Relevant Dimensions of Cyberbullying

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
Relevant dimensions of cyberbullying Results from two experimental studies

Stephanie Pieschl , Torsten Porsch 1, Tobias Kahl 2, Rahel Klockenbusch 3
Institut fr Psychologie, Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt Mnster, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149 Mnster, Germany
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 September 2012
Received in revised form 22 March 2013
Accepted 15 April 2013
Available online 30 May 2013
Keywords:
Cyberbullying
Experiment
Power imbalance
Media
Vignettes
a b s t r a c t
Cyberbullying is a prevalent problem of adolescents. However, several conceptual and measurement questions, regarding its dening characteristics and relevant dimensions in comparison to conventional bullying,
remain unanswered. To this end we conducted two studies with experimental methods. Study I shows that
power imbalance in terms of perceived popularity is relevant for the affective, cognitive, and behavioral experience of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying by a popular bully is more distressing than cyberbullying by an unpopular bully. Study II shows that factors unique to cyberbullying are also relevant for the experience of
cyberbullying, namely the media and the type of cyberbullying. For example, different types of cyberbullying
are related to different patterns of relevant coping strategies. Therefore, cyberbullying seems both a unique
phenomenon and closely related to conventional bullying.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that cyberbullying has become an important cross-national phenomenon with an estimated
prevalence between 20 and 40% among adolescents (Tokunaga,
2010). In Germany, empirical studies have found cyber-victim prevalence to be between 3 and 36% and cyber-perpetrator prevalence between 5 and 42% (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009a,b; Pieschl
& Porsch, 2012; Riebel, Jger, & Fischer, 2009; Schultze-Krumbholz &
Scheithauer, 2009; Staude-Mller, Bliesener, & Nowak, 2009; Wachs
& Wolf, 2011). A similar variance can be found internationally. Part
of this variance between the ndings can be attributed to methodology (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009): Self-reported prevalence is generally lower if adolescents have to report their experience regarding a
short period of time (vs. their lifetime) and if it is measured with a
single item directly referring to cyberbullying (vs. multiple behavioral
items).
However, we argue that this apparent methodological problem is
confounded with and based on a deeper conceptual problem. The adequate conceptualization and denition of cyberbullying are still
highly discussed because the exact composition of the construct of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 2518331386; fax: +49 2518339105.
E-mail addresses: pieschl@uni-muenster.de (S. Pieschl), t.porsch@uni-muenster.de
(T. Porsch), kahl@uni-bielefeld.de (T. Kahl), rahel.klockenbusch@uni-muenster.de
(R. Klockenbusch).
1
Now at the LAFP (Landesamt fr Ausbildung, Fortbildung und Personalangelegenheiten
[Federal Bureau of Education and Human Resources]) of the Police in North-Rheine
Westphalia, Germany.
2
Now a student at the Faculty of Psychology, Universitt Bielefeld, Germany.
3
Now a student at Institut fr Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitt Freiburg,
Germany.
0193-3973/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.002
cyberbullying is still an uncharted territory. One way to approach

this problem is to explore which dening characteristics and additional
dimensions are relevant for the experience of cyberbullying. In this
paper we propose that experimental research could contribute valuable
insights into these questions. We think that a denition of cyberbullying
has to be based on empirical results as well as on a theoretical foundation. Therefore, we are reporting two exemplary studies to our knowledge the rst experimental studies to be published about cyberbullying
that explore the following conceptual issues: Are mandatory dening
characteristics of conventional bullying also relevant for the experience
of cyberbullying, specically power imbalance in terms of perceived popularity (Study I)? Are further cyber-specic dimensions relevant for the
experience of cyberbullying, specically different types and media of
cyberbullying (Study II)?
Dening characteristics of bullying The example of power imbalance
Conventional bullying is dened as an intentional aggressive act carried out by a group or an individual repeatedly and over time against a
victim who cannot easily defend him or herself (Olweus, 1996). Therefore, the three dening characteristics intention to harm, repetition, and
power imbalance are central to conventional bullying because they set
bullying apart from, for example, rough-and-tumble play, ghts between friends, or singular acts of peer aggression. If this denition is
transferred into cyberspace, we have to dene cyberbullying as bullying
via electronic communication tools (Li, 2006, p. 158) including the dening characteristics of intention to harm, repetition, and power imbalance (cf. traditional denitions of cyberbullying, for example Smith et
al., 2008).
242
S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252
One consideration in favor of this equalization is one of the most

replicated ndings in cyberbullying research, which suggests that the
same adolescents are frequently involved in both conventional bullying
and cyberbullying (Dempsey, Sulkowski, Dempsey, & Storch, 2011;
Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Li,
2007; Riebel et al., 2009; Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009;
Wachs & Wolf, 2011). In Germany, Katzer and colleagues found a correlation of .55 between victims of conventional bullying and victims of
cyberbullying (Katzer et al., 2009b) and a correlation of .59 between
perpetrators of conventional bullying and perpetrators of cyberbullying
(Katzer et al., 2009b), indicating a signicant overlap between conventional and cyberbullying.
Another consideration in favor of equating conventional bullying
and cyberbullying is that some risk factors are the same for both
kinds of bullying. Most of these risk factors are unspecic; an existent
risk factor does not necessarily predict the specic behavior of
cyberbullying. For example, cyber-victims report more personal problems, more peer relationship problems, more family-related problems,
and more depressive and somatic symptoms than non-cyber-victims
(Gradinger et al., 2009; Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009;
Sourander et al., 2010; Utsumi, 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput,
2008). Furthermore, cyber-perpetrators show more aggression, a positive attitude towards aggression, less empathy, a less positive parent
child relationship, less perceived peer support, more delinquency,
more smoking and drinking than non-cyber-perpetrators (Ang & Goh,
2010; Calvete, Orue, Estvez, Villardn, & Padilla, 2010; Katzer et al.,
2009a; Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009; Sourander et al.,
2010; Utsumi, 2010).
Due to these similarities between conventional bullying and
cyberbullying it might be warranted to transfer dening characteristics. Still, this transfer of denition has been discussed controversially
and therefore alternative denitions have been suggested in the literature (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Gross, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Tokunaga,
2010): First, the intention to harm cannot easily be applied to
cyberbullying. (Computer-) mediated communication is impoverished
in comparison with face-to-face communication (Kiesler, Siegel, &
McGuire, 1984). The communication partners do not see body language, gestures or facial expressions and they do not hear prosody
which distinguishes, for example, between irony, friendly teasing, and
harassment. Therefore, cyber-victims might misinterpret messages
intended as fun and cyber-perpetrators on the other hand may not be
aware of the consequences of their actions because of this lack of physical and social cues about a target's reactions (Dehue, Bolman, & Vllink,
2008; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Second,
repetition is hard to dene in cyberspace. For example, even the single
act of uploading an embarrassing video might be considered cyberbullying if it is causing repeated humiliation (Dooley et al., 2009;
Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Third, power imbalance might be implied
in the use of technology or take different shapes in cyberspace; it might
be indicated by higher technological ability (Nocentini et al., 2010), by a
higher rank in the virtual community (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009), or
by anonymity (Dehue et al., 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007;
Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). It has also been argued that
power imbalance might not be as important in cyberbullying as in conventional bullying. Cyber-victims presumably have more (technical)
options of preventing and suppressing cyberbullying or of retaliating
than victims have in conventional bullying; therefore they might feel
less helpless (Nocentini et al., 2010).
In the following, power imbalance will be discussed in further detail.
Power imbalance has different facets in conventional bullying such as
physical dominance, older age, higher social or verbal competence,
higher intelligence, or higher social status of the bully (Scheithauer,
Hayer, & Bull, 2007). Some of these aspects might also be relevant for
cyberbullying, for example the social status of the bully. In conventional
bullying, social status has been divided into two relatively independent
constructs: Social preference and perceived popularity (Parkhurst &
Hopmeyer, 1998). Social preference (also known as peer acceptance,

