MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Social Studies
Cyberaggression in Context: Youth Involvement and Responses
Habilitation Thesis
Brno 2019 Mgr. et Mgr. Hana Macháčková, Ph.D.
1
Abstract
Online interaction brings many benefits, such as making new friends, sustaining existing
relationships, or providing easy access to multiple information and materials. However,
considering that cyberspace is a new social arena in which all kinds of human interaction occur
on a daily basis, hand in hand goes also the risk of encountering negative experiences, one type
of which are experiences with aggressive behavior. This thesis focuses on cyberaggression
which is aggression conducted via communication technologies such as the internet or
smartphones. Specifically, it examines the cyberaggression among youth, which may be
involved as cybervictims, cyberperpetrators, or cyberbystanders.
In this thesis, I introduce and synthesize findings from selected eleven scholarly studies which
are contributing to the field of cyberaggression. All studies utilize quantitative methodology,
specifically survey-based data on both national and international samples. The goal of this thesis
is to situate the selected findings from the studies within the field and contribute to the broader
debate concerning the negative online experiences. The center corpus of studies focuses directly
on cyberaggression and cyberbullying in relation to different types of involvement and
responses to the aggressive incidents. The involvement in cyberaggression is discussed in
relation to factors associated with diverse participatory roles in cyberaggression and also
connection to offline aggression. The responses are discussed in relation to cybervictimization
(perceived harm and coping) and cyberbystanders (individual and contextual factors affecting
support to the victim). In the discussion, findings are compared with existing literature and
suggestions for future studies are formulated.
2
Acknowledgments
This thesis builds upon years of work in a team of extremely talented, smart, creative and hardworking
coffee-drinking people. Therefore, I would like to thank all present and past members
and collaborators of IRTIS, the Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, for
the great opportunity to be part of highly interesting and positively challenging research. I also
want to thank all people who work so hard at the Faculty of Social Sciences, be it at department
of Psychology, Media Studies and Journalism, or Institute for Research on Children, Youth,
and Family. And my family and my friends and again all my co-workers who were
understanding and provided me with enough time and support.
Namely, I want to thank David for providing all those opportunities for collaboration,
continuing friendly support, and valuable feedback. A very special thanks belong to Lenka, the
best research buddy anybody could wish for – both supportive and meticulously critical,
friendly and extremely nice to work with, and fun to spend free time with discussing everything
(and sometimes pleasantly quietly nothing). And thank you Honza, for insightful feedback and
fantastic cooperation.
Last but not least, I want to thank all those who worked on the studies included (and on all those
which are not) – by cooperating on the study implementation and data collection, providing
funding, and of course by participating in our research.
3
Content:
The goal and structure of this thesis....................................................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
The specificity of online interaction....................................................................................... 5
Cyberaggression and cyberbullying: a conceptualization ...................................................... 6
Cyberaggression and offline aggression ............................................................................. 7
Cyberaggression and cyberbullying.................................................................................... 8
Types of involvement in cyberaggression.............................................................................. 9
Participatory roles in cyberaggression................................................................................ 9
Responses to cyberaggression........................................................................................... 10
List of studies (and authors’ contribution) .......................................................................... 12
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion and key conclusions............................................................................................. 15
Involvement in cyberaggression: Participatory roles and interconnection between cyber and
offline aggression ................................................................................................................. 15
Differences between cyber and offline aggression ........................................................... 17
Bystanders’ responses to cyberaggression ........................................................................... 18
Victims’ responses to cyberaggression................................................................................. 20
Seeking social support ...................................................................................................... 21
Limitations and future directions.......................................................................................... 22
Final conclusion.................................................................................................................... 22
References ............................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix
4
The goal and structure of this thesis
In recent years, the internet and communication technologies have become an integral and
common part of everyday life. Current evidence shows that more than half of world population
(55%) uses the internet, with highest shares of users in North America (95%) and Europe (85%)
(Internet World Stats, 2018). Especially young people use them on a daily basis for diverse
purposes, be it for communication with family and friends, for work, or for entertainment.
According to the latest evidence, in the Czech Republic, where this thesis originates, most
children and adolescents (aged 9-17) go online on a daily basis, dominantly connecting via
mobile phone (84% daily) (Bedrošová, Hlavová, Macháčková, Dědková, & Šmahel, 2018).
Considering the proliferation of the internet and technology usage, it is not surprising that the
public and academic attention has soon turned to the role of internet and technologies in our
lives. Specific attention has been given to technology usage among youth, who may be most
vulnerable to possible negative effects but can also reap many benefits from technology usage
(boyd, 2014). Among highly discussed and researched topics belong experiences with
cyberaggression, which designates aggression conducted via internet and communication
technologies (Kowalski, Limber, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Tokunaga, 2010).
This habilitation thesis centers on cyberaggression as a specific experience connected with the
internet and technology usage. It utilizes findings from several studies from the area of research
on cyberpsychology and specifically cyberaggression. The aim of the thesis is to provide a
comprehensive summary of the selected findings, situate them within existing knowledge, and
discuss the further implications and future directions in this discipline. The goal is not to provide
an exhaustive overview (which would be out of the scope of this text) but to illustrate the
contribution of the findings to the knowledge about cyberaggression by focusing on salient
topics which are addressed within the studies. In result, this thesis aspires to contribute to a
broader discussion concerning the differences and similarities between cyber and offline
aggression, which is the key thematic line of this work.
The structure of the thesis is following. The introductory section provides a concise depiction
of the main perspectives within cyberpsychology which are utilized in depictions of the role of
internet and technologies in our social lives. In this section, I address the complexity of the
concept of cyberaggression and comment on the debates which are related to the conceptual
issues within this field. This section thus provides the basic framework needed for the
understanding of the key questions arising in this field. The middle section describes the utilized
studies and methodology. The final section introduces the selected findings from the studies
examining cyberaggression. It summarizes and partially synthesizes the findings from these
studies, contextualize them within the existing knowledge and complement them with other
findings from our studies in the field of cyberpsychology. This section includes also discussion
of the limitation of the studies. Final conclusion shortly summarizes main contribution to the
field. The Appendix includes all the studies utilized as core material in this thesis.
5
Introduction
The specificity of online interaction
The rapid an extensive spread of technologies brought many opportunities for our
communication practices. Especially with the spread of smartphones, the potential to be always
connected increased enormously. Although numerous studies documented positive aspects of
such development, the academic, as well as public views, also focused on potential negative
aspects and risks connected with this progress (boyd, 2014; Livingstone, 2009; Livingstone, &
Haddon, 2009). One of the pronounced topics is that technologies present new channels and
platform through and on which aggression can be conducted (Kowalski et al., 2012; Smith et
al., 2008; Tokunaga, 2010).
To provide a deeper understanding of cyberaggression, it is important to shortly introduce
broader debate concerning the communication and behavior within the online environment.
Aggressive behavior is part of our social lives and it is integrated within communication
practices (Huesmann, 1994). Therefore, to understand the role and impact of cyberaggression,
it is important to get insight into the specificity of our online lives and relationships, the
importance and specificity of the online communication, and tendencies and assessments
related to online interactions. Nevertheless, since this area constitutes whole discipline, I will
discuss this here just briefly.
