltz, 2007), and that there were overlaps between both forms of bullying. However, in a 2007
study, the authors cautioned that these overlaps were not as significant as suggested, with
cyberbullying having several differing characteristics (Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007).
Greene suggested that cyberbullying contravenes several inherent assumptions of traditional
bullying (Greene, 2006). In traditional bullying, the victim usually knows the identity of the
bully, while cyberbullying allows the bully to go anonymous. Ybarra and Mitchell found that
while 84% of cyberbullying perpetrators knew their victims, only 31% of the victims knew who
their bullies were (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). This anonymity provides a sense of safety and
reduces the fear of being apprehended. Also, while in traditional bullying, the power imbalance
between the victim and the perpetrator refers to the difference in physical strength or social
status, in cyberbullying the power that the perpetrator holds is likely to come from computer
literacy and proficiency (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Also, there are some psychosocial
behaviours that are thought to be associated with cyberbullying such as a perceived lack of
support from peers, below average school grades as well as an approval of traditional bullying
(Williams & Guerra, 2007).
Thus, it can be seen that while traditional bullying and cyberbullying share some similar
characteristics, cyberbullying is unique in several ways. Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009)
compared the different forms of traditional bullying and cyberbullying according to direct and
indirect forms of bullying (Table 1).
Table 1: A Comparison between Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
Source: Sage, New Media & Society (2009)

Unwanted emails and messages were the top form of cyberbullying reported by youths in
Singapore (50.4%), while 24.8% had had their photos and/or videos posted online without their
permission, 21.3% had been made fun of on the Internet, and 21.3% had been ignored online
(Singapore Polytechnic, 2011). Some other acts of cyberbullying encountered include being
insulted online, such as in a case where a primary three girl was insulted in blogs, with
comments such as ugly and irritating made about her by her classmates (Digital Life, 2008).
Other forms of indirect cyberbullying can include having personal information disclosed in
forums online, which was what happened to Mr. Gerald Chen when he wrote a letter to the
Straits Time complaining about The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf staff switching off the power
supply when he was charging his laptop. Because of this, he was insulted on an online forum,
and had his blog address posted online which led to further attacks until he restricted the
accessibility to his online blog (my paper, 2008).
2.1.1 Causes of Cyberbullying
Studies have shown that youths tend to make their personal and private information available
online, through social networking sites or blogs. This complex and interactive Internet use will
make them prone to acts of cyberbullying, cyberstalking as well as online harassment (Schrock
& Boyd, 2008). A 2010 study carried out in Singapore found that 33.6% of youths revealed their
personal information to strangers on social networking sites, as compared to 46.1% who revealed
the same information to parents. Out of those who revealed their information to strangers, 33.1%
withheld the same information from parents. 94.3% of youths were also found to disclose their
real names online, and 74.2% of them post their photos online. Furthermore, 62.1% of youths
who had been impersonated online did not have the practice of changing their passwords yearly
(Singapore Polytechnic, 2011). This then may show that unsafe Internet usage can lead to their
private information being compromised. The results of a study carried out by Ybarra, Espelage
and Mitchell (2007) also concluded that such risky Internet behaviour led to online harassment
and sexual solicitation.
2.1.2 Gender Differences in Perpetrators and Victims of Cyberbullying

Studies have been done on gender differences in the field of cyberbullying, with some showing
insignificant differences between the two genders. However, a study carried out by Kowalski and
Limber in 2007 revealed that while girls are less likely to be bullies in real life, they are as likely,
or more likely to engage in cyberbullying than boys, showing that the anonymity and indirect
nature of the Internet may contribute to instances of cyberbullying. There was also no agreement
on the age differences in perpetrators (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007); conversely, some researchers
concluded that as youths age, the likelihood of engaging in cyberbullying decreases (Williams &
Guerra, 2007).
As with perpetrators of cyberbullying, there was no noticeable difference between the two
genders with regards to the victims of cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Some studies
reported that a higher proportion of girls are victims of cyberbullying, with a research study
carried out by Li in 2007 showing that girls made up about 60% of cyberbullying victims. There
exists debate regarding the relationship between age and the likelihood of falling victim to
cyberbullying.
2.1.3 Coping with Cyberbullying
A study carried out by Parris et al in 2011 attempted to classify the coping mechanisms of
students with regards to cyberbullying through individual, semi-structured interviews. The
results of the study showed that students had three main ways of coping with cyberbullying, as
listed below (Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2011).
Reactive coping
This refers to taking action after being cyberbullied. The four main strategies listed in this
category were: avoidance, acceptance, justification and seeking social support. Avoidance
appeared to be highly popular, with 18 out of 20 respondents utilizing this method, through
blocking the offender, or deleting the offending message or email (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007).
Some deleted their online accounts or blocked numbers/users.
Acceptance refers to recognizing that cyberbullying is inevitable. Most respondents who chose
acceptance felt that cyberbullying was part of the virtual world, and that most cyberbullying acts
were not permanent (Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2011). Also, there was no way to stop or
prevent cyberbullying. 45% report using the strategy of justification by establishing reasons why
they should not let cyberbullying affect them. Some students said that they could not be bothered
by people who had the inability to face up to them in person. Also, students chose to focus on the
negative qualities of bullies.
Seeking social support was another method used by teens which involved talking to their friends,
family or school authorities to seek advice on how to deal with the cyber bully, as well as to have
a figure of authority step in. However, most students were reluctant to approach adults, as they
would be seen as telling tales and they felt that adults were unlikely to be able to help in such
situations (Slonje & Smith, 2008). The victims were also unwilling to break the code of silence
and report the bullying (Li, 2006), with some fearful of retaliation. A study by Hoff and Mitchell
(2009) concluded that participants in their study were more likely to approach their parents as
they felt that school authorities would not take them seriously, or would cause them
embarrassment by making the incident public.
10
Preventive coping
This refers to taking actions that would decrease the probability of falling victim to
cyberbullying. 60% of students in the same study carried out by Parris, Varjas, Meyers & Cutts
(2011) suggested that communication be done in person to reduce misunderstandings. Also, all
20 students suggested that increasing online security and safety would decrease the chances of
cyberbullying. These included choosing a secure password, not divulging personal information
online as well as being aware of situations which could lead to cyberbullying. Some also said
that being more aware of what cyberbullying is would help to prevent cyberbullying.
In Singapore, concerned parents and educators have raised the question of using legislation to
deal with cyberbullying. Mr Gilbert Goh, a trained psychologist and founder of the Dont
Cyberbully website, which is aimed at providing education and information on cyberbullying in
Singapore, stated in an interview (Appendix A) that there is a lack of punitive measures to keep
youths from cyberbullying and that cyberbullying crimes are seldom publicized. However, in
2009, then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng said that while there were no specific
rules to address the issue of cyberbullying, there was no immunity for acts conducted via the
Internet and that cyber bullies were liable to be dealt with by laws concerning criminal acts such
as criminal intimidation and insulting the modesty of a woman. He also emphasized on the need
for education and raising awareness of cyberbullying to act as prevention methods instead of
focusing on reactive methods (The Straits Times, 2009). In 2010, it was reported that the
government had set aside S$10 million dollars in funds to be distributed over five years for
projects that promote safe and responsible Internet use and cyber-wellness, as well as preventing
cyberbullying. This was in response to the spate of cyberbullying acts and misuse of Internet
resources in recent years (AFP, 2010).
11
Lastly, some students also reported that there was no way to prevent or deal with cyberbullying
as cyber bullies were more likely than not able to get away with their acts, due to the nature of
anonymity in the virtual world. Also, they cited that the actions of adults to limit or change
technology (limiting access to websites) were likely to be ineffective as there would always be
methods to bypass them (Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2011).
The study then came up with a transactional model of coping mechanisms, adapted from Lazurus
and Folkmans model in 1984, to specially deal with cyberbullying (Parris, Varjas, Meyers, &
Cutts, 2011).
Figure 1: Transactional Model Adaptive for Reactive Coping
Source: Sage, Youth & Society (2011)
12
Figure 2: Transactional Model Adaptive for Preventive Coping
Source: Sage, Youth & Society (2011)

2.2
Social Marketing
Social marketing is defined as the process that applies marketing principles and techniques to
create, communicate, and deliver value in order to influence target audience behaviours that
benefit society as well as the target audience (Kotler & Lee, 2008).
Social marketing, just like commercial marketing, essentially utilizes the 4Ps (Product, Place,
Price, Promotion). However, instead of financial gains, a social marketer aims to sell a desired
13
behaviour and hopes to get societal gains. Also, just like a commercial marketer, a social
marketer faces competition too, namely the customers preferred and current behaviours, and
companies who are selling behaviours that are competing with the proposed behaviour.
Increasingly, social marketing techniques have been used to address public health and social
issues (Lefebvre, 2011). It involves a long process of first raising awareness of the issue,
changing the target segments beliefs and attitudes, before attempting to sell the desired
behaviour (Figure 3).
Figure 3: The Integrated Social Marketing Idea
Source: Journal of Social Marketing Vol. 1 No.1 (2011)

2.2.1 Target Segment and Competition
Before any strategy can be planned, information will have to be obtained regarding the target
segment and the competing behaviours that they are engaging in. The three target market
perspectives are:
14
1. Barriers internal or external factors that are obstructing the target market from
adopting the targeted behaviours. For example, a study done on public safety in
Canada found that barriers included psychological beliefs that reduced vigilance and
lack of public awareness for emergency information (Mintz & Theresa, 2007).
2. Benefits things that the target market wants or needs and hence the targeted
behaviour should have the potential to provide them. For example, a survey done by
Americas Blood Centres in May 2001 revealed that 34% perceived wanting to help
others as the major benefit associated to blood donation.
3. Competition behaviours that the target audience will prefer over the target
behaviour, or are already a habit to them that they will have to give up or anyone who
advocates for behaviours that oppose desired behaviours.
2.2.2 Product
Product is anything that can be offered to a market to satisfy a want or need (Kotler & Lee,
2008). Three product levels are usually involved, namely the core product, actual product and
augmented product.
The core product refers to the fundamental benefits that are expected to be obtained in exchange
for practising the desired behaviour, and in this study, will refer to an environment freed of
cyberbullying incidents. Actual product refers to a particular behaviour that is promoted (eg. to
stop cyberbullying).
The augmented product includes any physical items and services that will be promoted along
with the behaviour that is to be sold to act as an encouragement, to lower the impediment to
15
adopting the behaviour and to sustain behaviour. Services can be categorized into educationrelated, personal, counselling, clinical and community services. An example will be the Bullyfree campaign organized by the Singapore Childrens Society which includes an informative
website containing essential information on cyberbullying, coupled with counselling services via
helplines and email addresses (Singapore Children's Society, 2012).
2.2.3 Pricing
Price is the cost that the target market associates with adopting the desired behaviour (Kotler
& Lee, 2008). It can broadly be categorized into monetary, where the target audience has to
sacrifice money to purchase tangible objects or services in exchange for the desired behaviour, or
non-monetary which refers to the intangibles such as time and psychological risks. For example,
a study conducted by the Singapore Health Promotion Board revealed that its Healthier
Restaurant Program was an effective marketing strategy whereby Singaporeans beliefs and
behaviours were changed due to the provision of facilitating mechanisms to make it more
convenient for consumers to make healthier food decision (Karuppiah & Seah, 2007).
2.2.4 Place
Place refers to where and when the target market will perform the desired behaviour, acquire
any related tangible objects and receive any associated services (Kotler & Lee, 2008). This is of
utmost importance as the target audience will assess the accessibility and degree of convenience
of these social products when deciding whether to adopt the desired behaviour. In Singapore,
there are various services provided for both cyber victims and bullies who may be struggling to
put their cyberbullying behaviours to a stop. Other than the Bully-free website that was set up
by the Singapore Children Society, there are various other places where help and counselling
services can be obtained. For example, DontCyberbully.com, an educational support website,
16
allows the public to report cases, seek advices, as well as gather more insights and understanding
on cyberbullying (DontCyberbully.com, 2010).
2.2.5 Promotion
Promotions are persuasive communications designed and delivered to inspire your target
audience into actions (Kotler & Lee, 2008). Planning the promotion part of a social campaign
usually involves decisions for the messages, the messengers, the creative strategy, as well as the
communication channels.
The message of a social campaign should include specific and simple actions that are easily
comprehended by the target audience. Message should include facts such as harmful impacts of
their current behaviours and the benefits of the desired behaviours. In general, the attractiveness
of the message source depends on three main factors expertise, trustworthiness as well as
likeability. Experts, who possess the perceived knowledge to support the claim, are crucial in
injecting credibility into the campaign. The message source should ideally be perceived as
objective to increase its trustworthiness and possess charisma to increase its likeability.
Traditional media channels often involve advertising (using the television, radio, newspapers,
magazines and mail), public relations and special events, printed materials, special promotional
items and lastly signage and displays. With the explosion of new technology, non-traditional
media channels are increasingly leveraged to obtain a more effective reach of the target audience.
Non-traditional media channels include entertainment media (like movies, comic books and
video games), public art, product integration, social media, websites and mobile phones. An
example of social marketing using entertainment media will be the movie Cyberbullying that
was aired on ABC Family in July 2011. In partnership with Seventeen magazines, ABC Family
17
aimed to increase the awareness on the issue of digital youth abuse by educating viewers on the
forms that cyberbullying can take, the consequences and resources necessary for readers to reach
out for help (Cambio, 2011).
18
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1
Research Approach
Based on literature review conducted, a survey questionnaire was constructed to obtain a large
number of responses from the population in regards to various aspects of cyberbullying and
social marketing strategies. A pre-test was launched to ensure face validity of the questionnaire
before the actual survey was carried out. Analyses were then performed to obtain meaningful
insights from the raw data.
3.2
Research Design
Exploratory research was conducted by interviewing two experts to obtain a better understanding
of the cyberbullying scene in Singapore due to limited secondary resources. Descriptive research,
in the form of a survey then followed to identify the characteristics and attitudes associated to
cyberbullying and social marketing strategies.
3.3
Data Collection Method
3.3.1 Exploratory research