likability, or sociometric status) describes how much a person is liked
by others. Perceived popularity, on the other hand, describes if a person
is considered popular in terms of prestige, visibility, or dominance
(Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; de Bruyn, Chillessen, &
Wissink, 2010). Research indicates that conventional bullying is positively associated with perceived popularity (the popular bully) but
negatively associated with social preference of the bully (Caravita et
al., 2009; de Bruyn et al., 2010; Sijtsema, Veenstra, Lindenberg, &
Salmivalli, 2009; Witvliet et al., 2010).
It can also be assumed that the perceived popularity of the bully
impacts victims' experience of the bullying episode. Power imbalance
in terms of perceived popularity is only given if a high status (popular) bully bullies a lower status (less popular) victim. In this scenario
victims have fewer means of preventing or adequately coping with
bullying and thus they might feel helpless. On the other hand, if
bullies and victims have similar power, for example similar perceived
popularity, the intended victims could probably prevent bullying or
could adequately cope with it and thus not feel as helpless. We empirically investigate these assumptions for cyberbullying in Study I.
Unique aspects of cyberbullying Media and type
Besides the compelling empirical evidence that conventional bullying and cyberbullying overlap to a signicant degree, there are numerous conceptual differences between conventional bullying and
cyberbullying that go beyond the controversies concerning the dening
characteristics. Most of these unique features are based on the electronic nature of communication: The cyber-perpetrator can remain anonymous (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008) and
not directly perceive the consequences of his/her actions (Slonje &
Smith, 2008; Willard, 2007). These aspects can trigger disinhibition
and might even facilitate cyber-perpetration. For the cyber-victim, escaping cyberbullying is almost impossible because of the omnipresence
of electronic communication tools (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Additionally,
cyber-bullying incidents can be spread to a large audience (Slonje &
Smith, 2008) in a short amount of time and are hard to erase from the
internet. Furthermore, there are some difculties in detecting and
reporting cyberbullying due to the lack of adult supervision.
There is also some empirical evidence to support the notion that
cyberbullying is not merely bullying in cyberspace but a unique phenomenon. The correlations between conventional bullying and
cyberbullying are generally only of moderate effect size (see above).
This indicates that there are a signicant number of adolescents
who are only involved in cyberbullying, but not in conventional bullying. Factor analyses demonstrate that acts of cyber aggression load
on a unique factor compared with other acts of adolescent aggression
(Dempsey et al., 2011). Additionally, there are cyber-specic risk factors for cyberbullying that are not relevant for conventional bullying.
For example, both cyber-victimization and cyber-perpetration are related to more computer prociency, more frequent internet use, more
frequent use of electronic communication tools, and more frequent
internet risk behavior (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Huang & Chou, 2010;
Katzer et al., 2009a,b; Smith et al., 2008; Utsumi, 2010). Despite
these ndings, research into cyber-specic aspects of cyberbullying
is still at its beginning.
A unique aspect of cyberbullying that has been frequently
discussed and researched is the involved media. For example, Smith
et al. (2008) categorized cyberbullying according to seven different
media or communication tools because different media have different
characteristics (p. 377): Text messages, emails, phone calls, photo or
video clips, instant massagers, websites, and chat rooms. Research
showed that different media were indeed used with different frequencies for cyberbullying and had different effects on cyber-victims'
experience of cyberbullying. However, the most frequently used tools
for cyberbullying vary across studies. Whereas Smith et al. (2008)
found most cyber-bullies used phone calls; Slonje and Smith (2008)
found most cyber-bullies used emails. Additionally, Smith and colleagues demonstrated that adolescents consider cyberbullying by
photo or video clips to be more distressing than conventional bullying,
cyberbullying by phone calls as distressing as conventional bullying,
and cyberbullying by all other media less distressing than conventional
bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008).
Recently it has been criticized that this kind of categorization
might have become obsolete because the recent advent of the smart
phones has caused different kinds of media to converge; media cannot be clearly distinguished anymore (Ortega, Mora-Merchn, &
Jger, 2007). We would like to point out that even though the hardware and technical applications converge other aspects of media do
not. More specically, we propose that one relevant dimension for
explaining these effects (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008) is
the representational code rather than the software applications: Verbal (written or spoken text) and visual codes (pictures and videos)
are assumed to be processed differently (Paivio, 1986) and presumably have different effects on the experience of cyberbullying.
Another suggested categorization, unique to cyberbullying, was
derived from theoretical considerations. Conventional bullying is
often subdivided into verbal, physical, and relational bullying
(Scheithauer et al., 2007). For cyberbullying, Willard (2007) proposed
eight types of cyberbullying activities and other forms of online
social cruelty (p. 5). We consider ve of these to be cyberbullying:
harassment (insults or threats against the cyber-victim), denigration (spreading damaging rumors to harm the cyber-victim's
reputation), impersonation (assuming a fake identity to impersonate
the cyber-victim and behaving in an embarrassing or damaging way),
outing and trickery (gaining and then violating the trust of the
cyber-victim by publicly announcing private and embarrassing secrets,
for example via photos or videos), and exclusion (systematically excluding the cyber-victim from online activities or online groups). We
have excluded the other categories of Willard's (2007) taxonomy
from our conceptualization of cyberbullying because they concern arguments between equally powerful peers (aming), because we view
them as being sub-categories of harassment (cyberthreats), or because we consider them more closely related to sexual harassment on
the internet than to cyberbullying (cyberstalking).
In Germany, a cyberbullying questionnaire (and adaptations) was
developed based on this taxonomy (Pieschl & Porsch, 2012; Riebel et
al., 2009; Wachs & Wolf, 2011). In these empirical studies, denigration and harassment were reported most frequently whereas impersonation, outing and exclusion were rarely reported by adolescents.
However, the differential effects of these types of cyberbullying remain unexplored.
We empirically investigate some of these uniquely cyber-specic aspects of cyberbullying in Study II. More specically, we attempt to replicate the media effects that Smith and colleagues detected (Slonje &
Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008) in a more experimental setting by comparing video-based and text-based incidents. Additionally, we explore
the differential effects of different types of cyberbullying proposed by
Willard (2007) by comparing the frequent type of harassment with
the rare type of outing.
Methodological framework
So far, cyberbullying research has used either qualitative methods
such as focus groups and interviews of adolescents (Vandebosch &
Van Cleemput, 2008) or quantitative survey methods (Menesini &
Nocentini, 2009). These methods are well-suited to gather deep insights into adolescents' perspective on cyberbullying as well as representative data on the prevalence of cyberbullying and the relation
between cyberbullying and potential risk and protective factors.
However, these methods do not allow for conclusions about the
243
causality. Therefore, we chose a more experimental approach to directly address the conceptual issues of interest.
We presented adolescents with hypothetical cyber incident
vignettes. These scenarios were systematically manipulated to adhere
to the experimental factors of interest. Vignettes in general are a valuable research tool because they allow collecting data on how people
would act in situations that cannot be investigated with other methodologies because of their sensitive nature or their infrequent occurrence (Collett & Childs, 2011; LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). However,
the validity of this approach is a crucial issue: It has been shown that
the emotional experience of real situations manipulated in the lab is
more intense than reading hypothetical vignettes (Collett & Childs,
2011). These ndings point to the general validity of this approach
with regard to the type of effects but also to a potentially reduced
size of effects. For cyberbullying, vignettes are a promising methodology to experimentally manipulate cyberbullying incidents, avoiding
many of the methodological and ethical challenges of re-creating
cyberbullying in the laboratory.
Additionally, research on conventional bullying also successfully
utilized vignettes for exploring conceptual questions. For example,
vignettes have been used to explore children's views about their
emotions (and their parents' reactions) as results of being a hypothetical bully (Tto & Farrington, 2008), parents' responses to hypothetical children's victimization events (Bonnet, Goossens, & Schuengel,
2011), and teachers' attitudes towards different kinds of bullying incidents (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Yoon, 2004).
Our experimental approach can be interpreted within the framework of the General Aggression Model (GAM; Carnagey & Anderson,
2003) which is often used to explain effects of violent media consumption. The GAM assumes that the reaction to a specic incident
depends on personal and situational characteristics as inputs. We systematically varied the situational characteristics via the vignette
methodology. Additionally, we captured selected personal characteristics such as adolescents' age, sex, media use, and cyber(bullying) experiences. These inputs are assumed to be processed via three
interrelated routes, namely cognition, affect, and physiological arousal which describe the current internal state of a person. Therefore, we
selected our dependent variables accordingly: We captured affect via
the Current Mood Scale (Dalbert, 1992); in Study I we also captured
cognition via the Helpless Cognition Scale (Breitkopf, 1985). We did
not measure physiological arousal. After appraisal this internal personal
state is assumed to translate into action. To capture this behavioral
facet, we asked adolescents about their intended coping strategies
(Coping Strategies Question(naire)).
Study I: Is power imbalance relevant to cyberbullying?
Power imbalance has many facets; one of them is the social status
of the perpetrator in terms of perceived popularity. We explored the
difference between cyber incidents caused by a popular versus an unpopular bully in an online eld experiment with a within-subject design. The following hypotheses and exploratory research questions
were analyzed. Hypothesis 1: The Social Status of the cyber-bully
has effects. Cyber-victims' affect (mood), cognitions (helplessness),
and behavior (coping strategies) differ between being harassed by a
popular cyber-bully and being harassed by an unpopular cyber-bully;
being harassed by a popular cyber-bully is more distressing. Hypothesis
2: The difference between being harassed by a popular or unpopular
cyber-bully is not independent from the Order of cyber incidents. By
being repeatedly confronted with negative cyber experiences, cybervictims become desensitized. The rst experience is more distressing
than the second. Exploratory Research Question 3: Does the experience
of cyber incidents vary according to personal characteristics, specically
the sex, age, perceived popularity, and cyberbullying experience of the
cyber-victim, the degree of liking between the cyber-victim and the ctitious cyber-bully, and the sex of the ctitious cyber-bully?
244
Method
Procedure
All students were confronted with two cyber scenarios in a
two-by-two design. The Social Status of the cyber-bully in terms of
perceived popularity was one within-subject factor. In one experimental condition a mean cyberbullying message was supposedly
written by the most popular classmate (Bully+) in the other condition the entry was supposedly written by the most unpopular classmate (Bully) of the students. The order of presentation was varied
randomly in two between-subject conditions. Students in Group A
(+/) received the Bully + scenario rst, followed by the Bully
scenario whereas students in Group B (/+) received the Bully
scenario rst, followed by the Bully + scenario. For each scenario students answered several questionnaires: the Current Mood Scale, the
Helpless Cognition Scale, and the Coping Strategies Question. Afterwards they answered the Cyber Experience Questionnaire. On average
students needed 18 min to complete these tasks.
This study was conducted online; students could ll in the
web-based questionnaires any time they wanted to. All students participated voluntarily and gave their informed consent. Among all participants six Amazon vouchers were rafed off as an incentive. At the
end of the questionnaire it was explicitly pointed out that this was a
ctitious experiment, we gave contact information for further questions, and all participants were informed of the results if they wished.
Participants
We recruited a voluntary online convenience sample of students
between the ages of 12 to 19 through email and social network sites
such as Facebook and schlerVZ (a German online social network).
In total 465 participants started to answer the online questionnaires.
However, 184 students only answered part of the questionnaires, 76
students were faster than 8 min which seemed unreasonable given
the length of the questionnaires. Twelve students displayed no variance in their answers between the rst and the second scenario
even though the scales were reverse-coded which indicates that
they did not seriously answer the questionnaires both times, and
the open answers of 7 students indicated that they did not understand the instructions. Therefore, all the data of these students were
excluded from further analyses and the nal sample consists of
n = 186 students.
These 56 boys and 130 girls were between 12 and 19 years old
(M = 15.88, SD = 2.06) and on average attended 10th grade
(M = 9.88, SD = 2.16). Within the three-tier German school system,
the majority (n = 128; 69 %) attended the highest track, 19 students
(10 %) attended the middle track, and 3 students (2 %) attended the
lowest track. Furthermore, 18 students (10 %) attended a comprehensive school that combines all tracks, 9 students (5 %) attended vocational school, and 9 students (5 %) indicated other types of education. On
average students considered themselves fairly popular (M = 2.31,
SD = .84; on a scale from 1 = almost nobody in my class considers me
popular to 4 = almost everyone in class considers me popular).
visible to the public; it was posted by [insert name of the nominated