Shortly after the proliferation of the internet and technologies, several established theories and
hypotheses have been formulated with regard to computer-mediated communication. In this
regard, many studies discussed potential deficits of online interaction, including the absence of
nonverbal communication cues and communication feedback or lack of commitment in online
interaction and relationships, which may consequently lead to interactions and relationships of
poorer quality. Nevertheless, not all authors were skeptical in their assessment of the online
interaction. For instance, a different perspective was provided by Walther (1996) who described
“hyperpersonal dimension” of the computer-mediated communication and how perceived
control over the message, or usage of specific cues present in the online environment
(hyperlinks, emoticons) can be advantageous, facilitating our interaction. Similarly, while we
can find more skeptical views focused on the lower quality of (dissociated) online relationships,
the potential of online interaction and relationships was viewed also positively. For instance,
Bargh and McKenna (2004) discussed the specificity of online interactions and factors such as
anonymity and invisibility, pointing out the positive effects in terms of support provided online.
Or, in relation to youth, Valkenburg and Peter (2009) emphasized the potential for enhancement
of adolescents’ social life due to increased self-disclosure within the environment.
This ongoing debate does not have clear conclusions since there is usually no linear direct unmoderated
strong effect of the interactions in the online environment (Valkenburg, Peter, &
Walther, 2016). Moreover, the potential effect of online interaction needs to be taken in the
context of wide-spread technology usage. With the high penetration of digital technologies, the
online and offline social worlds of youth are “linked to each other not only in terms of the topics
and themes that are projected, but also in terms of the kinds of behavior engaged in, the people
6
interacted with, and the relationships that may be sustained” (Subrahmanyam & Šmahel, 2011,
p. 34). Therefore, this needs to be taken into account in the discussion of the experiences in the
online environment. This being said, there is still a need to acknowledge that the specific
character of online communication to more or less extent shapes our everyday interaction. This
has implication also for the discussion on cyberaggression.
In this regard, especially the concept of online disinhibition has been effectively applied to
explain the role of online environment in cyberaggression (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012;
Runions & Bak, 2015; Wright, 2013). In essence, the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004)
describes why users may tend to behave in a more extreme – disinhibited – manner in online
interactions. This concept describes how both toxic (e.g., increased hostility and aggression)
and benign (e.g., increased self-disclosure) disinhibition are connected with factors including
dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative
imagination, and minimization of authority. These factors are often discussed in relation to
cyberaggression and some of them will be again included in the following discussion about the
specificity of cyber versus offline aggression.
Cyberaggression and cyberbullying: a conceptualization
Cyberaggression has been a center of many public and scholarly debates. In general,
cyberaggression designates aggressive behavior conducted via the internet or more generally
information and communication technologies (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner,
2014; Price & Dalgleish, 2010; Tokunaga, 2010). In relation to youth, cyberaggression has been
often discussed and examined under the term of cyberbullying. Though many scholars advocate
the view that cyberbullying must be distinguished from the cyberaggression or
cyberharassement (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015; Smith et al., 2008), in existing
literature, the terms are often used interchangeably. There are also other terms used to capture
the aggression on the internet and/or via digital technologies, such as online
aggression(bullying), electronic aggression(bullying), or aggression(bullying) via ICT (Grigg,
2010; Kowalski et al., 2014; Nocentini et al., 2010; Pyżalski, 2012). In this thesis, I opted for
the usage of the term cyberaggression as an umbrella term for the wide range of aggressive acts
conducted via digital technologies. It should be noted that the cited studies often use different
terms (such as bullying), however, since there are many inconsistencies in the terminology, I
would dominantly use this term.
The problem with the definition of the cyberaggression is connected with capturing and
conceptualization of the diversity of the experiences with cyberaggression, especially the
distinction between cyberaggression and cyberbullying, as well as the similarities and
differences between cyber and offline aggression. The next section briefly introduces this
ongoing debate which illustrates the key issues related to the field of cyberaggression.
7
Cyberaggression and offline aggression
One of the crucial questions is whether cyberaggression represents a unique phenomenon
distinct from other forms or peer aggression or whether it is a version of the same (albeit
somewhat different). Thus, a large part of the discussions concerns the specificity of the
cyberaggression and how (and even if) it differs from the offline aggression and bullying (see
e.g. Menesini et al., 2012; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015;
Kowalski et al., 2014; Olweus, 2012; Olweus & Limber, 2018). Such debate is, in a sense, part
of the broader overall discussion concerning the specifics of online behavior and the role of
technologies in our social life. There are arguments pointing out to the differences in
communication through online channels and digital technology (in relation to affordances of
online environment, such as anonymity, invisibility, etc.), while others stress that the basic the
patterns of behaviors remain, in their nature, the same (such as the prevailing tendency to use
the technologies to stay with touch with close ones). In essence, I would argue that both sides
bring valid points and these should be considered in the discussion on cyberaggression.
The debate concerning the specificity of cyberaggression comprises question about the link
between the experiences in online and offline environments. In this regard, it has been shown
that that cyberaggression among youth is in many cases (yet not exclusively; Kowalski &
Limber, 2013; Varjas, Henrich & Meyers, 2009) connected with offline victimization and
perpetration - those who are bullied and bully online have similar experience offline too
(Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009; Jose, Kljakovic, Scheib, & Notter, 2012; Juvonen &
Gross, 2008; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015). This may have at least two explanations. First
would suggest that there is a specific type of vulnerability towards victimization (such as low
self-esteem; Kowalski & Limber, 2013) and propensity towards aggression which function
analogously in both environments. Second, in many cases, the victimization and perpetration
happen in both environment (and the whole incidents are therefore in fact linked). Thus,
cyberaggression is part of behavior which is being conducted in existing offline circles, such as
school or class environment (Olweus & Limber, 2018). From this perspective, cyber aggression
and offline aggression seems like one type of behavior that is only manifested in different
environments.
On the other hand, there is evidence that cyberaggression is in some aspects different from
offline aggression. This is due to the specific character of the online environment and mediated
communication (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015; Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009; Grigg,
2010; Menesini et al., 2012). Since cyberaggression is conducted via communication
technologies which are currently widespread among youth, the attacks can come from any place
at any time and the victim can be reached even in the relative safety of their homes (Tokunaga,
2010). Moreover, all actors, including perpetrator(s), the victim(s), and other witness(es) can
be mutually distant and invisible, even anonymous. As a result, they lack immediate and direct
feedback about the impact on the victim, and they may feel more disinhibited in their responses
(Kowalski et al., 2014). In the case of public attacks, the audience of cyberaggression can be
substantially wider than offline (Kowalski et al., 2014; Pfetsch, 2016). Moreover, since the
attacks are in the online environment, the hurtful and harmful material (e.g., hateful messages,
humiliating photos or videos) can be easily copied, stored, and shared through many channels
8
(such as SNS), opening a possibility for further harm due to repeated exposure of the material
(Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013; Kowalski et al., 2014; Sticca & Perren, 2013).
Cyberaggression and cyberbullying
Another important and partially related issue is the problematic distinction between
cyberaggression and cyberbullying (Corcoran, Guckin, & Prentice, 2015; Kowalski et al.,
2014). In line with prior research and literature on bullying, cyberbullying was dominantly
defined by criteria which have been established for bullying behavior. These specifically are:
the victimization is repeated and happens over time; the harm is conducted intentionally; and
there is asymmetric power relationship between the aggressor(s) and the victim(s) (Kowalski
et al., 2014; Olweus, 1994). Thus, cyberbullying is often defined as “an aggressive intentional
act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over
time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). The
incidents that do not fulfill all these criteria, for instance, a one-time event without repetition,
or event resulting in harm of victim’s side, but without ill intention on the side of the
“perpetrator”, should not be labeled as cyberbullying – and some authors indeed use the more
general label “online aggression” for such incidents to acknowledge that not all criteria were
met (or measured).