Exploratory research was mainly through emails where questions (Appendix A) were sent out to
the experts and replies were received through the same channel. Two experts Ms Sylvia Ang
from the Singapore Childrens Society, which runs an online anti-cyberbullying campaign, and
Mr. Gilbert Goh, a counselor who set up the Dont Cyberbully forum, were interviewed
(Appendix B).
3.3.2 Definition of Terms
Terms used in the research study, as well as the construction of the questionnaire, are as follows:
19
Term
Definition
Cyberbullying
The wilful and repeated harm inflicted through email, instant messaging, in a
chat room, on a website, or through digital messages or images sent through
to a cell phone.
Social marketing
The process that applies commercial marketing principles and techniques to

create, communicate, and deliver value in order to influence target audience
behaviours that benefit society as well as the target audience.
Youths
People between the age of 17 years old to 34 years old who are either
studying or working full time in Singapore.
Cell phone
Applications on a phone that allow for communication between users of that
applications
application. Examples are the Short Message Service (SMS) and third-party
applications such as Whatsapp Messenger, Blackberry Messenger (BBM)
and other similar applications possessing such functions.
Direct
Direct cyberbullying behaviours are those that occur directly to the victim.
Cyberbullying
Examples include: Being threatened or insulted online or through the mobile
Behaviours
phone, as well as being sent obscene illustrations.
Indirect
Indirect cyberbullying behaviours are those that do not occur directly to the
Cyberbullying
victim, but may still cause harm to the victim. Examples include: Being
Behaviours
excluded from a group and being the target of gossip through the Internet or
mobile phone, and defamatory polls.
20
3.3.3 Hypotheses
From the literature review conducted, various different factors possibly associated to
cyberbullying were obtained and the possible differences in cyberbullying behaviours between
gender and age groups were raised. Thus, to investigate the possible correlations and any
possible differences, the following hypotheses were developed:
H1
The higher the approval of traditional bullying, the higher the possibility of exhibiting
cyberbullying behaviours.
H2
The higher the Internet competency, the higher the possibility of exhibiting
H3
Singapore youths exhibit more indirect cyberbullying behaviours than direct

H4
The greater the amount of risky Internet behaviours one engages in, the higher the
possibility that one becomes a victim of cyberbullying.
H5
Males exhibit more cyberbullying behaviours and are more likely to be victims of
cyberbullying as compared to females.
H6
The higher the number of hours spent on the Internet, the higher the possibility of
exhibiting cyberbullying behaviours and being a victim of cyberbullying.
H7
Prevention is the most preferred method to deal with cyberbullying incidents.
H8
There is a significant difference between the two age groups (17-25 years old vs 26-34
years old) in regards to the methods employed to deal with cyberbullying incidents.
3.3.4 Pre-test Survey

An online pre-test self-administered survey questionnaire was carried out to test the face validity
and gather feedback about the questionnaire. Utilizing Qualtrics.com as the hosting platform, the
21
web address of the pre-test survey was posted on Facebook through an event page and the first
ten respondents who responded were chosen. It was conducted from 26 January 2012 to 29
January 2012. Opinions and comments were gathered (Appendix D) and the questionnaire was
modified before the actual survey was carried out.
3.4
Data Collection Instrument
The actual survey was hosted on Qualtrics.com to obtain a large number of responses from the
Singapore population between 17 years to 34 years old. The web address of the online selfadministered questionnaire was distributed to individuals in the teams network of friends from
30 January 2012 to 23 February 2012, through an event page created on Facebook and personal
emails sent to them.
An online self-administered survey method was chosen to lower the costs as well as broaden the
coverage of the questionnaire. It also provided the respondents with greater convenience as they
could complete these questions on their available time. This method also eliminated interviewer
apprehension, which could affect the accuracy and response rate.
Utilizing an online self-administered questionnaire would mean that that interviewers were not
physically present to answer queries or clear the doubts of the respondents; hence this might
have resulted in respondents filling in answers inaccurately due to misunderstanding of questions.
However, to mitigate this error, an email address was provided to allow respondents to send in
enquiries and they were also encouraged to quit the survey and await our replies before
attempting the survey again. However, no enquiries were received.
The finalized survey questionnaire consisted of a cover letter and the following six sections
(Appendix E).
22
Sections of questionnaire
Descriptions and explanations
Cover letter
A cover letter was presented to the respondents before the

start of the questionnaire. It introduced the survey by
identifying the surveyors and indicating various aspects of
the questionnaire such as the purpose of the survey, the
survey procedure, the selection of respondents, the benefits
of the research and the approximate time to complete the
survey is also stated. The respondents could then choose to
take or quit the survey after reading it.
Section I:
Respondents were requested to indicate how competent they
Profiling of usage of Internet and were in the following areas such as cell phones applications,
communication tools
online forums, instant messaging and social media and their

usage of such tools. A 5-point Likert scale was adopted (1=
Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) for the respondents to
rate their level of agreement with the statements proposed to
find out the respondents competency and usage profile. The
5-point scale was selected to increase the sensitivity of the
responses.
Section II:
The respondents first had to respond with their attitude to
Cyberbullying Self-identification traditional bullying before various common examples of

Test
cyberbullying are listed. They were asked if they had

participated in or were recipients of such acts in the past
year. A 5-point Likert scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes,
23
Very Often, Always) was adopted to self-identify the

cyberbullying actions done by or done to them.
Section III:
Coping
The respondents faced questions soliciting their responses

and
preventing on how they cope with cyberbullying based on a 5-point
cyberbullying
Likert scale (1= Very Unlikely; 5=Very Likely). Several

suggested responses were provided for them to base theirs
on. Furthermore, their opinions on the effectiveness of a few
suggested methods to prevent cyberbullying were recorded
using a 5-point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree;
5=Strongly Agree).
Section IV:
Competition,
The respondents were queried on attitudes and actions

Barriers
Benefits
and which could pose as competition or barriers to the adoption

of non-cyberbullying behaviours. A 5-point Likert scale (1=
Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) was utilised by
posing statements to the respondents and finding out their
level of agreement with them.
Section V:
Questions were posed to the respondents to investigate how
Social Marketing Strategies
receptive they are to the four Ps of social marketing

(Product, Price, Place, Promotion) so as to yield insights
into future implementation of campaigns or measures put in
place to tackle cyberbullying issues. Several examples were
given for each P to obtain a holistic view on their
perceptions to the different methods. A 5-point Likert scale
24
(1= Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) was employed to

detail their responses.
Section VI:
Respondents were asked about their particulars to profile
Demographic Profiling
them according to their current occupation, age range,

gender, race, religion, income, number of siblings and type
of housing. This information was also used to classify and
then screen out respondents who did not fit into the target
age range of 17-34. A mix of suitable ratio and nominal
scales were used to collate the responses.
3.5
Sampling Design
3.5.1 Target Audience

The target audience was defined as youths in Singapore aged between 17 and 34 years old. This
included Singaporeans, Permanent Residents as well as foreigners who are currently residing in
Singapore. As the investigation was on the behaviours and understanding of cyberbullying of
youths in Singapore, such an age group would be appropriate. While there are youths under 17
who are students as well, the team determined that youths aged 17 and above are more likely to
be able to understand the concepts and terms used in our questionnaire, which would provide
results that were more accurate and thus reliable.
3.5.2 Sampling Size
The targeted sample size was calculated using the sample size formula for mean (Cochran, 1977):
25
Figure 4: Sample Size Formula
Source: Archives of Orofacial Sciences (2006)

The following figures were agreed upon:
z = 1.96
p = 0.5
q = 0.5
e = 0.05,
giving a sample size of n 385.
While the study emphasized on the understanding of cyberbullying behaviour in students, there
is the potential for a meaningful comparison between youths who are currently studying and
youths who have entered the workforce. Thus, the decision was made to collect a total of 193
responses each from both students as well as economically active individuals in this study so as
to allow for comparison.
3.5.3 Sampling Method
After considering the advantages and disadvantages of the sampling methods applicable to the
study, it was concluded that the combined non-probability sampling methods of snowball
sampling and quota sampling will reach out to and achieve a representation of the target
audience, while accounting for any resource constraints. Snowball sampling overcomes a lack of
means to collate the contact details of every single individual in the target audience into a
sampling frame while quota sampling aids in ensuring that sufficient responses will be collected
from each respondent class.
26
3.5.4 Limitations
Due to the exclusion of youths under 17 for this research, one limitation of this study was the
inability to measure and compare the results from a younger age group (Primary and Secondary
School students) against an older age group to evaluate differences in the understanding and
behaviours of both groups with regards to cyberbullying. Also, the combination of snowball
sampling and quota sampling might have resulted in an unequal distribution of the target
audience.
3.6
Data Analysis
Firstly, the data was cleaned to ensure completeness and consistency by removing incomplete
questionnaires. Thereafter, reliability (Normality and Cronbachs alpha) and validity tests (Factor
analysis) were conducted to ensure the data collected corresponded to the variables derived from
the literature review. Independent t-tests and paired sample t-tests were done to compare means
of cyberbullying behaviours and preference of social marketing strategies. Furthermore, Chisquare and correlation tests were done to compare how different demographics, hours spent
online or Internet competencies related to cyberbullying behaviours exhibited or encountered.
ANOVA test was also performed to determine if there were any significant differences between
the different groups of demographics in terms of their cyberbullying behaviours and social media
marketing preferences. For the analyses, a 95% confidence level was employed and a
significance value of 0.05 was used to test the hypotheses.
3.7
Ethical Considerations
The Code of Ethics of the Association for Institutional Research was adhered to during the
sampling to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of our survey results. A cover letter was
27
included at the start of the survey to inform the participants about the purpose and objectives of
the research, the details of the researchers, as well as the time needed to complete the survey and
also to reassure them that any data provided will be confidential and only used for the purpose of
our study. No personal data that could identify the individual respondents were collected, so as to
ensure their privacy and anonymity.
Data collection was also carried out with importance placed on ensuring the privacy of the
respondents and the integrity of the survey results. The data collected was stored to reasonably
prevent loss, tampering, unauthorized access or divulgence.
28
4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