student]. This entry read You are nasty lth. At your birth the doctor
had to puke after seeing how ugly you are..
Current mood scale. The ASTS (Aktuelle Stimmungsskala; Dalbert,
1992) is a scale with 19 adjectives; all adjectives had to be rated on
7-point scales regarding agreement (1 = low, 7 = high). Students
had to answer all questions in reference to the ctitious cyber scenarios. The instrument consists of six subscales. The subscale Sorrow
consists of three items (miserable, sad, and unhappy) and was reliable in all experimental conditions (Cronbach's = .91.93). The
subscale Despair consists of three items (hopeless, desperate, and
discouraged) and was reliable in all experimental conditions
(Cronbach's = .87.94). The subscale Tiredness consists of four
items (tired, weary, exhausted, and devitalized) and was reliable in
all experimental conditions (Cronbach's = .81.90). The subscale
Positive Mood consists of ve items (comfortable, joyous, cheery,
amused, and happy [the sixth item frohgemuht was excluded because
it is an antiquated German term that is not generally understood by adolescents]) and was reliable in all experimental conditions (Cronbach's
= .84.89). The subscale Anger consists of three items (angry,
annoyed, furious) and was reliable in all experimental conditions
(Cronbach's = .88.91). All scales were (re-)coded in a way that
high values represent negative mood. These subscales were also combined into the overall ASTS scale Negative Mood which was also reliable
in all experimental conditions (Cronbach's = .91.93).
Helpless cognition scale. The HiS (Hilosigkeitsskala; Breitkopf, 1985)
is a scale with 20 items that have to be rated on 7-point scales regarding agreement (1 = low, 7 = high). For this study, an abridged version with 9 items was used (sample items: I feel helpless, My
situation is hopeless, No matter what I do nothing will change).
Students had to answer all questions in reference to the ctitious
cyber scenarios. A conrmatory factor analysis conrmed the onedimensional structure of this scale. In the different experimental condition it explained between 52 and 70 percent of variance and was reliable (Cronbach's = .86.94).
Coping Strategies Question. In an open question students were asked
to elaborate what they would do if they were the victim of the ctitious cyber scenarios. These open answers were categorized as Social
(seek support from adults or peers), Aggressive (online retaliation),
Passive (ignore incident), Technical (notify the internet service provider, change account settings, or block contact), or Helpless coping
(does not know what to do) and the additional categories of Confrontation (seek an active problem-solving contact with the perpetrator),
Rationalization (seek an explanation, for example it's my own fault
or the perpetrator has problems), and Depreciation (devalue the incident, for example it's only a joke). Two raters independently categorized the open answers of 40 students and agreed almost perfectly
(Cohen's Kappa: Bully+ = .92; Bully = .86). Therefore, the open
answers of the remaining 146 students were categorized by only one
of the two raters.
Material
Cyber scenario vignettes. All students were asked to nominate the
most popular student as well as the most unpopular student within
their class by their rst names. For example, one student could have
nominated Bob as being the most popular student and Lisa as
being the most unpopular student. Furthermore, students had to indicate the sex of these nominated classmates (male or female) as well
as their personal liking (1 = I don't like [insert name of the nominated
student] to 4 = I do like [insert name of the nominated student]). These
names were automatically inserted into the following cyber scenario:
Imagine you logged into schlerVZ (a German online social network), looked at your bulletin board and saw a new entry that was
Cyber experience questionnaire. We adapted the cyberbullying questionnaire of Riebel et al. (2009) to include the following ve of Willard's
(2007) categories: harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, and
exclusion. Students were asked how often these incidents have happened
to them via cell phone or via the internet (cyber-victim) and how often
they had instigated such incidents themselves (cyber-perpetrator). All
answers were given on 3-point scales with the categories never (= 0),
once (= 1), and several times (= 2). Cyber Involvement was diagnosed if
students gave at least once a different answer than never (cyber-victim
and cyber-perpetrator). Note that we explicitly do not refer to these incidents as cyberbullying because not all dening criteria such as repetition
are met.
100
Results
90
Results regarding the experimental conditions (Hypotheses 1 and 2)