On one hand, there is a consensus that it is desirable to distinguish cyberbullying from
cyberaggression, since there are important differences. It is imperative to separate less severe
and occasional incidents of online aggression from much more intense, persistent, intentional,
and harmful cases of cyberbullying. This is needed due to several reasons, from the academic
examination of the correlates, predictors, and consequences of such different experiences, to
practical efforts in form of tailoring of prevention and intervention efforts which need to address
these diverse experiences differentially.
On the other hand, there is also a need to acknowledge that cyberspace constitutes a specific
environment and that aggression via communication technologies somehow differs from offline
conditions. While the above-mentioned definition of cyberbullying is widely used, there is
nevertheless valid question whether using definition derived from traditional bullying is a good
approach. The online environment differs in many aspects from offline one (and in many cases
specifically from offline established social groups, for which traditional bullying was defined).
The cyberbullying is a complex phenomenon and the three bullying criteria may simply not fit
well in a multiplicity of experiences in cyberspace. In this sense, it has been for instance
discussed how the criterion of repetition changes in online environment (due to the possibility
of storage and sharing of information) and how this criterion is more appropriate for direct
attacks but not so for the public ones (Langos, 2012; Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013; Vandebosch
& Van Cleemput, 2009). Moreover, there is a debate about the criterion of imbalance of power,
which in the case of cyberbullying may lie rather in anonymity or online expertise while the
role of other factors which define it offline (e.g., physical strength) may diminish in the online
world (Grigg, 2010; Kowalski et al., 2014). There are also studies which, using bottom-up
approach and asking youth what they consider as cyberbullying, pointed out that perception of
children and youth differ from the approaches of researchers and that the criteria might not
9
correspond with children’s lived experiences and expectations (Canty, Stubbe, Steers, &
Collings, 2016; Kofoed & Staksrud, 2018).
To sum, the problems with the definition of cyberbullying and cyberaggression pertain to the
whole field of the cyberbullying research. This causes some inconsistencies in findings, which
can be effectively demonstrated for instance on the range of reported prevalence of
cyberbullying victimization, which may range between approximately 10 and 40% but
sometimes the reported prevalence are even higher (up to 70%) (Kowalski et al., 2014; Selkie,
Fales, & Moreno, 2016). The debates of the adequate definitions are ongoing and the
inconsistent approaches of various authors still continue. I need to state that this thesis does not
aspire to provide in-depth inside into conceptual issues concerning the definition of
cyberbullying/cyberaggression. However, at least on the level of this theoretical introduction,
these issues need to be presented to offer an insight useful for the accurate interpretation of the
findings in different studies in the area. However, since one of the central focuses leading this
work is the attention to the differences between online and offline aggression, it is crucial to
recognize the potential differences between the communication practices online and offline in
general as well as how they may specifically manifest in cyberaggression.
Types of involvement in cyberaggression
Up to now, I described cyberaggression experiences generally. However, I also mentioned that
youth can be engaged in cyberaggression in diverse roles – as victims, perpetrators, and
witnesses. In order to understand the issues related to cyberaggression, we need to ask who are
youth involved in cyberaggression and how - and why - do they respond to the incidents. In this
regard, several theoretical frameworks have been applied, including General Aggression
Model, Social Cognitive Theory, or Bystander Intervention Model (Allison & Bussey, 2016;
Savage & Tokunaga, 2017). Research centered on the involvement in cyberaggression is
immensely important for preventive and also intervention efforts. There is a need to identify
vulnerable children who may become victims of cyberaggression or are prone to behave
aggressively. Moreover, we need to understand the factors which are connected to the
cyberaggression and which should be targeted in work with potential victims and perpetrators.
Finally, we need to understand the responses of other youth as well as responses of
cybervictims, including their choices of coping strategies.
Participatory roles in cyberaggression
The research on bullying and aggressive behavior offline has an established tradition and was
for long period dominated by the focus on the role of victims and perpetrators. However, in
recognition of the importance of bullying as a social phenomenon (Salmivalli, 2010), the
attention has been soon given also to others who are (somehow) involved in the situation – socalled
onlookers, witnesses, audience, or bystanders of aggression. In my work, I will use the
term bystanders. A similar shift in research attention occurred also in the research on
cyberaggression, which was in the first years mostly focusing on victimization and later
included cyberbystanders as an important segment of youth to research to understand
cyberaggression, its roots, processes, and consequences (Pfetsch, 2016). Thus, the most
10
common (but also a bit crude) is the differentiation between the role of “victim”, “perpetrator”,
and “bystander”. Several studies focused on participatory roles in bullying and cyberbullying.
In their already classical study on offline bullying, Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist,
Osterman & Kaukialnen, (1996) identified six participatory roles: bully, the victim, assistant of
the bully, a reinforcer of the bully, defender of the victim, and outsider. In a recent study
utilizing a person-oriented approach, Schultze-Krumbholz, Hess, Pfetsch, and Scheithauer
(2018) differentiated five categories: prosocial defenders, communicating outsiders, aggressive
defenders, bully-victims, and assistants.
However, it should be noted that all these roles can overlap; plus, that they can overlap between
cyber and offline contexts. The links between cyber and offline context have been already
shortly described. Moreover, prior studies focused on the overlap between cyberperpetrators
and cybervictims (Gradinger et al., 2009). One of possible explanation is that
cybervictimization may lead to subsequent cyberaggression (Wright & Li, 2013), or that
cyberbullies-cybervictims present a specific group of children with specific vulnerabilities and
problematic individual and social characteristics (Kowalski & Limber, 2013).
Prior research addressed the roles of youth in cyberaggression and investigated the factors
which are connected with the specific types of involvement in cyberbullying. In school
bullying, an Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1977) has been applied in the need to
identify diverse factors connected to bullying. Since bullying – and cyberbullying – are a
complex processes which are affected by interplay of factors on a different levels, Swearer and
Doll (2001) described the benefits of utilizing the ecological system approach and examine
factors linked with the levels of the individual, peers, the family, the school, the community,
and the culture. Such broader investigations capturing the effects of diverse factors, and ideally
also their interactions, helped understanding the processes of bullying and have been later
adapted also in cyberbullying research (Hong et al. 2016).
To contribute to this line of research, the first subsection concluding the findings from the
selected studies would be oriented on the links between cyber and offline aggression,
perpetration and victimization, and correlates of the diverse participatory roles.
Responses to cyberaggression
Another studied area focuses on the way youth respond to experienced incidents. In this thesis,
I will focus on the responses to cyberaggression among two groups of youth. First are
cyberbystanders, who may react in three basic ways: they can help the victim, they can be on
the side of the perpetrator, or they can stay passive, non-involved and distant from the whole
situation they witness.
It should be noted that the range of responses of bystanders is not so clearly delineated and there
are also crucial differences within these types of responses. For instance, helping the victim can
have multiple forms (Kanetsuna & Smith, 2002; Trach et al., 2010), such as confrontation of
the aggressor, offer of emotional support to the victim, retaliation towards aggressor, or
provision of advice what to do (e.g., how to block the aggressor), etc. Many of these responses
can be also (depending on the situation and context) conducted online and/or offline, as well as
11
in public or just in private. Similarly, helping aggressor can have also many forms, from joining
in the incident and providing open support to their actions to anonymous “like” of harmful
content. With regard to passive response, we can ask whether bystanders, for instance, observe
the ongoing event or if they leave the incident immediately after they recognize the nature of
the incident. It is also useful to acknowledge that even passivity may be connected with either
sympathy towards victim but also towards aggressor (Machackova, Dedkova, Sevcikova, &
Cerna, 2018; Pfetsch, 2016).