4.1
Overview
The respondents were youths aged 17 to 34 years old in Singapore. Among them 88.1% were 1725 years old while 11.9% were 26-34 years old (Figure 5). Furthermore, 48.5% of them were
males and 51.5% of them females. The breakdown between students and working adults and
classification of students according to their educational institutions are as shown below (Figure
6).
Figure 5: Breakdown of Age Groups
26-34
12%
17-25
88%
Figure 6: Breakdown of Occupation of Respondents

Others
1%
Junior
College
1%
Polytechnic
5%
ITE
1%
Working
31%
University
57%
Private
educational
institutions
4%
29
4.2
Data Cleaning
The data was checked for incompleteness, inconsistency and obvious response patterns. Also,
respondents who were not within the age group of 17-34 were excluded. Hence, after data
cleaning, a total of 294 responses remained for analysis.
Normality test was conducted to ensure the data was normally distributed. Since it was
impossible to attain a perfectly normal distribution, normality was assumed as the sample size
was greater than 30 (Appendix F: Normality Testing Figures 18-27).
Factor analysis was done to ascertain if the priori structure was valid. A KMO Bartlett test where
sphericity was greater than 0.8 at significance less than 0.05 was used to determine the structure
of the variables. The different methods of dealing with cyberbullying obtained a value of 0.713
with 0.000 significance value supporting the factors of avoidance, acceptance, seeking social
support and prevention (Appendix F: Factor Analysis Tables 2 & 3).
Cronbachs Alpha test was executed to test the internal consistency in the survey and was tested
in all the constructs. Elements in dimensions with a Cronbachs Alpha of less than 0.8 were
deleted to improve the reliability of the data.
For Internet and mobile competency, competency in forums usage was found to be inconsistent
with the other elements of Internet competencies (Appendix F: Reliability Testing Tables 4 &
5). Hence, the item was removed as the usage of forums required a different set of skills from the
usage of cell phone applications, instant messaging and social media platforms. For social
marketing barriers, the element able to express anger leading to cyberbullying was removed
from the analysis to improve the reliability of the dimensions (Appendix F: Reliability Testing
30
Tables 15 & 16). In summary, the final Cronbach Alphas achieved by the different dimensions
(close to 0.8) indicated the high reliability of the data obtained (Appendix F: Reliability Analysis
Table 18).
ANOVA tests were also performed on the different dimensions against Internet usage,
competency and demographics where for only three tests conducted, there were significant
differences in the means of the different dimensions (Internet competencies vs Religion, Indirect
Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered vs Number of Siblings and Direct Cyberbullying
Behaviours Encountered vs Type of Housing). However, for those tests, the sample size for the
group was less than 30 and it did not provide a fair comparison of the data obtained. Hence, no
extensive conclusion could be made from the results of the tests (Appendix F: ANOVA Test
Tables 19-24).
4.3
Internet and Mobile Usage and Competency
Figure 7 below shows the level of Internet and mobile phone competency the youths in
Singapore possess. The y-axis represents the options chosen (with 1 being strongly disagree and
5 being strongly agree) by youths when answering the questions I am competent in using cell
phone applications/instant messaging/social media, with the x-axis representing the number of
respondents who had chosen the various options.
31
Figure 7: Frequency for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency
From the data collected, it was evident that Singapore youths possess a strong competency in
Internet usage, with the average score at 4.43 out of 5. In addition, 36.2% of respondents rated
themselves a full 5 out of 5 for the combined competencies (Appendix G Table 25).
Furthermore, youths in Singapore spent an average of 2-7 hours on the Internet daily, with the
majority of 39.6% spending 2-4 hours online. In addition, 24% of teenagers spent more than
seven hours on the Internet daily, with only 7.8% spending less than two hours on the Internet
daily (Appendix G Table 26).
Figure 8: Frequency for Risky Internet Behaviours
32
Figure 8 shows the frequency for risky Internet Behaviours in youths in Singapore. The y-axis
shows the options (with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) chosen for the
questions in the section by the respondents. The x-axis shows the number of respondents who
chose each option. Youths were less likely to engage in risky Internet behaviours, with 95%
scoring a 3 and below out of 5. 61.4% of youths also disagreed that they felt safe while engaging
in risky Internet behaviours such as disclosing their passwords to strangers online and revealing
personal information that could be viewed by strangers online (Appendix G Table 27).
4.4
Cyberbullying Behaviours
4.4.1 Traditional bullying

A mean of 4.46 was obtained when asked about their attitudes toward traditional bullying
(Figure 9). 33.8% of respondents agreed and 59% of them strongly agreed that they disapproved
of traditional bullying (Appendix H Table 28).
Figure 9: Frequency for Disapproval of Traditional Bullying
4.4.2 Cyberbullying
A mean of 1.44 was obtained, indicating that respondents typically had exhibited some sort of
cyberbullying behaviours over the past 1 year (Figure 10). However, the low mean showed that
33
Singapore youths engaged in very low level of cyberbullying. Nevertheless, there was a need to
take into account response bias as the team felt that due to the nature of the negative behaviours
listed, respondents might have a tendency to select the choices that appear to be morally right.
This could lead to a misrepresentation of the actual level of cyberbullying activities that youths
in Singapore engage in.
Figure 10: Frequency for Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited by Youths in Singapore
Among Singapore youths, the cyberbullying behaviours most commonly exhibited were indirect
cyberbullying behaviours, such as excluding someone from a group and spreading gossip
through the mobile phone, with both having a mean of over 1.7, as illustrated in Figure 11.
Disclosing private information online was also another behaviour more commonly encountered,
with a mean of 1.64. This agreed with the findings in the literature review, with youths in
Singapore reporting that the second most common form of cyberbullying encountered being
having their photos and/or videos posted online without their permission. The direct
cyberbullying behaviour most commonly engaged in by Singapore youths was insulting someone
34
online, with a mean of 1.49 while the cyberbullying behaviour least exhibited by youths
appeared to be threatening someone online, with a mean of 1.15.
Figure 11: Means of the Different Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited by Singapore
Youths
1.9
1.8
1.7816
1.7270
1.6416
1.7
1.6
1.5222
1.4881
1.5
1.3891
1.4
1.3003
1.3
1.2
1.2082
1.1536
1.1
1
Cyberbullying behaviours exhibited
Threatened someone
Insulted someone
Exclude someone from group
Masqueraded/Pretended to be someone else
Spread gossip through Internet
Spread gossip through mobile phone
Voting in defamatory poll
Disclosed entrusted information online
Disclose private information online
Figure 12 below illustrates the means of the cyberbullying behaviours encountered by youths in
Singapore. Singapore youths reported the most common cyberbullying behaviour encountered to
be having had their private information disclosed online, with a mean of 1.75. Other common
cyberbullying behaviours experienced included being the target of gossip through mobile phone,
having been deceived, being excluded from a group and having been insulted online. Being the
target of defamatory polls was the cyberbullying behaviour least experienced by Singaporean
youths, with a mean of 1.08.
35
Figure 12: Means of the Different Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered by Singapore

Youths
1.7543
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4027 1.4232
1.4
1.3
1.4642
1.4369
1.3823
1.3106
1.2150
1.2
1.0785
1.1
1
Cyberbullying behaviours received

Been threatened
Been insulted
Been excluded from group
Been decieved
Target of gossip through Internet
Target of gossip through mobile phone
Target of defamatory poll
Had entrusted information disclosed online
Had private information disclosed online
H1: The higher the approval of traditional bullying, the higher the possibility of exhibiting
A chi-square test was done to determine if a correlation existed between approval of traditional
bullying and engaging in cyberbullying behaviours. However, with a significance value of 0.217
(Appendix H Table 29), the result showed that there was no significant correlation between the
two. While the literature review showed a correlation between the two, this was not the case for
youths in Singapore, and the difference may be due to the fact that youths in Singapore are less
likely to engage in and approve of traditional bullying, even if they engage in cyberbullying.
36
H2: The higher the Internet competency, the higher the possibility of exhibiting
To establish if a higher level of Internet competency is correlated to Singapore youths engaging
in more cyberbullying activities, a chi-square test was performed to test for the existence of a
correlation between the two. With a significance of 0.001 (Appendix H Table 30), the result
showed that there existed a correlation, and it could be proven that the more competent
Singapore youths were with regards to the Internet, the higher the possibility that they would
engage in cyberbullying activities. This agreed with the literature review carried out previously,
showing that the power imbalance that exists in cyberbullying is likely to come from the
difference in Internet competency between bullies and victims, and that it is likely a cause of
why they chose to engage in cyberbullying over traditional bullying.
H3: Singapore youths exhibit more indirect cyberbullying behaviours than direct
To determine if Singapore youths exhibit indirect cyberbullying activities more commonly than
direct cyberbullying activities, a paired samples t-test was carried out. The results showed that
there was a significant difference between the means for direct cyberbullying behaviours
exhibited and indirect cyberbullying behaviours exhibited as the significance value is 0.000
(Appendix H Table 31). Thus, it proved that Singapore youths exhibited more indirect
cyberbullying behaviours as compared to direct cyberbullying behaviours.
With a mean of 1.41, this indicated that, on the average, respondents had been on the receiving
end of some sort of cyberbullying behaviours though frequency of such encounters was rare
(Figure 13). However, there was again the need to take into account response bias and social
37
desirability bias, which might lead to a misrepresentation of the level of cyberbullying