For each of the dependent variables the current mood scales Sorrow, Despair, Tiredness, Positive Mood, Anger, and overall Negative
Mood as well as the score of the Helpless Cognition Scale we computed (M)ANOVAs with the within-subject repeated-measure factor Social
Status of the cyber-bully (Bully+ vs. Bully) and the between-subject
factor Order of presentation (Group A vs. Group B). Additionally,
students' open answers regarding the Coping Strategies Question
were analyzed with Chi-Square and McNemar tests. For the corresponding descriptive results see Table 1 and Fig. 1.
The ANOVA for overall Negative Mood indicates a signicant main
effect of the repeated-measure factor Social Status of the cyber-bully,
F (1, 184) = 94.61, p b .001, p2 = .34, and a signicant interaction
between Social Status and the presentation Order of the cyber scenarios, F (1, 184) = 12.52, p b .001, p2 = .06; see Fig. 2, left.
Table 1
Descriptive results for the Current Mood (Sub-)Scales.
Current mood scales
Sorrow
Despair
Tiredness
Positive mood (reversed)
Anger
Negative mood (overall)
Bully+ M (SD)
4.04
2.97
2.44
6.25
4.50
4.20
(1.93)
(1.86)
(1.48)
(1.12)
(1.77)
(1.22)
Bully M (SD)
2.78
1.97
1.85
5.65
3.87
3.43
(1.75)
(1.38)
(1.09)
(1.48)
(1.88)
(1.15)
Note. All answers were given on a scale from 1 = Positive Mood to 7 = Negative
Mood.
80
Percent (%)
Descriptive results
The random assignment of experimental conditions was successful.
Approximately the same number of students was assigned to each condition (Group A: n = 91; Group B: n = 95) and these groups did not
differ systematically in sex, 2 (1) = 2.17, p = .153; age, t (184) =
.730, p = .466; or perceived popularity, t (184) = 1.117, p = .266.
Furthermore, students in both experimental groups (Group A vs. Group
B) nominated popular and unpopular students who did not differ systematically in sex, Bully+: 2 (1) = .01, p = .922; Bully: 2 (1) =
.23, p = .630, or in being liked by the participating students, Bully+:
t (184) = 1.123, p = .263; Bully: t (184) = .916, p = .361. Therefore, all requirements for further analyses were met, all descriptive results will be reported for the overall sample, and the variables sex, age,
and perceived popularity of the participating students as well as sex
and being liked of the nominated popular and unpopular students will
not be considered in the testing of Hypotheses 1 and 2.
On average students' most pronounced mood after reading all cyber
scenarios was Anger, followed by Sorrow, Despair, Tiredness, and Positive Mood (see Table 1). Overall, students reported low Helpless Cognitions (Bully+: M = 1.95, SD = 0.90; Bully: M = 1.74, SD = 0.90)
and only few coping strategies (Coping Strategies Question: Bully+:
M = 2.03, SD = 0.94; Bully: M = 2.15, SD = 0.95). Most often students indicated coping strategies that were categorized as Confrontation, followed by Social and Technical coping and Depreciation (see
Fig. 1). Helpless, Passive, and Aggressive coping as well as Rationalization were indicated less frequently.
Of the whole sample 132 students (71%) were categorized as
cyber-victims and 94 students (51%) as cyber-perpetrators.
Cyber-victimization and perpetration were signicantly related (Phi
coefcient: r = .22, p = .003). Seventy-six students (41%) were
cyber-victims as well as cyber-perpetrators. Students most often
nominated girls as popular (girls: n = 109, 59% vs. boys: n = 77,
41%) and unpopular classmates (girls: n = 105, 57% vs. boys: n =
81, 43%). The popular students were liked signicantly more by the
participating students (M = 3.23, SD = 0.79) than the unpopular
students, M = 2.13, SD = 0.84; t (185) = 13.06, p b .001.
245
Bully+
Bully-
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Coping Strategy Categories

Fig. 1. Percentage of students indicating coping strategy categories in the Coping Strategies
Question in the two experimental conditions Bully+ and Bully.
The MANOVA regarding all Current Mood Sub-Scales yields similar

effects. We found a signicant multivariate main effect of the
repeated-measure factor Social Status of the cyber-bully, F (5, 180) =
20.09, p b .001; p2 = .36, and a multivariate interaction between Social
Status and the presentation Order of the cyber scenarios, F (5, 180) =
3.94, p = .002; p2 = .10. The multivariate main effect of Social Status
was replicated univariately on all subscales, Sorrow: F (1, 184) =88.34,
p b .001, p2 = .32; Despair: F (1, 184) = 66.57, p b .001, p2 = .27;
Tiredness: F (1, 184) = 45.56, p b .001, p2 = .20; Positive Mood: F (1,
184) = 36.80, p b .001, p2 = .17; Anger: F (1, 184) = 24.56, p b .001,
p2 = .12. The multivariate interaction between Social Status and Order
of presentation was univariately replicated on the scales Sorrow, F (1,
184) = 11.92, p = .001, p2 = .06; Despair, F (1, 184) = 10.43, p =
.001, p2 = .05; and Anger, F (1, 184) = 13.15, p b .001, p2 = .07. In
all cases the experimental condition Bully+ resulted in more negative
mood than the experimental condition Bully. In all cases of interactions the presentation Order in Group A (+/) resulted in more pronounced differences between the experimental conditions Bully+ and
Bully whereas the presentation Order in Group B (/+) resulted in
less pronounced differences.
The ANOVA for the Helpless Cognition Scale yielded a signicant
main effect of the repeated-measure factor Social Status of the
cyber-bully, F (1, 184) = 14.78, p b .001, p2 = .07, and a signicant
interaction between Social Status and the presentation Order of the
cyber scenarios, F (1, 184) = 74.89, p b .001, p2 = .29; see Fig. 2,
right. On average the experimental condition Bully+ resulted in
more helplessness than the experimental condition Bully . The interaction indicates, however, that in both experimental groups the
confrontation with the rst cyber scenario resulted in more helplessness than the confrontation with the second cyber scenario.
McNemar tests show that students indicate signicantly more Helpless coping in the Bully+ condition than in the Bully condition,
2 (1) = 16.33, p b .001; Bully+: n = 31, 17 % vs. Bully: n = 10,
5 %. On the other hand, students indicate signicantly more Aggressive
coping, 2 (1) = 9.53, p = .003; Bully: n = 36, 19 % vs. Bully+:
n = 18, 10 %, and Depreciation, 2 (1) = 15.75, p b .001; Bully:
n = 75, 40 % vs. Bully+: n = 44, 24 % in the Bully condition than
in the Bully+ condition (see Fig. 1). Chi-Square tests show no signicant effects of the Order of presentation (Group A vs. Group B).
Exploratory results (Research Question 3)
In these exploratory analyses only two aggregated dependent variables were considered in both within-subject experimental conditions separately (Bully+ and Bully) the overall Negative Mood
score from the Current Mood Scale and the score on the Helpless Cognition Scale. These dependent variables constitute criteria in four
246
Fig. 2. Negative Mood (left) and Helpless Cognition (right) by Social Status of the cyber-bully (Bully+ vs. Bully) and presentation Order (Group A vs. Group B). For both scales
ANOVAs yielded signicant main effects of Social Status and signicant interactions between Social Status and Order.
separate regressions. All potentially relevant descriptors of the participating students (sex, age, grade, perceived popularity, and experience as cyber-victim and as cyber-perpetrator), all potentially
relevant descriptors of the ctitious Bully+ or Bully (sex and the
degree of being liked by the participating student), as well as the
Order of presentation (Group A vs. Group B) were used as predictors
in these regressions. Because of the exploratory (and not conrmatory) nature of this research question, aimed at understanding the most
parsimonious explanation of these criteria, stepwise regressions were
utilized (Thayer, 2002). This method only enters variables that significantly contribute to the regression model; all predictors that are not
included in the nal regression models do not signicantly explain
additional variance.
The stepwise regression for Negative Mood in the Bully+ condition shows that (in the order of inclusion) if the Bully+ is a girl and
if the participating student is unpopular, Negative Mood is more pronounced after reading the ctitious cyber scenario (see Table 2). The
stepwise regression for Helpless Cognitions in the Bully + condition
shows that (in the order of inclusion) if the participating student is
unpopular, if the Bully+ scenario is presented rst (vs. second),
and if the student is young, Helpless Cognitions are more likely to
occur after reading the ctitious cyber scenario (see Table 3).
The stepwise regression for Negative Mood in the Bully
condition shows that (in the order of inclusion) if the participating
student likes the Bully , if the participating student is unpopular,
if the Bully scenario is presented rst (vs. second), and if the participating student is a girl, Negative Mood is more pronounced after
reading the ctitious cyber scenario (see Table 4). The stepwise regression for Helpless Cognitions in the Bully condition shows
that (in the order of inclusion) if the Bully scenario is presented
rst (vs. second), and if the participating student is unpopular,
young, and a girl, Helpless Cognitions are more likely to occur after
reading the ctitious cyber scenario (see Table 5).
The interaction effects between the factors of Social Status (Bully+ vs.
Bully) and presentation Order (Group A vs. Group B) all indicate that
the confrontation with the second cyber incident is not as distressing
as the confrontation with the rst. This effect was most pronounced for
Helpless Cognitions which seem to be most susceptible to desensitization.
Our Exploratory Research Question 3 also yielded interesting results. All indicators of distress were more pronounced if the participating student was unpopular (4/4 effects). Furthermore, being
bullied by an unpopular cyber-bully (vs. a popular cyber-bully) was
experienced to be more distressing for girls than for boys (2/2 effects)
and younger students experienced more helpless cognitions (but not
more negative mood; 2/2 effects). This shows that personal characteristics of the cyber-victim moderate the effects of cyber incident
scenarios. In this context perceived popularity, sex, and age seem to
be more important than the personal prior experience as a cybervictim or as a cyber-perpetrator. Additionally, personal characteristics
of the hypothetical cyber-bully did not consistently elicit effects (1/4
effects of sex; 1/4 effects of being liked) and seem to play a secondary
role.
Despite these promising results this study has some specic limitations that need to be considered: We recruited the participants of this
study via social network sites. Therefore, this study constitutes an uncontrolled eld experiment. Even though we know that the majority
of German adolescents uses the internet daily, most often to communicate via online communities (Medienpdagogischer Forschungsverbund
Sdwest (mpfs), 2011), we have no information about the representativeness of the nal sample (Granello & Wheaton, 2004). Furthermore
only the data of 40 % of the participants who started the online questionnaire could be used for analyses. Therefore, we do not know if selective
drop-out might be another potential problem. Even though more girls
than boys use social networking sites in Germany (mpfs, 2011), the uneven sex distribution in the nal sample could be a sign of selective
drop-out that might have inuenced the results.
Discussion of Study I
We conrmed our Hypothesis 1. Being harassed by a popular
cyber-bully is indeed more distressing than being harassed by an unpopular cyber-bully. More specically, this study indicates that in
these scenarios cyberbullying by a popular cyber-bully elicited more
Negative Mood (regarding all subscales), more Helpless Cognitions,
and a different pattern of Coping Strategies, namely more Helpless
coping, less Aggressive coping and less Depreciation.
We conrmed our Hypothesis 2. By being repeatedly confronted with
negative cyber incident vignettes cyber-victims become desensitized.
Table 2
Stepwise regression models for explaining Negative Mood in the Bully+ condition.
Step 1
Bully+ sexa
Step 2
Bully+ sexa
Student popularity
SE B
T value
.735
.174
.297
4.221***
.691
.245
.173
.102
.280
.168
4.001***
2.403*
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.
1 = boy and 2 = girl.
Adj R2
F change
.083
17.813***
.106
5.775*