There are many factors connected to the responses of bystanders (Allison & Bussey, 2016;
Domínguez-Hernández, Bonell, & Martínez-González, 2018). In existing studies, the attention
is given to individual characteristics, such as empathy and self-efficacy, moral disengagement,
as well as to a specific context in which bystanders witness the incident, such as the severity
and type of witnessed incident, „proximity“, relationship towards other actors, or presence of
other bystanders (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Barlińska, Szuster, and Winiewski, 2013, 2015;
DeSmet et al., 2012;, Machackova, Dedkova, Sevcikova, & Cerna, 2013, 2016; Van Cleemput,
Vandebosch, & Pabian, 2014).
To contribute to this line of research, the second subsection concluding the findings from the
selected studies would be oriented on the responses of cyberbystanders with regard to the role
of the individual characteristics and contextual effects.
The second type of response targeted within this thesis is the responses of the cybervictims to
the incident – that is, coping with cybervictimization. It has been shown that cybervictimization
has negative impact on victims (Parris et al., 2012; Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013), however,
the victims’ coping strategies may help both to stop bullying but also emotionally deal with the
situation (Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012; Orel, Campbell, Wozencroft, Leong,
& Kimpton, 2017). Coping strategies of cybervictims have been discussed in prior literature
(Perren et al., 2012; Raskauskas, & Huynh, 2015; Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013)
and specific focus has been given to the strategies specific to the cyberaggression. In this regard,
prominently has been discussed so-called technical coping, that is strategies which can be
applied via technology (such as, blocking the attacks, deleting messages, or reporting to the
administrator). However, the range of possible coping strategies vary highly and is analogous
to coping with offline victimization, including for instance ignoring the incident or active
seeking of support. Coping with cyberaggression has also been examined in relation to the type
of incident as well as diverse factors identified within the Ecological Systems Theory paradigm,
especially individual and social factors (Perren et al., 2012).
To contribute to this line of research, the third subsection concluding the findings from the
selected studies would be oriented on the responses of cybervictims with regard to the role of
the individual and social factors.
12
List of studies (and authors’ contribution)
The thesis consists of two sets of studies which are all included in the Appendix: studies which
are directly focused on the topic of cyberaggression (Studies I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) and
studies which more broadly examine issues related to online interaction (Studies IV, V, XI).
Note: Study VI is a review of published work from project EU Kids Online II. Since the review
includes also Study VII and Study VII, the findings are not reported as corroborating findings,
but Study VI provides a descriptive overview while the two latter studies are discussed in more
depth due to their more profound analytical approach.
STUDY I: Machackova, H. & Pfetsch, J. (2016). Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and
cyberbullying: The role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 57, 169–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12277
Author contribution (70%): Leading author, partial work on integration of theory and
discussion, predominantly involved in the analysis
STUDY II: Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., & Mezulanikova, K. (2015). Brief report: The
bystander effect in cyberbullying incidents. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 96-99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.010
Author contribution (90%): Leading author, predominantly involved in the theory, analysis,
and discussion; supervision of methodological design and data collection
STUDY III: Machackova, H., Cerna, A., Sevcikova, A., Dedkova, L., & Daneback, K. (2013).
Effectiveness of coping strategies for victims of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(3), article 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2013-3-5
Author contribution (60%): Leading author, partial work on integration of theory and
discussion, predominantly responsible for the data analysis, co-operation on methodological
design development, coordination of the data collection
STUDY IV: Machackova, H., & Smahel, D. (2018). The perceived importance of credibility
cues for the assessment of the trustworthiness of online information by visitors of health-related
websites: The role of individual factors. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1534-1541.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.021
Author contribution (90%): Leading author, predominantly involved in the theory, analysis,
and discussion; co-operation on methodological design development, coordination of the data
collection
STUDY V: Machackova, H. (2015). Online communities and early adolescents. In P. Lorentz,
D. Smahel, M. Metykova, & M. F. Wright (Eds.), Living in the digital age: Self-presentation,
networking, playing, and participating in politics (pp. 62-77). Brno: Muni Press.
Author contribution (100%): Single author, predominantly involved in the theory, analysis,
and discussion; co-operation on methodological design development, coordination of the data
collection
13
STUDY VI: Görzig, A. & Machackova, H. (2016). Cyberbullying in Europe: A review of
evidence from cross-national data. In M. F. Wright (Ed.), A social-ecological approach to
cyberbullying (pp. 295-326). Hauppauge: Nova Publishing.
Author contribution (45%): The work was shared in half between the authors except the
leadership of the study.
STUDY VII: Cerna, A., Machackova, H., Dedkova, L. (2016). Whom to trust: The role of
mediation and perceived harm in support seeking by cyberbullying victims. Children & Society,
30, 256-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/chso.12136
Author contribution (40%): Development of the main topic of the study, partial involvement
in the theory and discussion, main involvement in the analysis
STUDY VIII: Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., & Cerna, A.
(2012). Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect effects by low self-control across 25
European countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 210-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919.
Author contribution (30%): Partial involvement in the theory, analysis, analysis, and
discussion
STUDY IX: Bayraktar, F., Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Cerna, A., & Sevcikova, A. (2015).
Cyberbullying: The discriminant factors among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyvictims
in a Czech adolescent sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 3192-3216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514555006
Author contribution (30%): Partial involvement in the theory, analysis (including the design
of analytical strategy), and discussion, co-operation on methodological design development,
coordination of the data collection
STUDY X: Ševčíková, A., Macháčková, H., Wright, M. F., Dědková, L., & Černá, A. (2015).
Social support seeking in relation to parental attachment and peer relationships among victims
of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 25, 170-182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2015.1
Author contribution (30%): Partial involvement in the discussion, main involvement in the
analysis, co-operation on methodological design development, coordination of the data
collection
STUDY XI: Barbovschi M., Macháčková, H., & Ólafsson, K. (2015). Underage use of social
network sites: It’s about friends. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 328-
332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0553
Author contribution (30%): Partial involvement in the theory and discussion, main
involvement in the analysis
14
Methodology
This thesis is based on published studies which all utilize quantitative design, specifically
survey-based self-reported data. The details concerning the specific character of the data can be
found in the methods sections of the respective studies in Appendix.
Data in Studies III, IX, and X are from a project focusing on coping strategies with
cyberbullying, which was part of action COST ISO801. The aim of the project was to examine
coping strategies and their perceived effectiveness by Czech adolescents (aged 12-18) when
facing cyberbullying. In 2011 – 2012, a survey was conducted on 2,092 Czech children in 34
schools in the South Moravian region.
Study VIII, VI, and VII use international data (25 participating European countries) collected
in April/October 2010 within the project EU Kids Online II. The overall sample consisted of
25 142 children aged 9–16 who were Internet users and who filled out both administered and
self-completed questionnaires focused on their online experiences at home.
Study XI is based on data collected in 2013–2014 within the international project Net Children
Go Mobile (7 European countries), which was partially following-up the EU Kids Online II
project. The sample comprises 3,565 respondents, Internet-using children aged 9–16 years. The
sample for this study was of 1,723 respondents, aged 9–12 years who were either SNS nonusers
or who used mostly Facebook.
Study II utilizes data from 257 bystanders of online aggression (whole sample n= 679)
adolescents aged 11-19 who agreed to participate in a survey conducted in seven schools in the
Czech Republic in 2014.