encountered by Singapore youths.
Figure 13: Frequency for Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered
H4: The greater the amount of risky Internet behaviours engaged in, the higher the
possibility that one becomes a victim of cyberbullying.
To test the existence of a correlation between youths in Singapore engaging in risky Internet
behaviours and encountering cyberbullying, a chi-square test was performed. With a significant
value of 0.140, the result indicated that there was no correlation present (Appendix H Table 32),
and thus engaging in risky Internet behaviour would not result in a higher possibility of
encountering cyberbullying. This contradicted the findings in the literature review and may be
due to the existence of response bias as the respondents may tend to rate lower values for
cyberbullying behaviours encountered than there actually is. This could be have been caused by
respondents who tried to give the correct answer instead of according to their true experiences.
38
H5: Males exhibit more cyberbullying behaviours and are more likely to be victims of
cyberbullying as compared to females.
An independent t-test was performed to ascertain if male Singapore youths exhibited and were
on the receiving end of cyberbullying behaviours more than female Singapore youths. With
significance levels at 0.033 and 0.022 respectively for cyberbullying behaviours engaged in and
encountered (Appendix H Table 33), it could be proven that male Singapore youths did engage
in and encountered more cyberbullying activities than their female counterparts. The literature
review findings were inconclusive on gender differences in cyberbullying, and the results of this
study went towards showing that gender differences exist in the case of youths in Singapore.
H6: The higher the number of hours spent on the Internet, the higher the possibility of
exhibiting cyberbullying behaviours and being a victim of cyberbullying.
To establish if there was a correlation between the number of hours spent on the Internet and the
possibility of cyberbullying behaviours being exhibited by Singapore youths, a chi-square test
was carried out. The significance value is 0.792 (Appendix H Table 34), and thus it could not
be proven that the more time Singapore youths spent on the Internet, the higher the possibility of
exhibiting cyberbullying activities.
A chi-square test was performed to test if there was a correlation between the number of hours
spent on the Internet and the level of cyberbullying behaviours encountered by Singapore youths.
With a significance value of 0.202 (Appendix H Table 35), the results showed that there was
no significant correlation between the two. Thus, it could not be proven that the more time
Singapore youths spend on the Internet, the higher the possibility of being on the receiving end
of cyberbullying behaviours.
39
4.5
Methods to Deal with Cyberbullying
Looking at how Singapore youths deal with cyberbullying, it was evident that the two most
popular methods of dealing with cyberbullying were prevention and avoidance. As seen from
Figure 14 below, seeking social support appeared to be the least popular method, with a score of
2.78. This result agreed with the findings in the literature review, suggesting that youths in
Singapore were also least likely to approach friends, family members or the authority when faced
with cyberbullying.
Figure 14: Means for Methods used to Deal with Cyberbullying
4.3
4.0922
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.8549
3.5711
Avoidance
3.5
Acceptance
3.3
Social Support
3.1
Prevention
2.9
2.7782
2.7
2.5
H7: Prevention is the most preferred method to deal with cyberbullying incidents.
To establish if there was a strong preference for dealing with cyberbullying through prevention
over avoidance methods, a paired samples t-test was performed. The mean scores for dealing
with cyberbullying through avoidance, acceptance, seeking social support and preventive
methods were 3.85, 3.57, 2.78 and 4.09 respectively. These results indicated that there was a
difference between the means and thus, it could be concluded that youths in Singapore had a
clear preference of using preventive methods to handle cyberbullying (Appendix I Table 36).
40
The results supported previous literature review findings, which stated that youths preferred to
prevent themselves from falling victim to cyberbullying by practicing safe internet usage.
Examples of such practices include being careful with their personal information by not
revealing them to strangers be it through a social website or an online chat.
H8: There is a significant difference between the two age groups (17-25 years old vs 26-34
years old) in regards to the methods employed to deal with cyberbullying incidents.
To see if there was a significant difference in the preferences in methods employed to deal with
cyberbullying between the age groups 17-25 and 26-34, an independent t-test was carried out
(Appendix I Table 37). From the results shown, the significance levels for dealing with
cyberbullying using the different methods were all above 0.05, thus there appeared to be no
significant differences between the two age groups and both age groups in general did not differ
on the different methods employed to deal with cyberbullying.
4.6
Competition, Barriers and Benefits
4.6.1 Barriers
The ability to cyberbully with anonymity had the highest average mean of 4.33 (Figure 15) out
of 5. It was discovered that there was a significant difference between the ability to cyberbully
with anonymity and the lack of knowledge on cyberbullying behaviours, indicating that
respondents felt that the ability to cyberbully with anonymity was the most likely reason that led
to cyberbullying (Appendix J Table 38).
41
Figure 15: Means of Cyberbullying Barriers to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying Behaviours

4.3276
4.4
4.2
4
Not knowing harm

Lack of knowledge
3.8
3.6
Anonymity
3.4300 3.4471
3.4
3.2
4.6.2 Competitive behaviours

Fulfilling egoistical purposes yielded a higher average mean of 3.96 as compared to peer
pressure with a mean of 3.7 (Figure 16). With a significance value of less than 0.05, it could be
inferred that feeling of power and other egoistical feelings was a significantly likely reason to
influence an individual to engage in cyberbullying behaviours (Appendix J Table 39).
Figure 16: Means of Cyberbullying Competitive Behaviours to Adoption of Noncyberbullying Behaviours
4
3.9625
3.95
3.9
Peer pressure
3.85
3.8
3.75
Fulfilling egoistic
purposes
3.7065
3.7
3.65
3.6
4.6.3 Benefits
Out of the five options given for benefits that might motivate an individual to stop cyberbullying,
new technology that may track users, as well as punishments such as fines and social ostracism,
proved to be the top two motivations with average means of 3.95 and 3.84 respectively (Figure
42
17). However, there was no significance difference between them as shown from the paired
sample t-tests (Appendix J Table 40).
Figure 17: Means of Benefits that will Motivate Individuals not to Cyberbully
3.9522
4
3.9
3.8942
Not wanting to be
cyberbullied
Knowing harm to victims
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
New technology to track

users
Performing duty as
member of society
Punishment
3.4846
3.3891
3.2423
3.2
3.1
3
4.7
Social Marketing Strategies
4.7.1 Product
Comparing among these three products, 73.7% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that
counsellors that were trained in dealing with cyberbullying issues would help address
cyberbullying incidents, as compared to 65.9% of the respondents and 52.3% of the respondents
who strongly agreed or agreed that dedicated websites and helplines could help address this
social problem (Appendix K Tables 41-43). A paired sample test revealed with a significance
value of 0.02, respondents preferred having counsellors over a dedicated website as the
campaign product (Appendix K Table 44).
4.7.2 Price
Out of the three social marketing prices, 79.1% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that
punishment in the form of shame from publishing the incident online or in the newspaper would
43
deter an individual from cyberbullying, as opposed to 77.1% for fines and 72.6% for
rehabilitative classes (Appendix K Tables 45-47). However, there was no significant difference
between the choices of fines and punishments as the significance value was above 0.05
(Appendix K Table 48).
4.7.3 Place
Results revealed that help obtained from Internet (online) and at home were the two more
popular places, with 58% and 52.6% respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing to seek
help from online channels such as helplines, websites and forums and at home from their
families members respectively. Only 37.8% and 18.8% chose schools and community centres
(Appendix K Tables 49-52). However, a paired sample test revealed that, there was no
significant differences between seeking help from online channels and at home (Appendix K
Table 53).
4.7.4 Promotions
Personal recount was the most popular strategy with 81.6% of the respondents strongly agreeing
or agreeing that personal recount would be the most effective promotional tool for an anticyberbullying campaign, as compared to 67.2% of the respondents who strongly agreed or
agreed that psychologist opinions was an effective promotional tool (Appendix K Tables 5456). This difference was further supported by the paired sample test (Appendix K Table 57)
which revealed that respondents significantly preferred personal recount of cyberbullying
incidents over psychologist opinions with a significance value of less than 0.05.
For promotional channels, the top three choices by the respondents were social media, followed
by entertainment media and advertising. 86.7% of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed
44
that social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, would be effective in promoting anticyberbullying campaigns, whereas only 78.1% and 75.7% strongly agreed or agreed that
entertainment media, such as movies, and advertising, such as on television and radio were
effective promotional tools (Appendix K Table 58-65). Comparing the top two choices of
social media and entertainment media, a significance value of less than 0.05 was obtained,
indicating that respondents significantly preferred social media over entertainment media
(Appendix K Table 66).
45
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

5.1
Recommendation
Youths in Singapore typically exhibit a low level of cyberbullying behaviours. However, the
results showed that Singaporean youths did exhibit more indirect cyberbullying behaviours than
direct cyberbullying behaviours. Thus, there may be a need for schools and organizations to first
establish what cyberbullying behaviours are, and how they are classified into direct and indirect
cyberbullying before educating youths on such behaviours. Next, they should also emphasize on
the harm that indirect cyberbullying can cause, and how youths can protect themselves from
falling victim to such forms of cyberbullying.
A correlation between Internet competency and engaging in cyberbullying activities also existed
in Singapore youths, which highlights the need for schools and organizations to further carry out
programmes on cyber-wellness, and to provide a holistic approach in the education of youths on
Internet and computer skills.
Preventive methods had also been shown to be the most popular approach youths would take to
deal with cyberbullying. Schools and organizations should then incorporate the education of such
methods, such as the importance of keeping personal information private, as well as
communicating in person, to youths in cyber-wellness programmes. Parents should also be
educated on how to monitor their childrens activities online to ensure a safe Internet
environment for them.
Youths felt that seeking social support when cyberbullied was ineffective, and this may have to
do with the lack of available channels for them to seek help through. They may also feel that
schools and parents may not be able to help them in such cases as there is little that authorities
46
can do to stop cyberbullying, due to the lack of punitive laws against cyberbullying in Singapore.
Furthermore, they may be fearful of making the incident public, which will bring about greater
embarrassment to themselves. Schools should voice out on their stand on cyberbullying, and
convey to students how they can help victims, along with the promise of confidentiality. This
may then encourage youths to have more confidence in seeking help from schools and other
organizations. These organizations should also aim to educate parents on identifying
cyberbullying, and how to help their children if they fall victim to cyberbullying. By doing so, a
strong network of support can be provided for the victims of cyberbullying.
The ability to cyberbully with anonymity had proven to be the barrier that acted as an
impediment to the adoption of non-cyberbullying behaviours. Hence, governmental and nonprofit organizations, schools and relevant stakeholders can potentially reduce cyberbullying
cases by imposing new rules for users to reveal particulars such as real name or school on social
networking sites so as to reduce their anonymity.
Results have also shown that counsellors continued to play a pertinent role in addressing
cyberbullying incidents. On top of the cyber wellness websites and help lines that are currently
available, community centres, non-profit organizations, as well as schools should continue to
train their pool of counsellors to deal with cyberbullying incidents and clearly convey to its
target audience the different ways that they can use to reach these counsellors. Mr. Gilbert Goh
also suggested greater collaboration between authorities and school via forums or community
talks to provide a more integrated strategy to tackle cyberbullying (Appendix B-1).
In addition, personal recount of past cyberbullying incidents by victims was shown to be an
effective anti-cyberbullying campaign message strategy. Hence, such a message strategy is
47
strongly recommended for organizations planning a nation-wide anti-cyberbullying campaign.