Table 3
Stepwise regression models for explaining Helpless Cognitions in the Bully+
condition.
Step 1
Student popularity
Step 2
Student popularity
Presentation Ordera
Step 3
Student popularity
Presentation Ordera
Student age
SE B
T value
.386
.075
.339
4.889***
.347
.349
.319
.371
.079
a
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.
.073
.123
.073
.121
.030
.323
.194
.297
.206
.181
Adj R2
F change
.110
23.906***
.143
8.092**
.171
7.145**
4.732***
2.845**
4.377***
3.062**
2.673**
1 = Group A (+/) and 2 = Group B (/+).
Additionally, this study used hypothetical scenarios. Therefore,

these results are only valid if participants successfully put themselves
in the position of the cyber-victim. We have no empirical conrmation of the validity of this approach, except for nding a reasonable
pattern of results. We also do not know if these ndings transfer to
reality, namely if adolescents experience similar feelings and cognitions and display similar behaviors when confronted with real
cyberbullying. For example, we do not know if sex effects can be generalized to real-world cyberbullying. One potential limitation is that
girls might be better at putting themselves in these hypothetical scenarios than boys; another potential limitation is that girls might be
better at expressing their emotions than boys whereas the experience
of emotions might be similar.
Another limitation concerns the very subtle manipulation of the
cyber-bully's Social Status. The only differences between the
experimental within-subject conditions (Bully+ vs. Bully) were the
inserted names of the ctitious cyber-bullies. We can only speculate if
all of the participants adequately noticed this difference if not our
detected effects might underestimate the real effects or if participants
might have succumbed to a bias of social desirability if yes our
detected effects might overestimate the real effects. In a related issue,
we do not know if the effects of Social Status transfer to other age
groups given that the priority of peer reputation peaks during adolescence (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). Finally, we do not know if participants become desensitized to repeated cyberbullying, to being exposed
to the same experimental treatment repeatedly, or become bored with
answering the same questionnaire battery twice.
Despite these limitations we can draw some tentative conclusions.
This is to our knowledge the rst study that could demonstrate that
power imbalance is in fact relevant for the experience of cyber cruelty
and that the cyber-bully's perceived popularity constitutes a relevant
aspect of power imbalance in cyberspace as well as in conventional
Table 4
Stepwise regression models for explaining Negative Mood in the Bully condition.
B
Step 1
Bully being liked
Step 2
Bully being liked
Student popularity
Step 3
Bully being liked
Student popularity
Presentation Ordera
Step 4
Bully being liked
Student popularity
Presentation Ordera
Student sexb
SE B
T value
.407
.096
.298
4.241***
.395
.354
.093
.093
.290
.259
4.261***
3.806***
.416
.380
.538
.090
.091
.152
.305
.277
.235
4.614***
4.196***
3.548***
.397
.356
.495
.383
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

boy and 2 = girl.
.089
.090
.151
.165
.291
.260
.216
.154
Adj R2
F change
.084
17.989***
.147
14.487***
.197
12.587***
.216
5.389*
4.435***
3.955***
3.275**
2.321*
1=
247
Table 5
Stepwise regression models for explaining Helpless Cognitions in the Bully condition.
B
Step 1
Presentation Ordera
Step 2
Presentation Ordera
Student popularity
Step 3
Presentation Ordera
Student popularity
Student age
Step 4
Presentation Ordera
Student popularity
Student age
Student sexb
SE B
T value
.592
.125
.331
4.753***
.630
.277
.121
.072
.352
.258
5.225***
3.833***
.611
.252
.070
.119
.072
.029
.341
.235
.159
5.122***
3.500**
2.377*
.583
.235
.069
.263
.119
.072
.029
.130
.326
.220
.159
.135
4.893***
3.276**
2.385*
2.026*
*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

boy and 2 = girl.
Adj R2
F change
.105
22.594***
.167
14.693***
.187
5.652*
.201
4.107*
1=
bullying. This is also, to our knowledge, the rst study that

