Examination of the Relationship between Cyberbullying and Cyber Victimization

Abstract

Behaviors which are conducted via information technologies, which are irritating, and which cause psychological strain for the individuals are categorized as cyberbullying (CB). Cyber victimization (CV), on the other hand, expresses exposure to CB behaviors. In this study, we utilize General Strain Theory (GST) as the theoretical basis to examine the relationship between CB and exposure to CV among university students. GST explains that individuals may display aberrant behaviors in order to alleviate psychological strains and the negative emotions they experience. Accordingly, individuals who experienced CV may display CB when the conditions are suitable. With that in mind, we examined the relationship between CB and CV using a relational screening model with participation of 3302 university students. We found, consistent with the literature, a direct relationship between CB and CV in all models. However, it was determined that their mediating effects are not meaningful when the variables of metacognitive and digital data security awareness (DDSA) are added to the model separately. When these two variables are added to the model together as the mediator at the same time, DDSA negatively mediates the relation between CB and CV. Including various activities aiming to develop DDSA within intervention programs for CB and CV, may improve positive outcomes for participants.

Highlights

  • There is a significant relationship between CB and CV.

  • The borders between CB and CV are unclear and have a transitive structure.

  • Metacognitive awareness and DDSA are together effective as the mediator variable on CB and CV.

  • In this study, developing two new dimensions (metacognitive awareness and DDSA) will have significant contributions for the intervention programs on CB and CV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime And Delinquency, 38(4), 319–361.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ak, Ş., Özdemir, Y., & Kuzucu, Y. (2015). Cybervictimization and cyberbullying: the mediating role of anger, don’t anger me! Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 437–443.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Akbulut, Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish university students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1155–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Akbulut, Y., Sahin, Y. L., & Eristi, B. (2010). Cyberbullying victimization among Turkish online social utility members. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 192–201.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arıcak, O. T., Kınay, H., & Tanrıkulu, T. (2012). Siber zorbalık ölçeğinin ilk psikometrik bulguları. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arıcak, O. T., Tanrıkulu, T., & Kınay, H. (2012). Siber mağduriyet ölçeğinin ilk psikometrik bulgulari. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2015). “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 36–51.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ballard, M. E., & Welch, K. M. (2017). Virtual warfare: cyberbullying and cyber victimization in MMOG play. Games and Culture, 12(5), 466–491.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (9. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cartwright-Hatton, S., & Wells, A. (1997). Beliefs about worry and intrusions: the Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire and its correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11(3), 279–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Casas, J. A., Rey, D. R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 580–587.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cho, Y. K., & Yoo, J. W. (2017). Cyberbullying, internet and SNS usage types, and perceived social support: a comparison of different age groups. Information, Communication & Society, 20(10), 1464–1481.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Hartman, J. L., Turner, M. G., & Agnew, R. (2008). Gender, bullying victimization, and juvenile delinquency: a test of general strain theory. Victims and Offenders, 3(4), 346–364.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Nichols, R., & Storch, E. A. (2009). Differences between peer victimization in cyber and physical settings and associated psychosocial adjustment in early adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 46(10), 962–972.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dilci, T., & Kaya, S. (2012). Examination of metacognitive awareness levels of class teachers teaching 4th and 5th grades in terms of various variables. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 27, 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Durak, H. ve Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Siber zorbalık: Eski bir toplumsal sorunla ilgili yeni tanımlamalar, bakışlar, değerlendirmeler. A. G. Baran & M. Çakır (Ed.), in İnter-disipliner yaklaşımla gençliğin umudu toplumun beklentileri (p. 167–187). Hacettepe University Publication, Ankara, Turkey.

  19. Erdur-Baker, O., & Kavsut, F. (2007). Cyber bullying: a new face of peer bullying. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 7(27), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Frisen, A., Berne, S., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Katzer, C., Erentaite, R., & Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Measurement issues: A systematic review of cyberbullying instruments. In Cyberbullying through the New Media: Findings from an International Network (pp. 37–62). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799079.

  22. Glassner, S. D., & Cho, S. (2018). Bullying victimization, negative emotions, and substance use: Utilizing general strain theory to examine the undesirable outcomes of childhood bullying victimization in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(9), 1232–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2010). Definition and measurement of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(2). Article 1. Retrieved from https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4235.

  24. Hajloo, N., Sadeghi, H., Nadinloei, K. B., & Habibi, Z. (2014). The role of meta-cognition in students’ addiction potential tendency. International journal of high risk behaviors & addiction, 3, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hay, C., Meldrum, R., & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and deviance: a general strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(2), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986209359557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian secondary school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(1), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hood, M., & Duffy, A. L. (2018). Understanding the relationship between cyber-victimisation and cyber-bullying on Social Network Sites: the role of moderating factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Horner, S., Asher, Y., & Fireman, G. D. (2015). The impact and response to electronic bullying and traditional bullying among adolescents. Computers in human behavior, 49, 288–295.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of general strain theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Karasar, N. (2005). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.