However, organizations may have to extensively elaborate the benefits of such campaigns for
victims to be willing to reveal themselves to the public. Alternatively, they can also look into
revealing only victims past experiences of cyberbullying incidents, while withholding their real
identities.
Interestingly, despite the fact that cyberbullying takes place in social media such as Facebook
and Twitter, youths in Singapore still significantly preferred campaigns to be promoted through
social media, possibility due to the high level of penetration of social media among the targeted
being considered, social media should not to be neglected. Singapore Childrens Society can tap
on social media to bring greater awareness to its anti-cyberbullying campaign.
5.2
Limitations of Study
Limitations of this research study included having too small a sample size. Obtaining a sample
size of 294 respondents might not be sufficient for an accurate reflection of the entire target
population, and a larger sample size must be obtained to reflect more accurate trends in the target
population.
As this study utilized non-probability sampling where selection was not based on fairness, equity
or equal chance, the target sample obtained for this research might be a weak representative of
the target population. As snowballing sampling was used to obtain the responses of these
respondents, members of the target audience who were not within the social network would have
a lower probability of being selected.
Moreover, due to the sensitive nature of some of the questions, this might cause response bias, in
which respondents answer questions with a certain slant that might have misrepresented the truth.
48
Also, questions that ask for their attitudes on traditional bullying, might have triggered social
desirability bias, causing respondents to choose options that would allow them to appear socially
desirable at the point of time, which might not be truthful.
49
6. CONCLUSION
This study contributes to the literature on cyberbullying in youths in Singapore by offering
various insights. Firstly, it was discovered that the majority of youths do engage in mostly the
indirect form of cyberbullying, though the level of frequency is low. Secondly, preventive
methods are likely to be adopted by youths if faced with cyberbullying incidents, while social
support is the least likely approach, reflecting a possible lack of confidence in schools and
authorities. Thirdly, this study has achieved insights in possible effective social marketing
strategies that can be used in Singapore. This study has shown that counsellors continue to play
an important in tackling cyberbullying, due to their expertises and skills. Furthermore when
planning and executing an anti-cyberbullying campaign, a personal recount message strategy
through social media as a promotional tool is the most preferred way to reach Singapore youths.
Similar to any research study, this study faces certain limitations such as the usage of nonprobability sampling methods, which lowers the accuracy in the representation of the target
population. Also, response bias and social desirability bias may have occurred due to the
sensitive nature of certain questions.
All in all, information and insights obtained from this research has helped to paint a more holistic
picture of the cyberbullying scene in the Singapore youths. This study can be used as a platform
for further research to be done in the field of cyberbullying in Singapore youths, or Singapore in
general, to assist schools and organizations in understanding and combating cyberbullying, a
phenomenon that will doubtlessly continue to exist with the advent of the Internet age.
50
7. REFERENCES
Bibliography
AFP. (2010). Retrieved 30 June, 2011, from Agency France-Presse:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jrTU4vjRUNs8EclKEvm1ucwPJk
lg
Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing , 13 (1), 108-114.
Bachena, C., Raphaela, C., Lynnb, K.-M., McKeec, K., & Philippid, J. (2008). Civic
Engagement, Pedagogy, and Information Technology on Web Sites for Youth. Political
Communication , Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 290-310.
Baruch, Y. (2005). Bullying on the net: adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Information
& Management .
BBC. (2011). Technology. Retrieved 23 August, 2011, from BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14633427
Cambio, T. (13 May, 2011). Cambio. Retrieved 6 December, 2011, from Emily Osment & Kay
Panabaker Tackle Cyberbullying in New ABC Family Movie:
http://www.cambio.com/news/emily-osment-kay-panabaker-tackle-cyberbullying-in-newabc-family-movie/
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. N. (2009). Sticks and Stones Can Break My Bones, But
How Can Pixels Hurt Me? : Students' Experiences with Cyber-Bullying. School
Psychology International .
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (Third ed.).
Digital Life. (2008). Caught in Web of menace.
DontCyberbully.com. (2010). Retrieved 5 December, 2011, from http://dontcyberbully.com/
Greene, M. B. (2006). Bullying in schools: A plea for measure of human rights. Journal of
Social Issues .
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (1978). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and
Responding to Cyberbullying.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and
Responding to Cyberbullying.
51
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline Consequences of Online Victimization: School
Violence and Delinquency. Journal of School Violence .
Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2008). Cyberbullying: causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of
Educational Administration .
Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, Identity, and Language Use in Teenage Blogs.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol10, Issue 2, Page 00.
Internet Usage Statistics. (2011). Retrieved from Internet World Stats:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia.htm#sg
Karuppiah, V., & Seah, J. (2007). Recognition and Rewards Program for healthier eating
establishment in Singapore.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2008). Social Marketing - Influencing Behaviours for Good. United
States of America: Sage Publications.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic Bullying Among Middle School Students.
Journal of Adolescent Health , S22-S30.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: bulllying in a digital
age.
Lefebvre, C. R. (2011). An integrative model for social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing ,
54-72.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and Technology. Pew Internet & American
Life Project.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in Schools : A Research of Gender Differences. School Psychology
International .
Mintz, J. H., & Theresa, W. (2007). Is Your Family Prepared? Public Safety Canada (20062007).
my paper. (2008). Are you a victim of cyber-bullying?
Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for
Prevalence Studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences .
Nemours. (2009). Cyberbullying. Retrieved 30 June, 2011, from KidsHealth:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/talk/cyberbullying.html
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2011). High School Students' Perceptions of
Coping With Cyberbullying. Youth & Society .
52
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in Traditional and Electronic Bullying
among Adolescents. Developmental Psychology .
Schrock, A., & Boyd, D. (2008). Online Threats to Youth: Solicitation, Harassment, and
Problematic Content.
Singapore Children's Society. (2012). Bully Free Campaign. Retrieved 10 January, 2012, from
Cyberbullying: http://www.bullyfreecampaign.sg/cyber_bullying/index_cyber.php
Singapore Polytechnic. (2011). PRIVACY AND SECURITY ONLINE: DOES IT MATTER TO
YOU(TH).
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology .
The Children's Aid Society. (2009). Melrose Home- The Children's Aid Society. Retrieved 10
January, 2012, from About Children's Aid Society:
http://www.childrensaidsociety.org.sg/cas/contents.php?page=aboutus-main
The New Paper. (2012). Undergrad asks girls to expose themselves for 'film scene'.
The Straits Times. (2009). No plans for cyber-bullying laws.
Vanderbosch, H., & Cleemput, K. V. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of
bullies and victims. new media & society .
Weinreich, N. K. (1999). Hands-On Social Marketing: A Step-by-Step Guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and Predictors of Internet Bullying. Journal
of Adolescent Health .
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a
comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry .
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-occurrence of Internet
harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: Associations
with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health .
53
8. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Email to Request for Interview regarding Cyberbullying
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I hope this email finds you well.
We are a group of final year students from Nanyang Business School, currently embarking on
our final year project on social marketing and the issue of Cyberbullying in Singapore. This
research is supervised by Assoc Prof (Adj.) Gerard Gonzales. After some research, we have
come to know about your organizations dedicated efforts on this social issue.
We wish to have a face-to-face interview with you to know more about this social issue as we
believe that your expert views and understanding on this topic will not only provide valuable
insights for our study but also increase our understanding of Cyberbullying.
Please let me know if I can provide with any other information. My contact information appears
below. We would greatly appreciate it if you could leave us the contact details of the person we
should go to regarding Cyberbullying.
We thank you for taking the time out to read this email and we hope that you will consider our
request positively.
Have a great week ahead and we hope to hear from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Ang Xue Ling
Soh Yiming Anders
so0001rs@e.ntu.edu.sg
Nanyang Technological University
54
Appendix B-1: Email interview with Gilbert Goh, Dontcyberbully.com

Dontcyberbully.com
Email interview with Gilbert Goh, Founder
24 October 2011
1. What made you start the Don't Cyberbully website?
I started Don'tcyberbully.com when I was in Australia. My daughter is schooling here then for
secondary school classes. I realised that there is a lack of materials and a proper educational site
for those who may need help when they are cyber bullied. In Australia, they have a few sites to
assist those who need further information on cyberbullying but of course the issue here is more
serious. People are cyberbullied harshly and one high school boy even took his own life when I
was here.
2. How do you find the cyberbullying scene for Singapore among youths? Is it given the
attention it deserves?
I realised that cyberbullying crimes are seldom publicised in Singapore. Schools provided the
usual educational drill during assembly but if you are being bullied online there is little that you
can do in terms of taking punitive action for the perpetrators. In Australia, the schools, police,
mobile network owners and parents work closely together to ensure that their kids are well
protected against harassment on the Internet and perpetrators are routinely hauled to court for
punishment or counselling. I hope to see this close collaboration among people responsible for
the cyberbullying network here.
3. What did you set out to achieve with the forum?
I hope to provide a platform for those who are cyber bullied to seek information and also online
counselling if possible.
4. Have you been encouraged by the progress you made so far and how has the responses from
the community been?
So far, the response has being rather slow unfortunately. So far, less than ten readers have
emailed us to seek support. Perhaps, there are already some other websites that provide online
support to those who are cyber bullied. There are of course numerous online requests for
interviews like what you have done and schools have being very supportive so far of our venture.
CNA has also invited us last year for a programme on cyberbullying but I couldn't attend as I
was away then. Someone attended on my behalf.
5. Do you think this is an effective way to reach your target audience?
I think cyber bullied people will want to have some support this way as some of them may be
shy. The more vocal one may have already gone to the police to seek help if they are harassed
online. Besides, online support, the authorities/schools can also organise a forum or even a
community talk on how to handle cyber bullying. On my part, I don't have enough resources to
55
do such stuff now. Nevertheless, the last I heard is the police cant do much so the victim has to
bring the person to court using legal means.
Appendix B-2: Email interview with Singapore Childrens Society
Singapore Childrens Society
Email interview with Singapore Childrens Society
21 November 2011
1. Why did SCS embark on this campaign? When did the campaign start and how long was it
carried out for?
A group of counsellors and social workers working in the Project CABIN context observed that
school bullying was (and still is) indeed a common phenomenon among children and youth in
Singapore and beyond. Hence they started conceptualizing ways to raise awareness about this
issue the idea of conducting the Bully-Free Campaign was born then.
It has been carried out in 2004 and is still being carried out today.
2. Was any research done by SCS to better understand the market needs, wants and beliefs prior
to the campaign? If there was, what are the needs, wants and beliefs?
Two research studies on school bullying were conducted to in 2006 and 2007 with secondary and
primary schools respectively to find out the prevalence rates of school bullying in Singapore.
Findings of the surveys revealed that one in four secondary school students and one in five
primary school students were victims of bullying.
You may learn more about the details of the studies from our research monograph titled
Bullying
in
Singapore
Schools,
which
is
downloadable
at http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/services/images/Bullying.pdf.
3. What are the primary and secondary target markets for the cyber bullying campaign?
Our bully-free campaign is focused on general bullying instead of cyber bullying though we do
cover a small aspect of cyber bullying as well. Our current target market is primary schools.
However, we do offer our services to secondary schools as well depending on their needs.
4. What are the objectives of this campaign? What did you wanted to achieve? (reduction of
cyber bullying, prevention of cyber bullying or awareness of cyber bullying?)
The objectives of the bully-free campaign are as follows:
1) To create greater awareness of the incidence of bullying in primary schools
2) To provide a platform for children/youth to discuss bullying and means/ways to deal with it.
5. Did SCS work with other stakeholders on this campaign?
We work with schools and parents on this campaign as we believe that bully-free living is a
collaborative effort between us, the school and families.
56
6. What other activities do SCS carry out regarding cyber bullying?