experimentally investigated the effects of repeated exposure to
online cruelty.
Further research is needed to clarify if students in fact become
desensitized to cyberbullying (see above). Desensitization could
offer one explanation for the surprising nding that some adolescents
do not seem to be affected by cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja,
2006); another explanation could be trait-like dismissal. Last but
not least, our results underline that not all adolescents are equally affected by cyber incidents and that one's own perceived popularity as
well as age and sex seem to be important moderators of these effects.
However, further research is needed to determine if these effects hold
true in more representative samples and if, for example, other types
of power imbalance are equally relevant for cyberbullying such as
the cyber-bully's technical internet skills or his or her anonymity.
Study II: Are cyber-specic issues such as media and type relevant
for the experience of cyber incidents?
In this study two factors with pre-selected characteristics were
investigated in a classroom eld experiment with a two-by-two
between-subject design: Medium (video vs. text) and Type of cyber
incident (harassment vs. outing). The following hypotheses and exploratory research questions were addressed. Hypothesis 1: Different
Media used for cyber incidents have different effects. Videos used for
cyber incidents are more distressing for cyber-victims than texts.
Consequently, they result in more negative affect (mood) and more
planned behavior (coping strategies). Hypothesis 2: Different Types
of cyber incidents have different effects. The affect (mood) and
planned behavior (coping strategies) of cyber-victims differ between
cyber harassment and cyber outing incidents. Exploratory Research
Question 3: Does the cyber-victim's sex moderate the effects of
Medium and Type of cyber incidents? Because of the strong effects
of sex in study I this variable was included in all analyses of Study
II. We did not include prior cyber(bullying) experience in this exploratory research question because we found no signicant correlations
between these variables and any dependent variable in this study.
Method
Procedure
The study was conducted during students' regular classes. In each
classroom two trained investigators collected the data in a standardized manner. One investigator read a standardized instruction and
answered any (comprehension) questions. The other investigator dispersed the questionnaires. Students were randomly assigned to one
of the four experimental conditions by handing out four different
248
versions of the questionnaire battery. Fictitious cyber scenario vignettes were developed for all experimental conditions of the two
by two between-subject design (Media Type of cyberbullying):
HT (harassment via text), HV (harassment via video), OT (outing via
text), and OV (outing via video). All students answered a questionnaire
battery consisting of the Current Mood Scale, the Coping Strategies
Questionnaire, the Cyber Experience Questionnaire, and the Internet
Use Questionnaire. On average students needed approximately
25 min to answer all questions.
All students participated voluntarily and gave their informed
consent; furthermore, the school's headmaster gave his informed
consent in loco parentis. All participants received sweets for their
participation. At the end of the study the trained investigators disclosed
the purpose of the study, pointed out that the cyber scenarios were
ctitious, and answered all remaining questions.
Participants
We recruited a convenience sample of 138 students from three
6th grade classrooms and three 7th grade classrooms of a smalltown comprehensive school in Germany. Because of missing values
or no variance in response, data from eleven students had to be excluded from further analyses. Therefore, the nal sample consists of
n = 127 students. These 65 boys and 62 girls were between 11 and
15 years old (M = 12.36, SD = 0.89). Within the three-tier German
school system, 114 (90 %) of these students attended the middle
track whereas 13 (10 %) attended the lowest track.
Material
Cyber scenario vignettes. Fictitious cyber scenario vignettes were developed and systematically manipulated according to the experimental
conditions Type (harassment vs. outing) and Media (text vs. video)
of cyberbullying. Four distinct experimental conditions resulted: HT
(harassment via text), HV (harassment via video), OT (outing via
text), and OV (outing via video). In the HT condition students were
told that a written insult against them was posted on a public website
and all students in their class received the link. The insult read You
are nasty lth. At your birth the doctor had to puke after seeing how
ugly you are. (See Study I.). In the HV condition the same insult was
supposedly posted as a video message.
In the OT condition students were told that their whole class received a message that disclosed an embarrassing secret about them.
First, they had to imagine this ctitious secret: You are in love with
someone but nobody knows about that yet not even the subject
of your love. Someone overheard you nally telling somebody else
on the telephone. The next day the message reads Hey everyone!
Guess what I overheard yesterday. [insert your name] is in love
with [insert name of the subject of your secret love]. [insert name of
the subject of your secret love] does not know it yet but [insert
your name] thinks of him/her constantly. In the OV condition the
same secret was supposedly disclosed in a video about your phone
conversation that was sent to everyone in class.
Current mood scale. The ASTS (Aktuelle Stimmungsskala; Dalbert,
1992) is a scale with 19 adjectives; all adjectives had to be rated on
7-point scales regarding agreement (1 = low 7 = high). Students
had to answer all questions in reference to the ctitious cyber scenario.
This instrument was adapted to the current study by adding the adjectives troubled and scared. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis
was computed and revealed three factors explaining 55.85% of variance:
The scale Sad Mood (SM) consists of 10 adjectives (examples: desperate,
miserable, scared, hopeless) and is reliable (Cronbach's = .90). The
scale Angry Mood (AM) consists of 3 adjectives (angry, annoyed, furious) and is reliable (Cronbach's = .80). Finally, the scale Joyous
Mood (JM) consists of 4 adjectives (comfortable, joyous, cheery,
amused) and is reliable (Cronbach's = .67). All scales were

(re-)coded in a way that high values represent negative mood.
Coping Strategies Questionnaire. This questionnaire started with an
open question where students were asked to elaborate what they
would do if they were the victim of the ctitious cyber scenario.
These open answers were categorized as Social (seek support from
adults or peers), Cognitive (seek an active problem-solving contact
with the perpetrator), Aggressive (online retaliation), Passive (ignore
incident or helpless behavior), Technical (notify the internet service
provider, change account settings, or block contact), and Legal coping
(go to the police) and the additional categories of Identify bully (nd
out the identity of the perpetrator) and Defense (deny any problem or
explain the situation to the audience). Because (partly) different
cyber vignettes were used in Study I, the categorization of the students' answers was done for each study separately and thus not all
categories were included in both studies. Two raters independently
coded all open answers and for all categories inter rater agreement
was almost perfect (Cohen's Kappa = .911.00).
In the second part of this questionnaire, students had to rate the
likelihood of employing 20 pre-dened coping strategies on 5-point
scales (1 = very unlikely5 = very likely). Items cover a range of coping strategies, for example I go to the police, I show the incident to
an adult, I try to delete the message or I try to solve the issue in
class. Exploratory factor analysis did not reveal a meaningful structure. Therefore, all items were aggregated into a mean value that denotes the overall extent of Active Coping. This aggregated scale proved
to be reliable (Cronbach's = .82).
Cyber experience questionnaire. We adapted the cyberbullying questionnaire of Riebel et al. (2009) to include the following ve of
Willard's (2007) categories: harassment, denigration, impersonation,
outing, and exclusion. Students were asked how often these incidents
have happened to them via cell phone or via the internet in the last
two months (cyber-victim) and how often they had instigated such
incidents themselves (cyber-perpetrator). All answers were given
on 5-point scales with the categories never (= 0), once or twice
(= 1), several times a month (= 2), about once a week (= 3), and
several times a week (= 4). In order to also derive the indicators of
cyberbullying, including the criterion of repetition, we used this
ne-grained answering scale. Two indicators of involvement in
cyber incidents were derived from the students' answers: General Cyber
Involvement was diagnosed if students gave at least once a different answer than never (cyber-victim and cyber-perpetrator). Cyberbullying
was diagnosed including the criterion of repetition by computing a
sum score across all categories. If this score was 3 or higher, students
were assigned the appropriate category (cyberbullying-victim and
cyberbullying-perpetrator). This was the case if students indicated
that one type of incident happened at least once a week or, for example,
if three different types of incidents happened once or twice.
Internet Use Questionnaire. Students' Internet Use was explored by asking them how often they used nine internet applications that are popular in this age group (instant messengers, schlerVZ [a German
social network], email, chat, video portals, blogs, Facebook, Google,
and internet forums). Answers were recorded on 6-point scales
(1 = never6 = several times a day).
Results
Descriptive results
The random assignment of experimental conditions was successful.
Approximately the same number of students was assigned to each condition (HT: n = 29; HV: n = 33; OT: n = 32; OV: n = 33) and these
groups did not differ systematically in sex, 2 (3) = .27, p = .966, or
age, F (3, 123) = .798, p = .503. Therefore, all necessary conditions
for further analyses are met and all descriptive results will be reported
for the overall sample.
On average students' most pronounced mood after reading the
cyber scenarios was Angry Mood (AM: M = 5.29, SD = 1.41),
followed by Sad Mood (SM: M = 3.51, SD = 1.36) and Joyous
Mood (JM: M = 1.21, SD = 0.51). Furthermore, on average the students reported just about two coping strategies in their open answers
(M = 1.70, SD = 0.91) and their average Active Coping score was
M = 2.79 (SD = 0.62). More specically, students' open answers indicate that, on average, they were most likely to employ Social coping
and least likely to employ Legal coping (see Fig. 4).
Seventy students (55%) were categorized as cyber-victims and 26
(21%) as cyberbullying-victims. Sixty-ve students (51%) were categorized as cyber-perpetrators and 21 (17%) as cyberbullying-perpetrators.
Cyber-victimization and perpetration were signicantly related. Fiftytwo students (41%) were cyber-victims as well as cyber-perpetrators
(Phi coefcient: r = .53, p b .001) and 8 students (6%) were
cyberbullying-victims as well as cyberbullying-perpetrators (r =
.21, p b .05).
Students on average used Google (M = 4.60, SD = 1.38),
schlerVZ (M = 4.43, SD = 1.83) and video portals (M = 4.28,
SD = 1.60) several times a week; they used chat (M = 3.88, SD =
1.97), emails (M = 2.93, SD = 1.53), and instant messenger (M =
2.85, SD = 2.07) approximately once a week; and they rarely or
never used Facebook (M = 2.29, SD = 1.99), internet forums
(M = 1.77, SD = 1.29) or blogs (M = 1.36, SD = 0.95).
Results regarding hypotheses and exploratory research questions