  33. Kim, D. H., Lee, J. M., Cho, S., Peguero, A. A., & Misuraca, J. A. (2019). From bullying victimization to delinquency in South Korean adolescents: exploring the pathways using a nationally representative sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 305–311.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37(3), 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ladd, G. W., Ettekal, I., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2017). Peer victimization trajectories from kindergarten through high school: differential pathways for children’s school engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 826.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face of bullying: an empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 226–232.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Leung, A. N. M., Wong, N., & Farver, J. M. (2018). Cyberbullying in Hong Kong Chinese students: life satisfaction, and the moderating role of friendship qualities on cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lianos, H., & McGrath, A. (2018). Can the general theory of crime and general strain theory explain cyberbullying perpetration? Crime & Delinquency, 64(5), 674–700.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: victims, bullies and bully–victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Moon, B., Hwang, H., & McCluskey, J. D. (2011). Causes of school bullying: empirical test of general theory of crime, differential association, general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 6(57), 849–877.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Navarro, R., Serna, C., Martínez, V., & Ruiz-Oliva, R. (2013). The role of Internet use and parental mediation on cyberbullying victimization among Spanish children from rural public schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 725–745.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Olweus, D. (1993). Acoso escolar, “bullying”, en las escuelas: hechos e intervenciones. Centro de investigación para la Promoción de la Salud, Universidad de Bergen, Noruega, 2. 1–23.

  46. Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Paez, G. R. (2016). Cyberbullying among adolescents: a general strain theory perspective. Journal of school violence, 17(1), 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: a test of general strain theory. Youth and Society, 43(2), 727–751.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 699–725.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pieschl, S., & Moll, R. (2016). For they know not what they do? Target memory and metacognitive monitoring of self-disclosures on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Puhakainen P. (2006). A design theory for information security awareness. PhD thesis, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.

  52. Radliff, K. M., Wheaton, J. E., Robinson, K., & Morris, J. (2012). Illuminating the relationship between bullying and substance use among middle and high school youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 569–572.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Saban, A. İ., & Saban, A. (2008). An investigation of elementary school teaching department students’ metacognition awareness and motivation in terms of some socio-demographic variables [In Turkish]. Ege Education Journal, 9(1), 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sam, D. L., Bruce, D., Agyemang, C. B., Amponsah, B., & Arkorful, H. (2019). Cyberbullying victimization among high school and university students in Ghana. Deviant Behavior, 40(11), 1305–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers Education, 62, 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schmidt, A. H. (2004). Building a mosaic of security for a better world. Security Matters, Aspatore Books, USA, 24–26.

  57. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Seferoğlu, S. S., Yıldız-Durak, H., Karaoğlan-Yılmaz, F. G., & Yılmaz, R. (2018). Bilgi güvenliği farkındalığı ve bilgi güvenliği politikalarıyla ilgili bir inceleme. In: B. Akkoyunlu, A. İşman & H. F. Odabaşı (Eds). Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları 2018, (3. Bölüm, ss. 29–43). Adapazarı: TOJET ve Sakarya Üniversitesi.

  60. Sengupta, A., & Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Are social networking sites a source of online harassment for teens? Evidence from survey data. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 284–290.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. Canada: Routledge.

  62. Spada, M. M., Langston, B., Nikčević, A. V., & Moneta, G. B. (2008). The role of metacognitions in problematic internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2325–2335.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Srabsteina, J. C., & Leventhalb, B. L. (2010). Prevention of bullying-related morbidity and mortality: a call for public health policies. Bull World Health Organ, 88, 403.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. 6th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Toneatto, T. (1999). Cognitive psychopathology of problem gambling. Substance Use & Misuse, 34(11), 1593–1604.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tosun, A., & Irak, M. (2008). Üstbiliş Ölçeği-30’un Türkçe uyarlaması, geçerliği, güvenirliği, kaygı ve obsesif-kompülsif belirtilerle İlişkisi. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 19(1), 67–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Tsohou, A., Kokolakis, S., Karyda, M., & Kiountouzis, E. (2008). Investigating information security awareness: research and practice gaps. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 17(5-6), 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., & Schellens, T. (2011). Long-term study of safe Internet use of young children. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1292–1305.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wang, Z., David, P., Srivastava, J., Powers, S., Brady, C., D’Angelo, J., & Moreland, J. (2012). Behavioral performance and visual attention in communication multitasking: a comparison between instant messaging and online voice chat. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 968–975.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Willard, N. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. http://bcloud.marinschools.org/SafeSchools/Documents/BP-CyberBandT.pdf.

  73. Yıldız Durak, H. (2019a). Cyber human values displayed by university students in online social networking sites: the relationship of cyber human values to cyberbullying and cyber victimization behaviors displayed. 13th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference- INTED 2019. Valencia, Spain, 11–13 March 2019.

  74. Yıldız Durak, H. (2019b). Human factors and cybersecurity in online game addiction: an analysis of the relationship between high school students’ online game addiction and the state of providing personal cyber security and representing cyber human values in online games. Social Science Quarterly, 100(6), 1984–1998.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Yılmaz, E., Şahin, Y. L., & Akbulut, Y. (2015). Dijital Veri Güvenliği Farkındalığı Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 6(21), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Yılmaz, E., Şahin, Y. L., & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Digital data security awareness of teachers. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 26–45.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Zych, I., Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Llorent, V. J. (2019). Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatice Yildiz Durak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

In this study, it has been complied with ethical principles. Ethics committee approval was obtained for the study. Bartın University ethical committee approval information (committee name = Bartın Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Kurulu (Bartın University Social and Humanities Ethics Committee), number = 2020-SBB-0112).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yildiz Durak, H., Saritepeci, M. Examination of the Relationship between Cyberbullying and Cyber Victimization. J Child Fam Stud (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01768-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cyberbullying
  • Cyber victimization
  • Digital data security awareness
  • Metacognitive awareness
  • University students