We do provide training for parents and teachers on cyber bullying as well as assembly talk for
students.
57
Appendix C: Interview Questionnaire for Cyberbully Experts

1. What are some of the recent trends of cyberbullying in Singapore?
2. How severe is the problem of cyberbullying in Singapore? What are some of the
consequences?
3. Can you share with us the typical profile of a typical cyber bully and cyber victim in
Singapore? Do cyber bully and victim tend to know each other?
4. What are some of the technology usage (computer, smart phones etc.) patterns of cyber
bullies and cyber victims in Singapore?
5. What are some of the motivations behind cyberbullying? Which do you think is the most
crucial motivation? Why?
6. What are the common vehicles used for cyberbullying? Which is the most used vehicle? Why?
7. How do the victims respond after being cyberbullied?
8. How are is cyberbullying currently dealt with in Singapore (campaigns etc.)? Do include
examples.
58
Appendix D-1: Pre-test Survey Feedback Questions

1. Was the survey too long?
2. Did you manage to finish it in 10minutes time?
3. Were the options or questions too long? (Please specify which question and option)
4. Were the options or questions difficult to understand? (Please specify which question/option)
5. Any other comments for improvement?
Appendix D-2: Comments and Feedbacks of Pre-test Survey
Specific feedback
Questions
Feedback
Q5. I feel safe disclosing my Others, in this case, were not
passwords to others.
specified clearly. Was it just
friends and families or
including
strangers
and
websites?
Q6. I have no qualms with May need to simplify no
revealing
my
personal qualms.
information that can be viewed
by strangers online.
Q8d. Been insulted on the Comments given were that
Internet.
most of the time when a victim
was insulted or been the target
Q8l. Been the target of gossip of gossip, the victim was in the
through the Internet.
dark. Hence, rephrasing of the
sentence is needed.
Changes made
I feel safe disclosing my
passwords to others.
(Others being anyone
other than yourself)
I do not mind revealing
my personal information
that can be viewed by
strangers online.
Discovered that you
were insulted on the
Internet?
Discovered that you had
been
deliberately
excluded from an online
group?
Seek help from relevant
authorities eg. school,
government
agencies
etc.)
Q9h. Seek help from school Working adults cannot seek

authorities.
help from school authorities.
(Is it true? Working adults
may be allowed to go back to
their alma mater to seek
advice)
Q20. Punishment (eg. fines or Motivate is not a suitable word Punishment (e.g. fines or
ostracism) will motivate an here. Deterrence may be ostracism) will deter an
individual to stop cyberbullying. better.
individual
from
cyberbullying.
Q22. I believe that more How does helplines help in I believe that more
59
cyberbullying incidents will be reducing cyberbullying?

reduced if there are a. helplines
b.websites. c. counsellors.
cyberbullying incidents
will be addressed if there
are:
Other feedback
Grammatical, as well as vocabulary mistakes such as Question 30 where the word Catholic
should be Catholicism and siblings should be sibling(s).
60
Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire

SOCIAL MARKETING STUDY
Dear Participants,
We are a group of final year students from the Nanyang Business School (NBS), Nanyang
Technological University (NTU) conducting a study for our final year project which aims to
better understand Internet and mobile phone behaviour amongst youth in Singapore.
We would greatly appreciate your completing this survey. Your participation is crucial to the
success of this study and the survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We seek
your honesty while completing the survey.
Please be assured that your responses will be held in the strictest confidence.
Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, you can contact the team through:
Anders Soh
50 Nanyang Avenue S(639798)
so0001rs@e.ntu.edu.sg
Thank you in advance for participating in the survey!
Warmest regards,
Amg Xue Ling
Soh Yiming Anders
61
SECTION I
Instruction: Choose the most appropriate answer for each of the following options where 1 =
Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree.
Q1. I am competent in using
a. Cell phones applications (eg. SMS, Whatsapp, etc.)
(Strongly disagree) (Strongly agree)
1
2 3 4
5
b. Online forums (eg. hardwarezone forums, SGforums, cozycot etc)
1
2 3 4
5
c. Instant messaging (eg. MSN, Yahoo, etc.)
1
2 3 4
5
d. Social media (eg. Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
1
2 3 4
5
Q2. On the average, how many hours do you spend on the Internet daily (include time
spent on all communication devices (e.g. mobile phone, tablets) for leisure purposes?)
<2
2-4
5-7
>7
Q3. On the average, I spend __ hours everyday using:

a. Cell phones applications (eg. SMS, Whatsapp, etc.)
0-1
2-3
4-5
>5
b. Online forums
0-1
2-3
4-5
>5
c. Instant messaging (eg. MSN, Yahoo, etc.)
0-1
2-3
62
4-5
>5
e. Social media (eg. Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
0-1
2-3
4-5
>5
Q4. I feel safe chatting with strangers online.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q5. I feel safe disclosing my passwords to others (others being anyone other than
yourselves).
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q6. I do not mind revealing my personal information that can be viewed by strangers
online.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
SECTION II
Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Very often, 5 = Always.
Q7. I disapprove of traditional bullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q8. In the past one year, how often have you,

a. Threatened someone on the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
b. Been threatened on the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
c. Insulted someone on the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
63
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
1
2 3 4
5
Discovered that you were insulted on the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Sent obscene illustrations?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Been sent obscene illustrations?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Deliberately excluded someone from an online group?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Discovered that you were deliberately excluded from an online group?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Masqueraded/Pretended to be someone else online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Been deceived by someone masquerading/pretending to be someone else online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Spread gossip through the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Discovered that you were the target of gossip through the Internet?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Spread gossip through the mobile phone?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Discovered that you were the target of gossip through the mobile phone?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Taken part in voting in a defamatory poll online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
Been the target of a defamatory poll online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
64
q. Disclosed entrusted information that was sent to you in an email/online conversation?

(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
r. Had your entrusted information, that was sent through an email/online conversation,
disclosed?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
s. Disclosed personal/private information of someone (e.g. photos, contact details) online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
t. Had your personal/private information (e.g. photos, contact details) disclosed online?
(Never) (Always)
1
2 3 4
5
SECTION III
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
Cyberbullying is bullying through email, instant messaging, in a chat room, on a website,
or through digital messages or images sent through to a cell phone (Kowalski & Limber,
2007)
Very unlikely, 2 = Likely, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Unlikely and 5 = Very likely.
Q9. If you are cyberbullied, how likely are you to use the following as methods to deal with
cyberbullying?
a. Delete the offending message/email
(Very unlikely) (Very likely)
1
2 3 4 5
b. Stop visiting the website/forum/social networking site
1
2 3 4 5
c. Ignore the incident because cyber bullies are cowards
1
2 3 4 5
d. Ignore the incident because cyberbullying cannot be avoided
1
2 3 4 5
e. Ignore the incident because it is not your fault/problem
1
2 3 4 5
65
f. Retaliating (threaten/insult the other party)

1
2 3 4 5
g. Seek help from your family
1
2 3 4 5
h. Seek help from relevant authorities (eg. school, government agency etc)
1
2 3 4 5
i. Seek help from your friends
1
2 3 4 5
Q10. Do you agree that these methods will be effective in preventing cyberbullying?
Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree.
a. Retaliating (threaten/insult the other party)
1
2 3 4
5
b. Keeping personal information (photos/contact details) private
1
2 3 4
5
c. Not giving out passwords to anyone
1
2 3 4
5
d. Talking face-to-face instead of through the Internet to avoid misunderstandings
1
2 3 4
5
e. Increasing awareness of cyberbullying and its consequences
1
2 3 4
5
SECTION IV
For this section, answer based on your personal opinions as to how much you agree with the
following statements where 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 =
Strongly agree.
Q11. Not knowing the harm cyberbullying has on victims will lead to cyberbullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
66
Q12. The lack of knowledge on cyberbullying behaviours will lead to cyberbullying.

(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q13. The ease of being able to express anger through the Internet or mobile phone will lead
to cyberbullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q14. The ability to cyberbully with anonymity will lead to cyberbullying.

(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q15. Peer pressure will influence an individual to indulge in cyberbullying behaviours.

(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q16. Not wanting to be cyberbullied will motivate an individual to stop cyberbullying.

(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q17. Knowing the harm cyberbullying brings to the victim will motivate an individual to
stop cyberbullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
Q18. New technology that allows the ability to track users will motivate an individual to
stop cyberbullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2
Q19. Performing ones duty as a member of society to help others will motivate an
individual to stop cyberbullying.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2
Q20. Punishment (e.g. fines or ostracism) will deter an individual from cyberbullying.
67

1
2 3 4
5
Q21. Fulfilling egoistic purposes (e.g. feeling powerful) will influence an individual to
indulge in cyberbullying behaviours.
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
SECTION V
For this section, answer based on your personal opinions as to how much you agree with the
following statements where 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5=
Strongly agree.
Q22. I believe that more cyberbullying incidents will be addressed if there are:
a. Helplines
1
2 3 4
5
b. Dedicated websites showing how to deal with/prevent cyberbullying.
1
2 3 4
5
c. Counsellors trained in dealing with cyberbullying
1
2 3 4
5
Q23. I believe the following will deter an individual from cyberbullying:
a. Fines for cyber bullies
1
2 3 4
5
b. Shame from publishing of the incident online or on the newspapers
1
2 3 4
5
c. Compulsory rehabilitation classes
1
2 3 4
5
Q24. If I am cyberbullied, I will most likely seek help in/through the following:
a. Schools
(Strongly disagree)
1
b. Community centres
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
68

1
2 3 4
5
c. Online (eg helplines, websites, forums etc)
1
2 3 4
5
d. Home (eg. family members etc)
1
2 3 4
5
Q25. Anti-cyberbullying campaigns will be most effective when using the following
promotion tools:
a. Personal experience recount of cyber victims
1
2 3 4
5
b. Celebrity endorsement of anti-cyber bullying campaigns
1
2 3 4
5
c. Professional opinion on the harm of cyberbullying on victims from a psychologist
1
2 3 4
5
Q26. Anti-cyberbullying campaigns will be the most effective using the following promotion
channels:
a. Advertising (eg television, radio etc)
1
2 3 4
5
b. Printed materials
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
c. Special promotional items (eg. keychains, water bottles etc)

1
2 3 4
5
d. Signages and display (eg. signboards in computer labs)
1
2 3 4
5
e. Popular entertainment media (eg. movie, songs, video games etc)
69
f. Product placement in movies

1
2 3 4
5
g. Social media (eg. Facebook, Twitter etc)
1
2 3 4
5
h. Websites
(Strongly disagree)
1
(Strongly agree)
2 3 4
5
SECTION VI
Q27. What is your institution of study/work? (please indicate your full time occupation
only)
Junior College
Polytechnic
ITE
University (NUS/NTU/SIM/SIT/SMU/SUTD)
Other private educational institutions
Working
None of the above
Q28. What is your age range?
<17
17-25
26-34
35-43
44-52
>52
Q29. What is your gender?

Male
Female
Q30. What is your race?
Chinese
Malay
70
Indian
Eurasian
Others (please state)
Q31. What is your religion?
Buddhism
Islam
Christianity
Catholicism
Taoism
Hinduism
Sikhism
Judaism
Others (please state)
Q32. What is your monthly personal income/ allowance (in SGD)?
<$1000
$1000 - $1999
$2000 - $2999
$3000 - $3999
$4000 - $4999
More than $5000
Q33. How many sibling(s) do you have?
0
1
2
3
4
>4
Q34. What housing type do you stay in?
Public housing (HDB flats)

Condominium
Townhouses (blend of terrace houses with recreational facilities of condominium)
Landed properties (eg. bungalows, semi-detached houses, terraces etc)
Others
71
Appendix F: Data Cleaning Outputs

Normality Testing
Figure 18: Histogram of Internet and Mobile Phone Competency
Figure 19: Histogram of Risky Internet behaviours
Figure 20: Histogram of Cyberbullying behaviours exhibited
72
Figure 21: Histogram of Cyberbullying behaviours encountered
Figure 22: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Avoidance
Figure 23: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Acceptance
73
Figure 24: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Social Support
Figure 25: Histogram for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention
Figure 26: Histogram for Social Marketing Barriers
74
Figure 27: Histogram for Social Marketing Benefits
Factor Analysis
Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
df
.713
1111.746
78
Sig.
.000
Figure 28: Eigenvalue Screen Plot for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying
75
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix for Methods of Dealing with Cyberbullying

Component
1
Delete the offending message/email
.090
.070
-.109
.822
Stop visiting the website/forum/social networking site
.153
.141
.143
.788
Ignore the incident because cyber bullies are cowards
.855
.059
-.102
.166
Ignore the incident because cyberbullying cannot be avoided
.873
-.063
-.094
.079
Ignore the incident because it is not your fault/problem
.914
.064
-.039
.063
Retaliating (threaten/insult the other party)
-.062
-.312
.121
-.294
Seek help from your family
-.009
.034
.882
-.030
Seek help from relevant authorities (eg. school, government agency etc)
-.050
.123
.821
-.063
Seek help from your friends
-.159
-.034
.759
.047
Keeping personal information (photos/contact details) private
-.013
.694
.017
.270
.086
.773
-.086
.078
-.063
.668
.172
.025
.024
.703
.081
-.013
Not giving out passwords to anyone