For each of the dependent variables the current mood scales SM
(Sad Mood), AM (Angry Mood), and JM (Joyous Mood) and Active
Coping we computed separate ANOVAs with the experimental
between-subject factors Media (text vs. video) and Type (harassment
vs. outing) of cyber incident. Additionally, we included students' sex
as between-subject factor in each analysis (female vs. male). Students' open answers regarding the Coping Strategies Question were
analyzed with Chi-Square tests.
The ANOVA regarding SM showed a signicant main effect of sex,
F (119) = 8.09, p = .005, p2 = .06. Girls reported sadder mood than
boys when confronted with cyber incidents. The ANOVA regarding
AM showed a signicant main effect of Medium of cyber incident,
F (119) = 13.65, p b .001, p2 = .10, and a signicant interaction
between Medium and Type of cyber incident, F (119) = 3.99, p =
.048, p2 = .03. The videos elicited angrier moods compared to the
texts; this difference was more pronounced for harassment than for
outing (see Fig. 3, left). The ANOVA regarding JM showed a signicant
main effect of sex, F (119) = 7.70, p = .006, p2 = .06. Girls reported
less joyous mood than boys when confronted with cyber incidents.
The ANOVA regarding the extent of Active Coping showed signicant main effects of Media, F (119) = 6.53, p = .012, p2 = .05, and
Type, F (119) = 19.31, p b .001, p2 = .14, of cyber incident as well
as of sex, F (119) = 4.64, p = .033, p2 = .04. Videos elicited more
coping than texts, harassment elicited more coping than outing, and
girls reported more coping than boys (see Fig. 3, right).
Chi-square tests computed separately for each of the factors
(media, type, and sex) indicate the following effects regarding students' open coping strategies answers: We found no signicant difference in the open answers between the Media of video and text.
Regarding Types of cyber incidents, students confronted with harassment were more likely to employ Social, 2 (1) = 10.79, p = .001;
Technical, 2 (1) = 5.52, p = .015; or Legal coping 2 (1) = 5.57,
p = .018, and less likely to employ Passive coping, 2 (1) = 5.02,
p = .022, than students confronted with outing (see Fig. 4). Regarding sex, girls were more likely to employ Social coping, 2 (1) =
13.29, p = .966, and less likely to employ Aggressive coping, 2
(1) = 8.93, p = .966, compared to boys.
249
Discussion of Study II
We partly conrmed our Hypothesis 1. Videos used in the cyber
incident scenarios are more distressing for cyber-victims than texts
and result in more negative affect (Angry Mood) and more planned
behavior (Active Coping). However, we found no effects of Media
used in the cyber incident scenarios on Sad Mood, Joyous Mood, or
students' open answers regarding their Coping Strategies.
We partly conrmed our Hypothesis 2. Different Types of cyber
incident vignettes have different effects and thus result in different
affects and behaviors. More specically, regarding Angry Mood,
the effects of Media were more pronounced for harassment than
for outing. Active Coping was more pronounced for harassment
than for outing, and students' open answers indicate that harassment results in more Social, Technical, and Legal coping and in less
Passive coping compared to outing. However, we found no effects
of Type used in the cyber incident scenarios on Sad Mood or Joyous
Mood.
Our Exploratory Research Question 3 also yielded interesting results. Students' sex did not only moderate the effects of Media and
Type of cyber incident, sex was the only variable signicantly affecting students' Sad Mood and Joyous Mood. In both cases girls were
more negatively affected by reading the cyber vignettes. Additionally,
girls also reported more Active Coping and their open answers indicate that they would use more Social coping and less Aggressive coping than boys.
Despite these promising results this study has some specic limitations that need to be considered (also see limitations of Study I, for
example regarding the use of hypothetical vignettes and regarding
the generalizability sex effects): In this study, we recruited whole
classes and administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires. We therefore avoided some critical issues of online data collection, for example
we avoided self-selection effects and numerous drop-outs (see Study
I). However, the sample was fairly small and we have no information
about its representativeness. We also do not know if the classroom
context with the social dynamics of bullying being present, namely
bullies, victims, and bystanders, had any effects on the results. However, the fact that we partly replicated the effects of Media detected
by Smith and colleagues (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008)
with a novel experimental approach underlines the validity of these
effects and our methodology.
Another important issue that needs to be addressed is the problem
of confounded variables. In this study, it was impossible to create a
ctitious cyber scenario that was only varied through the experimental dimensions of Medium (video vs. text) and Type (harassment vs.
outing). Types of cyber incidents are not independent from Media.
For example, it is hard to conceptualize a cyber scenario in which
videos are used to exclude someone from an activity on Facebook. Besides these confounded variables, there might be other underlying dimensions relevant for media effects these variables should be
considered in future research. We were able to control these variables
in this study by holding them constant across all experimental conditions. For example, synchronicity was controlled by choosing asynchronous forms of cyber incidents (vs. synchronous) and publicity
was controlled by choosing a public website for all cyber incidents
(vs. private vs. semi-public).
Despite these limitations we can draw some tentative conclusions.
For some affective variables (Sad Mood, Joyous Mood) sex seems to
be more relevant than either Medium or Type of cyber incident. Furthermore, this is to our knowledge the rst study that could demonstrate that the Types of cyberbullying proposed by Willard (2007)
have different effects on cyber-victims. Therefore, this is the rst attempt to test this theoretical framework empirically. However, further research is needed to determine if these effects hold true in
more representative samples, and if the dimensions of interest truly
caused these effects or if confounded variables are to blame.
250
Fig. 3. Students' Angry Mood (left; signicant main effect of Medium and signicant interaction Medium Type) and Active Coping (right; signicant main effects of Medium,
Type, and Sex) by sex, medium (T = text vs. V = video) and type (H = harassment vs. O = outing) of cyberbullying.
Overall conclusions, implications, and signicance

The superordinate question posed at the beginning of this paper was
which dimensions are relevant for cyberbullying. The results of these
two exemplary studies show that not only dening characteristics transferred from conventional bullying but also uniquely cyber-specic
aspects are relevant to cyberbullying. Even though these studies only
focus on few selected dimensions that are potentially relevant for
cyberbullying, rst conclusions can be drawn for the conceptualization
and measurement of cyberbullying.
On the conceptual side, dening characteristics of bullying serve
to distinguish bullying from other acts of aggression. Presumably,
the underlying rationale is that bullying according to these criteria
is a distinct and distressing experience. For cyberbullying, dening
characteristics are not yet carved in stone. One viable option would
be to dene the boundaries of cyberbullying based on the cybervictim's level of distress. Against this background, Study I indicates
that at least some mandatory dening criteria of conventional bullying can be transferred to cyberbullying. We demonstrated that one
specic facet of power imbalance, namely perceived popularity, impacts the experience of cyberbullying. But it is also feasible that
other aspects of power imbalance as well as other dening criteria,
specically the intention to harm and repetition, could have similar
effects. These ndings underline the similarity between conventional
bullying and cyberbullying. The ndings of Study II on the other hand
underline conceptual differences between conventional bullying and
100
harassment
90
Percent (%)
80
outing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Coping Strategy Categories

Fig. 4. Coping in response to cyber incidents as indicated by students' open answers by
Type of cyber incident (harassment v. outing).
cyberbullying. The dimensions of media and type of cyberbullying

also have signicant effects on the experience of cyberbullying, indicating that these uniquely cyber-specic aspects of online cruelty
might be important for the denition of cyberbullying as well.
These ndings might also be relevant for the measurement of
cyberbullying. Valid measurement instruments of cyberbullying
have to capture the full breadth and width of the construct according
to the corresponding denition. For example, if a single question is
asked respondents have to have a correct understanding of the technical term cyberbullying to answer adequately (Menesini &
Nocentini, 2009). Depending on the underlying denition, this understanding should be sensitive to dening characteristics such as power
imbalance and should include cyberbullying with, for example, different
media and of different types. However, not all adolescents might be
aware that outing or exclusion in cyberspace constitutes cyberbullying.
It is a problem, when respondents have a biased understanding of
cyberbullying or if questionnaires only cover a fraction of the construct.
Detected prevalence rates might underestimate (or overestimate) the
real occurrence of cyberbullying.
Besides these straightforward implications for the conceptualization and measurement of cyberbullying, we would like to outline
some implications on a methodological level. Both studies in this
paper show that experimental research can signicantly contribute
to clarifying conceptual issues in cyberbullying research. Even though
these two studies should only be seen as the starting point of an
emerging research program, they contribute something unique to
the eld of cyberbullying research, mostly because of the novel methodological approach. On top of this, experimental cyberbullying
research could also contribute to answering questions of causality,
for example between presumed risk and protective factors, cyberbullying, and presumed consequences or effects. So far we do not
know if depressive symptoms are caused by cyberbullying or vice
versa. Therefore, this paper should also be read as a strong argument
for the broadening of the methodological repertoire of cyberbullying
research to also include experiments outside and inside the
laboratory.
Last but not least, these results also have applied practical implications because they reveal specic vulnerabilities that can be
addressed in preventions or interventions. In Study I female sex,
low perceived popularity, and young age were risk factors for distress
associated with negative cyber incidents. Especially these adolescents
need to be taught numerous and adequate tools for coping with potential negative cyber incidents (Pieschl & Porsch, 2012). Study II
shows that cyber incidents' media and type are also relevant risk
factors for distress. For example, cyberbullying via video caused
more distress than cyberbullying via text. Adolescents can be taught
adequate (technical) coping strategies that conne such incidents,