Study I uses data collected in winter 2013 / 2014 in four secondary schools in a large city in
Germany. The sample comprises 321 students aged 12–18.
Study IV utilizes data from the visitors of websites focused on nutrition, weight loss, and
exercise that was collected as part of a project on eating behaviors in the context of internet and
technology use collected via an online survey between May and October 2016. The original
sample comprised 1,002 respondents, the sample in the study comprises 695 respondents aged
13-57.
Study V uses the data from the first way of panel-survey on 3,055 students from a stratified
random sample of schools in the Czech Republic. A subsample of 865 respondents aged 11-14
was selected on the basis of reporting participation in online groups.
15
Discussion and key conclusions
The research on cyberaggression presents a substantial research area which currently comprises
hundreds (or even thousands) of studies. It is inextricably nested within the broad discipline of
cyberpsychology and utilizes knowledge related to the general patterns and effects of
technology usage, but it also builds on the long tradition of research on aggression and bullying
among youth. There are multiple research problems which urge investigations focusing on
particular issues which were rather briefly presented in the introduction.
As I stated above, the goal of this thesis is not to provide an in-depth examination of one specific
issue. The goal is to depict the specific contributions of selected studies utilizing diverse data,
with overreaching goal to focus on the specificity of the cyberspace experiences – that is, what
can be differentiating in the case of cyberaggression in comparison with offline conditions.
To answer this question, I will summarize and briefly comment on the selected findings from
the studies on cyberaggression and cyberpsychology included in this thesis (included in the
Appendix). Following the Introduction, this section is categorized into three main areas of
interest. The first subsection is considering the involvement in diverse roles in cyberaggression.
The second subsection focuses on responses of bystanders of cyberaggression. Finally, the third
subsection centers on the responses of cybervictims in form of harm and coping. These findings
will be also commented with regard to the studies which more broadly examined the differences
and augmentation of online and offline lives, their perceptions, and possible challenges related
to online interaction.
Involvement in cyberaggression: Participatory roles and interconnection
between cyber and offline aggression
First of the research questions concerns the correlates of the involvement in cyberaggression in
diverse roles and especially the similarities and differences between cyber and offline
aggression. This issue was examined within Study VI, Study VIII (both based on findings from
the project EU Kids Online II) and Study IX (based on the Czech data from adolescents
involved in cyberaggression as victims and/or perpetrators). This issue was also partially
addressed in Study I (utilizing a sample of German students reporting about their experiences
as bystanders in cyber and offline aggression).
The findings of the studies showed that, in line with prior literature (Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt,
2014; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015) there are quite
substantial links between cyber and offline experiences with aggression. Moreover, the studies
provided evidence depicting the interconnection between the cybervictimization and
cyberperpetration.
In both aspects, Study VI provided a comprehensive and exhaustive synthesis of findings
related to cyberaggression from the international project EU Kids Online II. In essence, the
16
reviewed studies showed associations between perpetration and victimization and between
these experiences in the offline and online environment. Similarly, Study I showed that there is
a tendency among bystanders to react correspondingly online and offline: Those who tend to
support the victim tend to do so both online and offline, and those who are prone to reinforce
the bully also respond in a similar fashion in both environments.
A possible explanation of these similarities may lay in the presumption that both cyber and
offline aggression share common risk and protective factors. Study VI showed that both
cybervictimization and cyberperpetration were associated with psychological difficulties and
some kind of social disadvantage (lower SES or discrimination), cybervictimization also with
the poorer quality of social relationships and cyberperpetration with other offline risks. Similar
factors have been found in prior literature on both offline and cyberaggression (Guo, 2016;
Hong, 2016; Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). This would
partially support the argument presented in the Introduction - that in many cases,
cyberaggression is actually a specific type of offline aggression.
This argument is further supported by Study VIII which examined these associations in more
depth and proposed that there is a path from offline aggressive experiences to cyberaggression
(for both victimization and perpetration). Further, the study tested the direct and indirect effect
of low self-control, a risk factor which has been shown influential in the explanation of the
deviant or crime behaviors (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The tested model showed that
children who had low self-control tended to engage more in offline perpetration and were more
likely offline victims, and, in turn, also more likely became involved in cyberaggression.
Though the effect of self-control was more robust for cyberperpetration, it also helped predict
the offline victimization and, indirectly, cybervictimization. Thought the interpretation is
limited because of the cross-sectional data, the potentially high explanatory power of the selfcontrol
was shown also in Study IX, where this factor helped to distinguish between the
cybervictims, cyberbullies, and cyberbullies/victims. Moreover, the importance of this factor
has been shown also in other studies on cyberbullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009;
Li, Holt, Bossler, & May, 2016).
However, though this evidence supports the argumentation about interconnection between the
types of involvement in the aggression, the studies also showed differences between the
participatory roles. As mentioned above, Study VI showed that unlike cybervictims,
cyberbullies did not report poorer quality of social relationships, but they had more problematic
offline experiences. The differences between the participatory roles showed also Study IX,
which investigated the differences between cyberbullies and cybervictims, and
cyberbullies/victims. The study shows that cybervictimization was characterized by higher selfcontrol
and lower offline aggression; while cyberbully-victims reported higher offline
aggression and lower self-control. Study VI also showed that cyberbully/victims were most
problematic in terms of psychological difficulties. In similar fashion, Haynie and colleagues
(2001) also identified bully/victims as a potentially the most problematic group of children
involved in offline aggression. Therefore, though there are some similarities between both types
of cyberaggressive experiences, upon this evidence, I would stress the need to pay attention to
the specificity of the involvement in victimization and perpetration. Especially the prevention
17
and intervention efforts should acknowledge that the subgroup of cyberbully/victims may be
most problematic and vulnerable.
Differences between cyber and offline aggression
Finally, Study VI uncovered also some interesting findings which highlight differences between
cyber and offline aggression. These differences concern especially factors related to internet
use.
First, the cybervictimization has been linked with more intense internet usage, usage of social
networking sites, usage of mobile devices and experienced misuse of personal data. Having a
profile on a social networking sites seems to be particular risk for both cybervictimization and
cyberperpetration (Dredge, Gleeson, & De la Piedad Garcia, 2014). Study VI showed that circa
half children reporting cybervictimization also reported that this happened via social
networking sites, and having social networking sites profile doubled the odds of being
victimized online. The ownership of social networking sites profile also differentiated between
those with only offline and also online bullying experiences (both as a victim and perpetrator).
Given the important role of social networking sites in cyberaggression, we should nevertheless
consider that the social networking sites are currently highly prominent part of online social
lives and constitute integral part of not only online but also offline interactions (boyd, 2014).
For many youth, having own profile on social networking sites is also the first step in their
broader online experiences and we know that even younger children are becoming their owners
and users before the legal age limit. Considering this importance of social networking sites,
Study XI examined factors connected with their usage among early adolescents. It showed that
the owners of profile on social networking sites reported higher tendency for online
disinhibition and tendency to seek new friends online. Though the usage of social networking
sites may bring many benefits in social life, in the context of cyberaggression research, this
urges also caution due to possible negative outcomes. It has been shown that the increased
tendency for disinhibition can be problematic since it is connected with increased aggression
as well as increased self-disclosure, which predicts cybervictimization (Schacter, Greenberg, &
Juvonen, 2016). In this context, it should be repeated that disinhibition in online environment
can be also related to lower self-control, which has been linked with both cyberperpetration and
cybervictimization (Study VIII). Thus, in relation to the early onsets of usage of social
networking sites, a caution is warranted - especially in cases of children who are just becoming
more involved in online social lives and may not have necessary skills and experiences with the
possible negative aspects and consequences of online interactions. In this regard, we need to
understand in more depth which factors help to regulate the potentially negative outcomes of
social networking sites without hindering the beneficial opportunities which their usage brings
for young users.