Talking in person face-to-face instead of through the internet to avoid
misunderstandings
Increasing awareness of cyberbullying and its consequences
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Reliability Testing
Table 4: Reliability Statistics for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.708
.741
76
Table 5: Item-Total Statistics for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency
I am competent in using the
Scale Mean if Item
Scale Variance if
Corrected Item-
Squared Multiple
Cronbach's Alpha if
Deleted
Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Correlation
Item Deleted
12.26
3.845
.560
.500
.621
13.30
3.271
.367
.169
.767
12.53
3.442
.563
.328
.603
12.40
3.692
.582
.537
.604
following:-Cell phones
applications (eg. SMS,
Whatsapp, etc.)
following:-Online forums (eg.
Hardwarezone, SgForums,
CozyCot, etc.)
following:-Instant messaging (eg.
MSN, Yahoo, etc.)
following:-Social media (eg.
Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
Table 6: Reliability Statistics for Risky Internet Behaviours

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items
.513
N of Items
.516
Table 7: Reliability Statistics for Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.674
N of Items
.693
Table 8: Reliability Statistics for Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.771
.780
77
N of Items
7
Table 9: Reliability Statistics for Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.667
N of Items
.672
Table 10: Reliability Statistics for Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.762
N of Items
.775
Table 11: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Acceptance
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.588
N of Items
.589
Table 12: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Avoidance
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.870
N of Items
.871
Table 13: Reliability Statistic for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Social Support
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.776
.776
78
N of Items
3
Table 14: Reliability Statistics for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.689
N of Items
.697
Table 15: Reliability Statistics for Social Marketing Barriers

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.648
N of Items
.640
Table 16: Item-Total Statistics for Social Marketing Barriers
Not knowing the harm
Scale Mean if Item
Scale Variance if
Corrected Item-
Squared Multiple
Cronbach's Alpha if
Deleted
Item Deleted
Total Correlation
Correlation
Item Deleted
11.75
2.777
.585
.493
.453
11.73
3.045
.508
.474
.520
11.20
3.937
.304
.170
.659
10.85
4.078
.338
.158
.637
cyberbullying has on others will

lead to cyberbullying.
The lack of knowledge on
cyberbullying behaviours will
lead to cyberbullying.
The ease of being able to
express anger through the
Internet or mobile phone leads to
cyberbullying.
The ability to cyberbully with
anonymity will lead to
cyberbullying.
Table 17: Reliability Statistics for Social Marketing Benefits

Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.674
.672
79
N of Items
5
Table 18: Summary of Cronbach's Alphas of Dimensions

Dimensions
Internet and Mobile Phone
Competency
Risky Internet Behaviours
Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours
Exhibited
Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours
Exhibited
Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours
Encountered
Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours
Encountered
Dealing with Cyberbullying using
Acceptance
Avoidance
Social Support
Prevention
Social Marketing Barriers
Social Marketing Benefits
Cronbachs
Alpha
0.708
Cronbachs Alpha based

on Standardized Items
0.767
N of
Items
3
0.513
0.674
0.516
0.693
3
3
0.771
0.780
0.667
0.672
0.762
0.775
0.588
0.589
0.870
0.871
0.776
0.776
0.689
0.697
0.648
0.672
0.659
0.672
3
6
ANOVA Testing
Table 19: ANOVA of Internet Competencies between Religion
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
5.427
.904
Within Groups
100.703
286
.352
Total
106.130
292
80
F
2.569
Sig.
.019
Table 20: Descriptives of Internet Competencies between Religion
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Std.
Std.
Deviation
Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
Maximum
Buddhism
68 4.4608
.52160 .06325
4.3345
4.5870
2.67
5.00
Islam
11 4.6970
.31463 .09486
4.4856
4.9083
4.00
5.00
Christianity
114 4.4240
.63228 .05922
4.3067
4.5413
1.00
5.00
Catholicism
9 4.2593
.49379 .16460
3.8797
4.6388
3.67
5.00
21 4.7937
.32449 .07081
4.6459
4.9414
4.00
5.00
2 4.0000
.47140 .33333
-.2354
8.2354
3.67
4.33
68 4.2990
.69143 .08385
4.1317
4.4664
1.33
5.00
293 4.4323
.60287 .03522
4.3630
4.5016
1.00
5.00
Taoism
Hinduism
Others
Total
Table 21: ANOVA of Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between No. of Siblings
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.285
.457
Within Groups
56.030
287
.195
Total
58.314
292
Sig.
2.341
.042
Table 22: Descriptives of Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between No. of

Siblings
Std.
N
Mean
Deviation Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
Maximum
19
1.3759
.40184
.09219
1.1823
1.5696
1.00
2.29
128
1.4364
.47880
.04232
1.3526
1.5201
1.00
3.86
97
1.3623
.39181
.03978
1.2833
1.4413
1.00
3.14
38
1.3496
.37825
.06136
1.2253
1.4740
1.00
2.29
1.5873
.67175
.22392
1.0709
2.1037
1.00
2.43
>4
2.2857
.60609
.42857
-3.1598
7.7312
1.86
2.71
293
1.4071
.44688
.02611
1.3557
1.4585
1.00
3.86
Total
81
Table 23: ANOVA of Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between Type of Housing
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.924
.731
Within Groups
78.373
288
.272
Total
81.297
292
F
2.686
Sig.
.032
Table 24: Descriptives of Direct Cyberbullying Behaviours Encountered between Type of

Housing
N
Public housing (HDB flats)
Condominium
Townhouses (blend of terrace
Mean
Std.
Std.
Deviation
Error

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
Maximum
221
1.2964
.52152
.03508
1.2272
1.3655
1.00
4.00
39
1.2308
.39480
.06322
1.1028
1.3587
1.00
3.00
1.6250
.47871
.23936
.8633
2.3867
1.00
2.00
23
1.3478
.55257
.11522
1.1089
1.5868
1.00
3.00
1.9167
1.02062
.41667
.8456
2.9877
1.00
3.00
293
1.3089
.52765
.03083
1.2482
1.3695
1.00
4.00
houses with recreational facilities

of condominium)
Landed properties (eg.
bungalows, semi-detached
houses, terraces etc)
Others
Total
82
Appendix G: Internet and Mobile Usage and Competency

Table 25: Frequency for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.00
.3
.3
.3
1.33
.3
.3
.7
2.67
1.0
1.0
1.7
3.00
1.4
1.4
3.1
3.33
2.0
2.0
5.1
3.67
15
5.1
5.1
10.2
4.00
75
25.6
25.6
35.8
4.33
34
11.6
11.6
47.4
4.67
48
16.4
16.4
63.8
5.00
106
36.2
36.2
100.0
Total
293
100.0
100.0
Table 26: Frequency for Hours Spent on Internet Daily

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
23
7.8
7.8
7.8
2-4
116
39.6
39.6
47.4
5-7
83
28.3
28.3
75.8
>7
71
24.2
24.2
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Total
83
Table 27: Frequency for Risky Internet Behaviours

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.00
33
11.3
11.3
11.3
1.33
39
13.3
13.3
24.6
1.67
51
17.4
17.4
42.0
2.00
57
19.5
19.5
61.4
2.33
44
15.0
15.0
76.5
2.67
33
11.3
11.3
87.7
3.00
22
7.5
7.5
95.2
3.33
10
3.4
3.4
98.6
3.67
.7
.7
99.3
4.00
.7
.7
100.0
Total
293
100.0
100.0
84
Appendix H: Cyberbullying Behaviours

Table 28: Frequency for Disapproval of Traditional Bullying
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
2.4
2.4
2.4
Disagree
.7
.7
3.1
Neither Agree nor Disagree
12
4.1
4.1
7.2
Agree
99
33.8
33.8
41.0
Strongly Agree
173
59.0
59.0
100.0
Total
293
100.0
100.0
Table 29: Chi-Square Test for Correlation between Disapproving Traditional Bullying and
Cyberbullying and Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
df
sided)
93.853a
84
.217
64.065
84
.948
1.097
.295
N of Valid Cases
293
a. 92 cells (83.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .01.
Table 30: Chi-Square Test for Correlation between Internet Competency and Cyberbullying
Behaviours Exhibited
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
df
sided)
258.071a
189
.001
125.359
189
1.000
.014
.905
N of Valid Cases
293
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
85
Table 31: Paired Samples Test for Direct and Indirect Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
Pair 1
Direct cyberbullying
-.22217
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.48979
.02861
Sig.
the Difference
Lower
(2-
Upper
-.27848
-.16585
-7.764
df
292
tailed)
.000
behaviours exhibited Indirect cyberbullying

behaviours exhibited
Table 32: Chi-square Test for Correlation between Risky Internet Behaviours and Cyberbullying
Behaviours Encountered
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
df
sided)
191.086a
171
.140
134.608
171
.982
9.341
.002
N of Valid Cases
293
86
Table 33: Independent Samples Test for Cyberbullying Behaviours Exhibited and Encountered
by Males and Females
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
F
Cyberbullying
Equal variances
behaviours
assumed
exhibited
12.876
Sig.
.000
Equal variances
df
2.139
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Difference
Lower
Upper
291
.033
.11267
.05268
.00899
.21634
2.117 251.623
.035
.11267
.05323
.00784
.21749
2.311
291
.022
.11318
.04897
.01679
.20956
2.286 249.873
.023
.11318
.04950
.01568
.21067
not assumed
Cyberbullying
Equal variances
behaviours
assumed
encountered
17.092
.000
Equal variances
not assumed
Cyberbullying Behaviours exhibited
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
df
sided)
53.707a
63
.792
59.267
63
.610
5.375
.020
293
a. 68 cells (77.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .08.
87
Cyberbullying Behaviours encountered
Asymp. Sig. (2Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
df
sided)
65.665a
57
.202
68.460
57
.142
4.807
.028
293
a. 59 cells (73.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .08.
88
Appendix I: Methods to Deal with Cyberbullying

Table 36: Paired Samples Test for Dealing with Cyberbullying using Prevention and using
Avoidance
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval
Mean
Pair 1
Dealing with cyberbullying using
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.23720
.96517
.05639
of the Difference
Lower
Sig. (2-
Upper
.12623
.34818
df
4.207
tailed)
292
.000
prevention - Dealing with

cyberbullying using avoidance
Table 37: Independent Samples Test for Differences in Methods to Dealing with Cyberbullying
between the Age Groups 17-25 and 26-34
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-
F
Dealing with cyberbullying Equal variances assumed
using avoidance
.261
Sig.
.610
Equal variances not
t
-.582
df
tailed)
Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference
of the Difference
Lower
Upper
291
.561
-.09755
.16764
-.42750
.23240
-.586 42.334
.561
-.09755
.16635
-.43318
.23809
291
.155
-.24120
.16930
-.57441
.09201
-1.504 43.592
.140
-.24120
.16042
-.56458
.08219
291
.930
.01522
.17407
-.32739
.35782
.089 42.706
.929
.01522
.17028
-.32825
.35869
.407
291
.684
.04602
.11314
-.17665
.26869
.292 36.661
.772
.04602
.15771
-.27364
.36567
assumed
using acceptance
.671
.414 -1.425
Equal variances not

assumed

using social support
.520
.471
Equal variances not
.087
assumed
using prevention
Equal variances not
5.423
.021
assumed
89
Appendix J: Social Marketing Barriers