such as contacting the internet service providers or ling charges
against unauthorized use of one's own picture/video (Pieschl &
Porsch, 2012). Please note, that these vulnerabilities are not risk factors for cyberbullying per se. For example, (perceived) popularity
does not signicantly predict cyber-victimization; rather cybervictimization seems to foster (perceived) popularity, at least for
girls (Gradinger, Strohmeier, Schiller, Stefanek, & Spiel, 2012). Equally, a reverse u-shaped relation between age and cyberbullying is assumed with a peak during adolescence (Tokunaga, 2010). The
results of these studies partly conrm this assumption: In the younger sample of Study II 55% of students report cyber-victimization
whereas the corresponding percentage is 71 % for the older sample of
study I. Therefore, all suggested applications of prevention or intervention programs do not necessarily reduce the risk of cyber-victimization;
rather they could help buffer its negative consequences.
Acknowledgment
The data for Study I was collected as part of the fourth author's
Bachelor thesis requirements, and the data for Study II was collected
as part of the third author's Bachelor thesis requirements.
References
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective
and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,
41(4), 387397, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers' responses to bullying scenarios:
Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219.
Bonnet, M., Goossens, F. A., & Schuengel, C. (2011). Parental strategies and trajectories of
peer victimization in 4 to 5 year olds. Journal of School Psychology, 49(4), 385398.
Breitkopf, L. (1985). Hilosigkeitsskala [The helplessness scale]. Diagnostica, 31(3),
221233.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estvez, A., Villardn, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors' prole. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
11281135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017.
Caravita, S. S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18(1),
140163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x.
Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Theory in the study of media violence: The
general aggression model. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals (pp. 87105). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Collett, J. L., & Childs, E. (2011). Minding the gap: Meaning, affect, and the potential shortcomings of vignettes. Social Science Research, 40(2), 513522, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.008.
Dalbert, C. (1992). Subjektives Wohlbenden junger Erwachsener: Theoretische und
empirische Analysen der Struktur und Stabilitt [Subjective well-being of young
adults: Theoretical and empirical analysis of structure and stability]. Zeitschrift fr
Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 13(4), 207220.
de Bruyn, E. H., Chillessen, A. N., & Wissink, I. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance
and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(4), 543566, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0272431609340517.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vllink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences and
parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217223.
Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Dempsey, J., & Storch, E. A. (2011). Has cyber technology
produced a new group of peer aggressors? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 14(5), 297302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0108.
Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Gross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying.
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182188.
Erdur-Baker, . (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender
and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New
Media & Society, 12(1), 109125.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., Schiller, E., Stefanek, E., & Spiel, C. (2012). Cyber-victimization and popularity in early adolescence: Stability and predictive associations.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 228243, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17405629.2011.643171.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying
identication of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie/
Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205213.
Granello, D., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(4), 387393, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
j.1556-6678.2004.tb00325.x.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129156.
251
Huang, Y. -Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among
junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
15811590.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009a). Cyberbullying in
Internet-Chatrooms Wer sind die Tter? Ein Vergleich von Bullying in
Internet-Chatrooms mit Bullying in der Schule aus der Tterperspektive
[Cyberbullying in internet-chatrooms Who are the bullies? A comparison between bullying in internet-chatrooms and bullying in school from the perspective
of the bully]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie,
41(1), 3344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.25.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009b). Cyberbullying: Who are the victims? A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization in
school. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(1), 2536.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of
computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 11231134,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. N. (2010). Developmental changes in the priority of
perceived status in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 19(1),
130147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00522.x.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157170, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034306064547.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 17771791, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2005.10.005.
Medienpdagogischer Forschungsverbund Sdwest (mpfs) (2011). JIM-studie 2011,
jugend, information, (multi-)media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12-bis
19-Jhriger in Deutschland [JIM-study 2011. Youth, information, (multi)media].
Representative study about media use of 1219 year olds in Germany. Stuttgart: MPFS.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying denition and measurement: Some
critical considerations. Zeitschrift Fr Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4),
230232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., &
Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and denition in three
European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 20(2), 129142,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129.
Olweus, D. (1996). Gewalt in der Schule: Was Lehrer und Eltern wissen sollten und tun
knnen [Violence in school: What teachers and parents should know And can do].
Bern: Huber.
Ortega, R., Mora-Merchn, J. A., & Jger, T. (Eds.). (2007). Acting against school bullying
and violence. The role of media, local authorities and the Internet [e-book]. Landau:
Verlag Empirische Pdagogik, http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.197.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived
popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
18(2), 125144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look
at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148169, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/1541204006286288.
Pieschl, S., & Porsch, T. (2012). Schluss mit Cybermobbing! Das Trainings- und
Prventionsprogramm Surf-Fair [Stop cyberbullying! The training and prevention
program Surf-Fair]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564575, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564.
Riebel, J., Jger, R., & Fischer, U. C. (2009). Cyberbullying in Germany An exploration
of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies. Psychology
Science Quarterly, 51(3), 298314.
Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., & Bull, H. D. (2007). Gewalt an Schulen am Beispiel von Bullying. Aktuelle Aspekte eines populren Themas [Violence at schools regarding the example of bullying. New aspects of a popular topic]. Zeitschrift fr Sozialpsychologie,
38(3), 141152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.3.141.
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2009). Socialbehavioral correlates of
cyberbullying in a German student sample. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 224226.
Sijtsema, J. J., Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Empirical test of
bullies' status goals: Assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 5767, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20282.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fischer, S., Rusell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2007.01846.x.
Sourander, A., Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., et al.
(2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720728,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79.
Staude-Mller, F., Bliesener, T., & Nowak, N. (2009). Cyberbullying und
Opfererfahrungen von Kindern und Jugendlichen im Web 2.0 [Cyberbullying and
victim experience of children and adolescents in the Web 2.0]. Kinder- und
Jugendschutz in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 2, 4247.
Thayer, J. D. (2002). Stepwise regression as an exploratory data analysis procedure.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(AERA), New Orleans, LA, USA.
252
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
277287.
Tto, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Reintegrative shaming theory, moral emotions
and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34(4), 352368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ab.20257.
Utsumi, S. (2010). Cyberbullying among middle school students: Association with
children's perception of parental control and relational aggression. Japanese Journal
of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1222.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Dening cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4),
499503, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.
Wachs, S., & Wolf, K. D. (2011). Zusammenhnge zwischen Cyberbullying und Bullying
erste Ergebnisse aus einer Selbstberichtsstudie [Correlates of cyberbullying and
bullying First results of a self-report study]. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und
Kinderpsychiatrie, 60, 735744.
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Responding to the challenge of
online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.
Witvliet, M., Olthof, T., Hoeksma, J. B., Goossens, F. A., Smits, M. I., & Koot, H. M. (2010). Peer
group afliation of children: The role of perceived popularity, likeability, and behavioral
similarity in bullying. Social Development, 19(2), 285303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2009.00544.x.
Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(1), 3745.

Relevant Dimensions of Cyberbullying

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Relevant Dimensions of Cyberbullying

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Relevant dimensions of cyberbullying Results from two experimental studies

cyberbullying is still an uncharted territory. One way to approach

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

One consideration in favor of this equalization is one of the most

Hopmeyer, 1998). Social preference (also known as peer acceptance,

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

visible to the public; it was posted by [insert name of the nominated

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

Results regarding the experimental conditions (Hypotheses 1 and 2)

Coping Strategy Categories

The MANOVA regarding all Current Mood Sub-Scales yields similar

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

1 = boy and 2 = girl.

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

1 = Group A (+/) and 2 = Group B (/+).

Additionally, this study used hypothetical scenarios. Therefore,

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

1 = Group A (+/) and 2 = Group B (/+).

*p b .05. **p b .01. ***p b .001.

1 = Group A (+/) and 2 = Group B (/+).

bullying. This is also, to our knowledge, the rst study that

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

amused) and is reliable (Cronbach's = .67). All scales were

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

Results regarding hypotheses and exploratory research questions

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

Overall conclusions, implications, and signicance

Coping Strategy Categories

cyberbullying. The dimensions of media and type of cyberbullying

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

adequate (technical) coping strategies that conne such incidents,

S. Pieschl et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 34 (2013) 241252

Вам также может понравиться

p b .05. p b .01. p b .001.

p b .05. p b .01. p b .001.

p b .05. p b .01. p b .001.

p b .05. p b .01. p b .001.