Moreover, as Study VI shows, cyberbullies engaged more in online risky activities and reported
higher beliefs about their internet abilities, found it easier to be themselves online and reported
that they found it easier to talk about different and more private things online than they would
offline.
In the context of cyberaggression, it is useful to consider in which online environments are
youth more inclined to behave in similar – or, on the contrary, different - fashion. One of the
18
factors depicted in Study V was the overlap between online and offline friends, which was
typical for most youth. However, this study also highlighted that youth who on the internet
dominantly interacted in online groups consisting of unknown people were more prone to
behave substantially differently online (in comparison to youth interacting with people they
know offline). Based upon the findings from this study, we may presume that many online
groups share some form of offline contact and therefore do not allow for highly dissociated
behavior, since that could be perceived negatively in comparison with offline reality. Such
behavior may be more common within groups with predominant online contact. In these
environments, it should be further researched to what extent and in what occasions can online
interaction of current youth exacerbate the prominence of the risk factors connected with
cyberperpetration and cybervictimization. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the
nature of social groups (both online and offline) in which youth interact. Though online groups
with offline contact may hinder the tendency for aggressive expressions, in cases of groups in
which some negative processes such as bullying already exist, these may be mirrored online.
Bystanders’ responses to cyberaggression
A second focal area of this thesis comprises the examination of the responses of bystanders of
cyberaggression. This topic was specifically addressed by Study I (utilizing a sample of German
youth reporting about their experiences as bystanders in cyber and offline aggression) and Study
II (analyzing a sample of Czech youth who reported having experience as a bystander of
cyberaggression). Both studies examined predictors of bystanders support towards cybervictim,
Study I also considered the reinforcement of the perpetrators. Both studies captured the role of
individual and social factors but also the role of the context in which bystanders respond to the
aggression. Main research question of Study II was whether the perceived presence of other
bystanders affects the provided support, while Study I focused primarily on differences between
offline and cyber aggression.
As was mentioned in the previous subsection, according to findings in Study I, it seems that the
responses of bystanders are linked in a similar fashion as cyber and offline victimization and
perpetration. Thus, as shown, those who provide support in cyberbullying also tend to do so in
offline bullying – and those who tend to reinforce bullies do so also in both environments.
Which indicates that bystanders’ responses also have some common correlates, in both types
of environments.
Both studies confirmed that the factors which have been previously found as determinants of
responses to offline aggression have a crucial role also in cyberaggression. Among these belong
empathy, in form of immediate empathic concern (Study II) which urges the action as well as
a more stable trait of affective empathy (Study I). In line with prior findings (DeSmet,
Bastiaensens, Van Cleemput, & Poels, 2016; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2007; Pöyhönen,
Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012; Van Cleemput, Vandebosch, & Pabian, 2014), it seems that
empathy is an important prerequisite for the provision of support both online and offline.
Focusing also on the role of normative beliefs, that is cognitive self-regulatory mechanisms
19
guiding our evaluation of the appropriateness of certain behavior (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997;
Guerra, Huesmann & Hanish, 1995), Study I showed that those who think that it is appropriate
to respond aggressively (to provocation) verbally and online tend to reinforce the aggressor,
both online and offline.
Both studies also pointed out the importance of the context in which the situation occurs. In
accordance with existing knowledge (Desmet et al., 2012; Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005;
Macháčková et al., 2013; Oh & Hazler, 2009), Study II showed that we need to take into
consideration the relationships between the actors and that non-existent relationship dampen
the possibility of getting help. Moreover, Study II showed that similarly to offline aggression,
cyberaggression can be affected by the contextual factors described by the Bystander
Intervention Model proposed by Latané and Darley (1970). Specifically, it showed that if
cyberbystanders thought that there are other bystanders witnessing the situation, this lowered
their tendency to provide support to the victim. In this sense, the study provided evidence
supporting the hypothesis that the so-called bystander effect is present also in the online
environment. Moreover, also in line with the Bystander Intervention Model, it has been showed
that efficacy can be determining in the decision to offer help. While those who thought that they
have higher social skills more likely provided help, probably because they felt that they can do
so effectively. In sum, the study corroborated the evidence that the processes affecting the
responses of bystanders in offline situations (Fischer et al., 2011; Latané & Nida, 1981) are
influential also in the cyber environment.
On the other hand, the Study I highlighted also important differences between the supportive
responses in offline and cyber context. Above, I mentioned that both studies showed that
responses to cyberbullying are linked with empathy – those bystanders with higher empathy
tend to help the victim more. However, Study I also showed potential differences between the
specific types of empathy: According to the findings, while affective empathy predicted
provided support in both cyber and offline context, cognitive empathy (i.e., ability to
comprehend the situation and take the person’s perspective) predicted support to the victim
offline yet not in cases of cyberaggression. This can suggest that for youth, it is problematic to
correctly and accurately assess the incidents which happen in an online environment. Thus,
while the affective empathy which reflects tendency to invoke the immediate affective response
(which is an important precursor of supportive action; Macháčková et al., 2013) can still urge
provision of support, the otherwise higher competence to get “into others’ shoes” in form of
cognitive empathy does not result in supportive action.
Thus these studies again show that while in general, there are many similarities between
responding to online and offline aggression, they also urge the need to acknowledge some
differences. Upon the findings from these studies, the differences concern especially cognitive
processes – which may be linked with a problematic assessment of the situation in the online
environment. Online attacks pose a challenge for the correct interpretation of ongoing events.
While several individual factors influence bystander behavior, these are determinative
especially after one recognizes the incident as an aggressive act that requires intervention
(Koehler & Weber, 2018). Such recognition serves as a necessary prerequisite for bystander
response, making the assessment of the situation a crucial part of the process. Therefore, we
20
need to pay particular attention to the specific contextual factors in which bystanders encounter
the incidents, since they determine the assessment of the whole situation.
In this regard, it is crucial to understand which factors help to determine the final judgement
concerning the nature (and severity) of the ongoing events. To this date, there is rather limited
evidence concerning this process, though there are studies which provide useful knowledge
related to the evaluation of online information. For instance, Study IV described challenges
which people encounter in online environment in relation to the assessment of online
information and how they rely on specific heuristics in this process. The findings showed that
people mostly rely on the assessment of the surface cues, which are important for their
judgement about the nature of the information. However, we lack deeper knowledge about the
effect of the specific contextual factors and cues present in the online environment on
bystanders’ assessment of the situation and their consequential responses. This issue should be
targeted in future studies, which could implement experimental design to investigate the role of
diverse online cues. Such examination could elaborate on the findings on Study II and for
instance answer the question asking upon which information and cues children form their
perception of presence of other cyberbystanders.
Victims’ responses to cyberaggression
The third area of interest comprises the responses of the cybervictims. This topic was examined
specifically within Study III, Study X (both utilizing Czech sample of cybervictims), Study VII
(based on a subsample of cybervictims from data of the project EU Kids Online II), and Study
VI (reviewing findings from the project EU Kids Online II).
Study III and Study VI provided an overview of the strategies which have been applied and
their assessment in terms of effectiveness and the factors which may explain the choices of the
type of response. In both studies, harm has been shown as an important factor which helped to
differentiate between youth who did or did not apply certain strategies. Similarly to offline
aggression, also cyberaggression presents harmful experience, though the impact varies (Hamm
et al., 2015). As discussed in the Introduction, the impact may range from single not-upsetting
incidents to hurtful events which have a huge emotional impact.