Table 38: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Cyberbullying Barriers
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1
The ability to cyberbully with
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.881
1.025
of the Difference
Lower
.060
Sig. (2-
Upper
.763
.998
df
14.704
tailed)
292
.000
anonymity will lead to

cyberbullying. - The lack of
knowledge on cyberbullying
behaviours will lead to
cyberbullying.
Table 39: Paired Samples Test for Competitive Behaviours to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying
Behaviours
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1
Fulfilling egoistic purposes (eg.
.256
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.982
feeling powerful) will influence an

individual to indulge in cyber... Peer pressure will influence an
individual to indulge in cyberbullying
behaviours.
90
.057
of the Difference
Lower
.143
Upper
.369
Sig. (2t
4.460
df
292
tailed)
.000
Table 40: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Benefits that will Motivate Individuals not to
Cyberbully
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1
New technology that allows the
.058
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.910
ability to track users will motivate an

individual to stop cyberbully... Punishment (eg. fines or ostracism)
will deter an individual from
cyberbullying.
91
.053
of the Difference
Lower
-.047
Upper
.163
Sig. (2t
1.091
df
292
tailed)
.276
Appendix K: Social Marketing Strategies

Figure 29: Means of Social Marketing Products
3.8
3.7577
3.7
3.6246
Helplines
3.6
Dedicated
Websites
3.5
3.4
3.3823
Counsellors
3.3
3.2
Table 41: Frequency for Helplines

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
2.7
2.7
2.7
Disagree
41
14.0
14.0
16.7
91
31.1
31.1
47.8
137
46.8
46.8
94.5
16
5.5
5.5
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 42: Frequency for Dedicated Websites

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
Disagree
26
8.9
8.9
10.9
68
23.2
23.2
34.1
165
56.3
56.3
90.4
28
9.6
9.6
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
92
Table 43: Frequency for Counsellors

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
Disagree
16
5.5
5.5
7.5
55
18.8
18.8
26.3
182
62.1
62.1
88.4
34
11.6
11.6
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 44: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Products
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1 I believe cyberbullying incidents will
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.133
.740
of the Difference
Lower
.043
Upper
.048
be addressed if there are:Counsellors trained in dealing with

cyberbullying - I believe cyberbullying
incidents will be addressed if there
are:-Dedicated websites showing how
to deal with/prevent cyberbullying
Figure 30: Means of Social Marketing Prices

4.05
4.0137
4
3.95
Fines
Punishment
3.9147
3.9
3.85
3.8430
3.8
93
Rehabilitation
classes
.218
Sig. (2t
3.080
df
292
tailed)
.002
Table 45: Frequency for Fines

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.0
1.0
1.0
Disagree
28
9.6
9.6
10.6
36
12.3
12.3
22.9
150
51.2
51.2
74.1
76
25.9
25.9
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 46: Frequency for Shame

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Strongly Disagree
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
.7
.7
.7
Disagree
24
8.2
8.2
8.9
35
11.9
11.9
20.8
139
47.4
47.4
68.3
93
31.7
31.7
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 47: Frequency for Rehabilitation Classes

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
.7
.7
.7
Disagree
21
7.2
7.2
7.8
59
20.1
20.1
28.0
150
51.2
51.2
79.2
61
20.8
20.8
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
94
Table 48: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Prices
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1
I believe the following will deter an
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.099
.937
.055
of the Difference
Lower
Sig. (2-
Upper
-.009
.207
df
1.809
individual from cyberbullying:-Shame

from publishing of the incident online
or on the newspapers - I believe the
following will deter an individual from
cyberbullying:-Fines for cyber bullies
Figure 31: Means of Social Marketing Places

3.8
3.5358
3.6
Schools
3.4130
3.4
3.2
Community
centres
3.0887
Online
2.8
2.5768
2.6
Home
2.4
2.2
Table 49: Frequency of Schools

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
33
11.3
11.3
11.3
Disagree
61
20.8
20.8
32.1
88
30.0
30.0
62.1
Agree
69
23.5
23.5
85.7
Strongly Agree
42
14.3
14.3
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Total
95
292
tailed)
.071
Table 50: Frequency of Community Centres

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
52
17.7
17.7
17.7
Disagree
97
33.1
33.1
50.9
89
30.4
30.4
81.2
Agree
33
11.3
11.3
92.5
Strongly Agree
22
7.5
7.5
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 51: Frequency of Online Channels

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
17
5.8
5.8
5.8
Disagree
36
12.3
12.3
18.1
70
23.9
23.9
42.0
113
38.6
38.6
80.5
57
19.5
19.5
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 52: Frequency of Home

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
28
9.6
9.6
9.6
Disagree
40
13.7
13.7
23.2
71
24.2
24.2
47.4
Agree
91
31.1
31.1
78.5
Strongly Agree
63
21.5
21.5
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Total
96
Table 53: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Places
Paired Differences
Std.
Mean
Pair 1 If I am cyberbullied, I will most likely
.123
Deviatio
Std. Error
Mean
1.392
of the Difference
Lower
.081
Sig. (2-
Upper
-.037
.283
t
1.511
df
292
seek help in/through the following:Online (eg. helplines, websites,

forums, etc.) - If I am cyberbullied, I
will most likely seek help in/through
the following:-Home
Figure 32: Means of Social Marketing Promotion Tools

4
3.9181
3.9
3.8
Personal
recount
3.6860
3.7
Celebrity
endorsement
3.6
3.5
3.4061
Psychologist
opinion
3.4
3.3
3.2
Table 54: Frequency of Personal Recount of Cyberbullying Victims

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.7
1.7
1.7
Disagree
11
3.8
3.8
5.5
38
13.0
13.0
18.4
188
64.2
64.2
82.6
51
17.4
17.4
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
97
tailed)
.132
Table 55: Frequency of Celebrity Endorsement

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
12
4.1
4.1
4.1
Disagree
43
14.7
14.7
18.8
79
27.0
27.0
45.7
132
45.1
45.1
90.8
27
9.2
9.2
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 56: Frequency of Professional Opinion of Psychologist

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.4
1.4
1.4
Disagree
24
8.2
8.2
9.6
68
23.2
23.2
32.8
161
54.9
54.9
87.7
36
12.3
12.3
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
98
Table 57: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Promotional Tools
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1 Anti-cyberbullying campaigns will be most
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.232
.929
.054
of the Difference
Lower
Sig. (2-
Upper
.125
.339
t
4.274
df
292
effective using the following promotion

tools:-Personal recount of experiences of
cyber victims - Anti-cyberbullying
campaigns will be most effective using the
following promotion tools:-Professional
opinion on the harm of cyberbullying on
victims from a psychologist
Figure 33: Means of Social Marketing Promotion Channels

4.7
4.1399
4.2
Printed materials
3.9283
3.8055
3.7
3.7884
3.5119
3.3652
Adevertising
Special promotional items

Signages & display
3.2969
Entertainment media
3.2
Product placement in movies
2.9010
Social media
2.7
Websites
2.2
99
tailed)
.000
Table 58: Frequency of Advertising

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
Disagree
16
5.5
5.5
7.5
49
16.7
16.7
24.2
180
61.4
61.4
85.7
42
14.3
14.3
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 59: Frequency of Printed Materials

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
13
4.4
4.4
4.4
Disagree
43
14.7
14.7
19.1
81
27.6
27.6
46.8
136
46.4
46.4
93.2
20
6.8
6.8
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 60: Frequency of Special Promotion Items

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
23
7.8
7.8
7.8
Disagree
83
28.3
28.3
36.2
99
33.8
33.8
70.0
Agree
76
25.9
25.9
95.9
Strongly Agree
12
4.1
4.1
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Total
100
Table 61: Frequency of Signboards

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
17
5.8
5.8
5.8
Disagree
43
14.7
14.7
20.5
86
29.4
29.4
49.8
130
44.4
44.4
94.2
17
5.8
5.8
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 62: Frequency of Popular Entertainment Media

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.7
1.7
1.7
Disagree
13
4.4
4.4
6.1
46
15.7
15.7
21.8
163
55.6
55.6
77.5
66
22.5
22.5
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 63: Frequency of Product Placement in Movies

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
3.1
3.1
3.1
Disagree
33
11.3
11.3
14.3
81
27.6
27.6
42.0
139
47.4
47.4
89.4
31
10.6
10.6
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
101
Table 64: Frequency of Social Media

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Disagree
1.0
1.0
1.0
Disagree
2.7
2.7
3.8
28
9.6
9.6
13.3
160
54.6
54.6
67.9
94
32.1
32.1
100.0
293
100.0
100.0

Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Table 65: Frequency of Websites

Frequency
Valid
Strongly Disagree
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1.4
1.4
1.4
Disagree
11
3.8
3.8
5.1
72
24.6
24.6
29.7
162
55.3
55.3
85.0
44
15.0
15.0
100.0
293
100.0
100.0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
102
Table 66: Paired Samples Test for Top Two Social Marketing Promotion Channels
Paired Differences
Mean
Pair 1
Anti-cyberbullying campaigns will be
.212
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
.765
most effective through the following

promotion channels:-Social media (eg.
Facebook, Twitter etc.) - Anticyberbullying campaigns will be most
effective through the following
promotion channels:-Popular
entertainment media (eg. movie,
songs, video games etc.)
103
.045
of the Difference
Lower
.124
Sig. (2-
Upper
.300
t
4.735
df
292
tailed)
.000

An Answer For Cyberbullying in Singapore PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

An Answer For Cyberbullying in Singapore PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Group No: 5116

Nanyang Business School

Koh Peck Hoon Cecilia

Soh Yiming Anders

Academic Year 2011/2012

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Social Marketing .......................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Data Collection Instrument ......................................................................................... 22

3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 27

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 29

4.5 Methods to Deal with Cyberbullying.......................................................................... 40

4.7 Social Marketing Strategies......................................................................................... 43

RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................. 46

Appendix B-1: Email interview with Gilbert Goh, Dontcyberbully.com ...................... 55

List of Charts, Tables and Figures

Table 17: Reliability Statistics for Social Marketing Benefits ..................................................... 79

Table 43: Frequency for Counsellors ............................................................................................ 93

Figure 16: Means of Cyberbullying Competitive Behaviours to Adoption of Non-cyberbullying

Scope and Limitation

Source: Sage, New Media & Society (2009)

2.1.2 Gender Differences in Perpetrators and Victims of Cyberbullying

Source: Sage, Youth & Society (2011)

Figure 2: Transactional Model Adaptive for Preventive Coping

Source: Sage, Youth & Society (2011)

Source: Journal of Social Marketing Vol. 1 No.1 (2011)

Data Collection Method

3.3.1 Exploratory research

The process that applies commercial marketing principles and techniques to

Applications on a phone that allow for communication between users of that

Examples include: Being threatened or insulted online or through the mobile

phone, as well as being sent obscene illustrations.

Singapore youths exhibit more indirect cyberbullying behaviours than direct

Prevention is the most preferred method to deal with cyberbullying incidents.

3.3.4 Pre-test Survey

Data Collection Instrument

Descriptions and explanations

A cover letter was presented to the respondents before the

Respondents were requested to indicate how competent they

online forums, instant messaging and social media and their

The respondents first had to respond with their attitude to

Cyberbullying Self-identification traditional bullying before various common examples of

cyberbullying are listed. They were asked if they had

Very Often, Always) was adopted to self-identify the

The respondents faced questions soliciting their responses

preventing on how they cope with cyberbullying based on a 5-point

Likert scale (1= Very Unlikely; 5=Very Likely). Several

The respondents were queried on attitudes and actions

and which could pose as competition or barriers to the adoption

Questions were posed to the respondents to investigate how

Social Marketing Strategies

receptive they are to the four Ps of social marketing

(1= Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) was employed to

Respondents were asked about their particulars to profile

them according to their current occupation, age range,

3.5.1 Target Audience

Figure 4: Sample Size Formula

Source: Archives of Orofacial Sciences (2006)

4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Figure 6: Breakdown of Occupation of Respondents

Internet and Mobile Usage and Competency

Figure 7: Frequency for Internet and Mobile Phone Competency

4.4.1 Traditional bullying

Exclude someone from group