Upon the findings from the studies, the harm caused by cybervictimization is a crucial factor in
the consideration of the coping with cyberbullying. Harm has been also shown to be associated
with specific individual and social factors. Study VI concluded that higher harm was reported
by youth victims with psychological difficulties, lower sensation seeking, lower self-efficacy,
and lower SES, who had parents more mediating their internet usage (with the exception of
active mediation of internet use, where the association was opposite). This finding prompts at
least two possible explanations. First would suggest that since most of these are risk factors for
bullying victimization (Espelage & Holt, 2001; Golmaryami et al., 2016; Swearer, Song, Cary,
Eagle, & Mickelson, 2001), the reported (higher) harm functions as a functional indicator of
the severity of the experience. Another explanation could propose that these factors can be also
hindering effective coping with the emotional impact and thus lead to increased harm (in
21
comparison to youth with less problematic psycho-social profiles). In fact, both explanations
are probable and the link between these factors and harm can be both direct and indirect,
mediated (as well as moderated) by the severity of the incident.
Study III considers the first explanation and focuses on the differences in coping of children
who report low and high harm. In general, the findings showed that youth with high harm tend
to apply more strategies (similar findings are shown in in Study VI). Moreover, the more
harmed cybervictims were the more they tended to pursue active actions such as changing own
contact or profile, seeking advice online, or confronting the aggressor online, which could be
conceptualized as problem-oriented strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The extent of harm
was also influential on the cognitive responses – specifically, it hindered the tendency to take
things lightly, seeing it as not hurtful or even unreal, but also urged them to avoid the incident
cognitively or even purposefully ignore it. However, in other strategies, the difference between
responses to more and less harmful experiences was not so pronounced. For instance, popular
strategies such as seeking social support, severing and blocking the contact, effort to
purposefully ignore the incident or depreciating the aggressor mentally were distributed almost
evenly. Study VI also showed that youth with psychological difficulties reacted more passively,
such as they were more likely to stop using the internet, hope that the problem would go away,
and less likely to talk about their experience. It also linked technical coping strategies with
higher digital skills and self-efficacy. Retaliation was rather scarce strategy in both studies,
linked with the cyberbully/victim experience (Study VI).
Seeking social support
One of the most common and highly recommended strategies is seeking social support (Parris
et al., 2012). Such strategy can be highly effective since it can, for instance, prompt peers to
provide help to the victim (Macháčková et al., 2013). Both Study VI and Study III showed this
was indeed a popular response to the cybervictimization. Two other studies, Study X and Study
VII focused specifically on the strategy of seeking social support. Both consider the role of
social relationship and harm in the employment of his strategy. The results are not completely
consistent since Study X showed that the tendency to seek support from parents is not directly
linked to harm, while Study VII showed that intensity of harm increased the odds for seeking
support from parents, peers, or both. This discrepancy might have methodological explanation.
It is possible that the international and larger sample in Study VII allowed to detect the effect,
which due to smaller variation could not be detected in Study X. It should be noted that in
bivariate analysis in Study X, the social support seeking and harm were correlated, but only
weakly (r=.14).
However, both studies highlighted the importance of the quality of the relationships with
parents and peers. Study X showed that good parental attachment and low peer rejection
increased the odds that a child will tell a parent about their cybervictimization. Similarly, Study
VII showed that the parents and peers have the role in the selection of this coping strategy.
Focused more on their role in the child’s experiences in the online world, the study showed that
parental and peer active mediation of internet use were linked with seeking support from
respective actors (while restrictive mediation had no effect). Moreover, this tendency was also
positively associated with parental knowledge about child’s online activities and to whether
22
children seek support from parents when bothered. Finally, though Study X did not show a
direct association between harm and seeking support, it investigated possible moderation effect.
According to the findings, among children with poor parental attachment, the increased harm
lead to lower odds of talking to parents. Both studies thus show the importance of both
individual level and social level factors in the application of this socially-oriented coping
strategy.
Limitations and future directions
This thesis provided an overview of findings from data drawn from several projects, including
survey-based data from national and international samples. Though the diversity of the data
increased the opportunity for cross-validation of the findings, the methodological design is also
necessarily limited in several regards, which also pose inspiration for future studies in this area.
Since the data are cross-sectional, the argumentation on the level of causal effects is only
hypothetical. There is still need for longitudinal and experimental studies which would support
the presumptions concerning the described effects, such as responses of bystanders or proposed
model depicting the role of self-control on offline and consequentially cyber aggression.
Though especially experimental research would be highly requiring in terms of ethical
considerations, it would be beneficial to examine the responses of cyberbystanders based on
specifically designed experimental materials, which would allow for the more precise
conclusions regarding the effects of selected cues underlying the responses. Moreover, it is
important to acknowledge that the findings are based on the self-reported data, which may
suffer from recollection bias and social desirability bias. Future studies may consider the
designs which would include observatory methods, or using multi-informant approach which
would increase the validity of the collected data. Another limitation of this thesis is that it
focused only on selected issues within the examined areas. Plus, since I was focusing on the
negative phenomenon of cyberaggression, the otherwise beneficial effects of internet usage
were discussed only very briefly, which should be taken into account in the contextualization
of the findings. Finally, considering that the whole design is based on quantitative methodology
utilizing questionnaire-based data, I did not aspire to provide more in-depth understanding of
the specificity of the online experiences of involved youth. However, as stated in the
Introduction, such perspective is highly warranted, since it yields deeper understanding of the
lived experiences of youth.
Final conclusion
This thesis is a compilation of several studies which examine the selected topics within the field
of research on cyberaggression. Specifically, the studies contribute to the understanding of the
factors related to the involvement in the cyberaggression in diverse participatory roles, the
responses of bystanders of online aggression, and responses of the cybervictimized youth,
specifically in the form of perceived harm and coping strategies.
In summary, though there is evidence supporting the presumption that cyber and offline
aggression share common determinants and are linked, this thesis also highlighted some
differences which distinguished the experiences with cyberaggression from those endured in
offline environment. It was shown that there are some specific factors connected with
23
cyberaggression and cybervictimization, which are related to the involvement in online social
life (such as SNS usage or tendency for disinhibited behavior). Moreover, it was shown that
bystanders of cyberaggression may face difficulties in the assessment of the ongoing events
which may hinder their supportive responses. Finally, findings showed how the responses to
cybervictimization are affected by the extent of the perceived harm, which needs to be taken
into consideration. Moreover, in relation to the application of the coping strategies, a social
environment has a significant role.
24
References
Allison, K. R., & Bussey, K. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature on
witnesses' responses to cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 183-194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.026
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology,
55, 573-590. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922
Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role
of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 23(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2137
Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2015). The role of short-and long-term cognitive empathy
activation in preventing cyberbystander reinforcing cyberbullying behavior. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4), 241-244. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0412
Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet, A., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I.
(2014). Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural
intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036
Bedrošová, M., Hlavová, R., Macháčková, H., Dědková, L., & Šmahel, D. (2018). Czech children on
the internet: Report from a survey at primary and secondary schools. Project EU Kids Online IV – the
Czech Republic. Brno: Masaryk University.
Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Canty, J., Stubbe, M., Steers, D., & Collings, S. (2016). The Trouble with Bullying–Deconstructing
the Conventional Definition of Bullying for a Child-centred Investigation into Children's Use of Social
Media. Children & Society, 30(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12103
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive
review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice.
School Psychology International, 34(6), 575-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313479697
Corcoran, L., Guckin, C., & Prentice, G. (2015). Cyberbullying or cyber aggression?: A review of
existing definitions of cyber-based peer-to-peer aggression. Societies, 5(2), 245-255.
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5020245
DeSmet A., Bastiaensens S., Van Cleemput K., Poels K. (2016). Deciding whether to look after them,
to like it, or leave it: A multidimensional analysis of predictors of positive and negative bystander
behavior in cyberbullying among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 398–415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.051
Desmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I.
(2012). Mobilizing bystanders of cyberbullying: An exploratory study into behavioural determinants
of defending the victim. In B. K. Wiederhold & G. Riva (Eds.), Annual Review of Cybertherapy and
Telemedicine (pp. 58-63). Ios Press.
25
Domínguez-Hernández, F., Bonell, L., & Martínez-González, A. (2018). A systematic literature
review of factors that moderate bystanders’ actions in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4), article 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-1
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A
Theoretical and Conceptual Review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 182-188.
https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & De la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Cyberbullying in social networking sites:
An adolescent victim’s perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 13-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer
influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 123-142.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_08
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., . . . Kainbacher,
M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and
non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023304
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and
defending behavior?. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204
Golmaryami, F. N., Frick, P. J., Hemphill, S. A., Kahn, R. E., Crapanzano, A. M., & Terranova, A. M.
(2016). The social, behavioral, and emotional correlates of bullying and victimization in a schoolbased
sample. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
015-9994-x
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
Psychology, 217, 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
Psychology, 217, 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205
Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Journal of
Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143
Guo, S. (2016). A meta‐analysis of the predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization.
Psychology in the Schools, 53, 432-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21914
Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., . . . Hartling, L.
(2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of
social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 770-777.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001).
Bullies, victims and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21,
29-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431601021001002
26
Hong, J. S., Lee, J., Espelage, D. L., Hunter, S. C., Patton, D. U., & Rivers Jr, T. (2016).
Understanding the correlates of face-to-face and cyberbullying victimization among US adolescents: A
social-ecological analysis. Violence and Victims, 31, 638-663. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-
D-15-00014
Huesmann, L. R. (Ed.). (1994). Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Internet World Stats (2018). World Internet Users and 2018 Population Stats. Retrieved on December
30, 2018 from: https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Jose, P. E., Kljakovic, M., Scheib, E., & Notter, O. (2012). The joint development of traditional
bullying and victimization with cyber bullying and victimization in adolescence. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 22, 301-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00764.x
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x
Kanetsuna, T., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Pupil insights into bullying, and coping with bullying: A binational
study in Japan and England. Journal of School Violence, 1(3), 5-29.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v01n03_02
Koehler, C., & Weber, M. (2018). ”Do I really need to help?!” Perceived severity of cyberbullying,
victim blaming, and bystanders’ willingness to help the victim. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4), article 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-4
Kofoed, J., & Staksrud, E. (2018). ‘We always torment different people, so by definition, we are no
bullies’: The problem of definitions in cyberbullying research. New Media & Society,
1461444818810026. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818810026
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13-S20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
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, 1073-1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the
digital age. John Wiley & Sons.
Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: The challenge to define. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15(6), 285-289. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0588
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on
toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 434-443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2015). The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational
factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors?. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 9(2), article 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-2-3
27
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?. New York:
Meredith Corporation.
Latane, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological
Bulletin, 89, 308-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkmann, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer
Li, C. K., Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2016). Examining the mediating effects of social
learning on the low self-control—cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior, 37,
126-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Polity.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Policy
press.
Macháčková, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., & Cerna, A. (2013). Bystanders’ support of
cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 25-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.2135
Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., & Cerna, A. (2016). Empathic responses by
cyberbystanders: The importance of proximity. Journal of Youth Studies, 19, 793-804.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1112882
Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., & Cerna, A. (2018). Bystanders’ supportive and passive
responses to cyberaggression. Journal of School Violence, 17, 99-110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1222499
Machmutow, K., Perren, S., Sticca, F., & Alsaker, F. D. (2012). Peer victimisation and depressive
symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation?.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704310
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical
considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230-232.
https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., ... & Naruskov, K.
(2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 455-463.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E.
(2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries. Journal of
Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171-1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.1994.tb01229.x
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 9(5), 520-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.682358
28
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 19, 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012
Orel, A., Campbell, M., Wozencroft, K., Leong, E., & Kimpton, M. (2017). Exploring university
students’ coping strategy intentions for cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(3), 446-
462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515586363
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High school students’ perceptions of coping with
cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44(2), 284-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11398881
Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D. J., Mc Guckin, C., ... & Völlink, T. (2012).
Tackling cyberbullying: Review of empirical evidence regarding successful responses by students,
parents, and schools. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6, 283-292.
Pfetsch, J. (2016). Who is who in cyberbullying? Conceptual and empirical perspectives on bystanders
in cyberbullying. In M. F. Wright (Ed.), A social-ecological approach to cyberbullying (pp. 121-149).
New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Pöyhönen, V., Juvonen, J., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Standing up for the victim, siding with the bully
or standing by? Bystander responses in bullying situations. Social Development, 21, 722-741.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00662.x
Price, M., & Dalgleish, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as
described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia, 29(2), 51-59.
Pyżalski, J. (2012). From cyberbullying to electronic aggression: Typology of the phenomenon.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17,305-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704319
Raskauskas, J., & Huynh, A. (2015). The process of coping with cyberbullying: A systematic review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019
Runions, K. C., & Bak, M. (2015). Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 400-405.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0670
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15,
112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a
group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive
Behavior, 22, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T
Savage, M. W., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2017). Moving toward a theory: Testing an integrated model of
cyberbullying perpetration, aggression, social skills, and Internet self-efficacy. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.016
Schacter, H. L., Greenberg, S., & Juvonen, J. (2016). Who's to blame?: The effects of victim
disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 115-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.018
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Hess, M., Pfetsch, J., & Scheithauer, H. (2018). Who is involved in
cyberbullying? Latent class analysis of cyberbullying roles and their associations with aggression,
29
self-esteem, and empathy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4),
article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-2
Selkie, E. M., Fales, J. L., & Moreno, M. A. (2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and
high school–aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 58(2), 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying:
Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49,
376-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the
differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
Subrahmanyam, K., & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_02
Swearer, S. M., Song, S. Y., Cary, P. T., Eagle, J. W., & Mickelson, W. T. (2001). Psychosocial
correlates in bullying and victimization: The relationship between depression, anxiety, and
bully/victim status. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 95-121.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_07
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Trach, J., Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T., & Neale, K. (2010). Bystander responses to school bullying: A
cross-sectional investigation of grade and sex differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,
25(1), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509357553
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A decade
of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2009.01595.x
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 67, 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual
factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying.
Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534
30
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual
factors that determine “helping,”“joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying.
Aggressive Behavior, 40, 383-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies
and victims. New Media & Society, 11, 1349-1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341263
Varjas, K., Henrich, C. C., & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students' perceptions of
bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8(2), 159-176.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220802074165
Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. (2013). Coping with cyberbullying:
Differences between victims, bully-victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2142
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional
bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(5), 483-488.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
Wright, M. F. (2013). The relationship between young adults' beliefs about anonymity and subsequent
cyber aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 858-862.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0009
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent cyber
aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 662-
674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3