- Email: [email protected]
Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling: The role of gender
Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling: The role of gender Michelle F. Wright a, b, * a b
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, USA Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 October 2016 Received in revised form 26 January 2017 Accepted 28 January 2017 Available online 3 February 2017
Researchers are concerned with identifying the risk and protective factors associated with adolescents' involvement in cyberharassment. One such factor is parental mediation of children's electronic technology use. Little attention has been given to how different parental mediation strategies (i.e., instructive, restrictive, co-viewing) relate to adolescents' cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying, cybertrolling) perpetration and victimization, and how gender might impact these associations. To this end, the present study examined the moderating effect of gender on the longitudinal association between parental mediation strategies and adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. This focus was examined using a sample of 568 (53% female) adolescents from the 8th grade in the United States. The association between restrictive mediation and cybervictimization was more positive for girls when compared to boys, while the relationship between instructive mediation and cybervictimization was more negative for girls than for boys. The findings underscore the importance of considering parents in adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cybertrolling Cyberbullying Cybervictimization Adolescent Parental mediation
1. Introduction Cyberharassment is a risk factor associated with adolescents' electronic technology use. Cyberharassment involves an assortment of behavioral risks, including cyberbullying and cybertrolling (Bhem-Morawitz & Schipper, 2015). To mitigate the risk factors associated with adolescents' electronic technology use, many parents have increased their supervision of their children's online lives. Parental mediation reduces adolescents experience of cybervictimization (Lwin, Stanaland, & Miyazaki, 2008; Mesch, 2009; Wright, 2015). Less attention has been given to how parental mediation relates to adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration, although a few studies have found negative associations (Chng, Liau, Khoo, & Li, 2014). It is also unclear how various parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) might reduce adolescents' risk of cyberbullying involvement. Little attention has been given to predictors of cybertrolling, and parental mediation might be one such predictor. Girls typically report more parental mediation (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008).
* Department of Psychology, Child Study Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.059 0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thus, it is also important to understand how gender might impact the relationships between parental mediation and cyberbullying and cybertrolling. To this end, the present study examined the moderating effect of gender on these associations, utilizing a longitudinal design and different types of parental mediation strategies. 2. Literature review 2.1. Cyberharassment Cyberharassment is defined as “computer-mediated obscene comments, sexual harassment, and generally harassing behaviors aimed at debasing and/or driving out a virtual world user” (BhemMorawitz & Schipper, 2015 p. 2). Such behaviors can include flaming, nasty comments in chatrooms, offensive emails, or harassing blog posts. Furthermore, cyberharassment is a broad term for an array of negative and hostile online behaviors, including cyberbullying and cybertrolling. Typically conceptualized as an extension of face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying involves malicious behaviors carried out through a variety of information and communication technologies, such as instant messaging tools, social networking sites, gaming
190
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
consoles, text messages and cell phones, email, and websites (Smith et al., 2008). These malicious behaviors are often tormenting threatening, and/or perceived as harassing by a victim or a group of victims (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009; Grigg, 2010). Other examples of cyberbullying include sharing secrets about the victim, spreading nasty rumors, and threatening to harm someone (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Similar to traditional forms of face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying often involves repetition of the behavior or behaviors and sometimes an imbalance of power between the victim and the perpetrator. The concept of repetitiveness is complex in the cyber context because it is possible to share harassing messages or videos one time or multiple times and with one person or multiple people (Nocentini et al., 2010; Smith, Del Barrio, & Tokunaga, 2013; Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2008). In addition, recipients of such messages or videos can also choose to re-share such content. Cyberbullying has received increased attention because of its linkages to depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicidal ideation and attempts, poor academic performance, and alcohol and drug use (Bauman, Toomey, & Walker, 2013; Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Huang & Chou, 2010; Wright, 2016). Gender differences in cyberbullying perpetration and cybervictimization are mixed. Some researchers (e.g., Boulton, Lloyd, Down, & Marx, 2012; Li, 2007; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007) have found that boys were more often cyberbullies, while girls were more likely than boys to report cybervictimization (e.g., Adams, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). However, opposite patterns have been found in other research. In particular, girls in some samples have self-reported more cyberbullying perpetration when compared to boys (e.g., Cao & Lin, 2015; Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2012; Pornari & Wood, 2010). Other researchers (e.g., Akbulut, Sahin, & Eristi, 2010; Del Rey et al., 2016; Sjurso, Fandream, & Roland, 2016) have found that boys were more often cybervictims than girls. No gender differences in cyberbullying involvement have been found in other research as well (e.g., Beran & Li, 2005; Didden et al., 2009; Marcum, Higgins, Freiburger, & Ricketts, 2012; Wright & Li, 2013). Gender has continued to be an inconsistent predictor of cyberbullying involvement. Cybertrolling is defined as “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the internet with no apparent instrumental purpose” (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). Few studies have focused on examining cybertrolling. In one study, Shachaf and Hara (2010) identified boredom, attention seeking, revenge, pleasure, and a desire to cause damage to the community as underlying motivations for engaging in cybertrolling. In addition, aggression, deception, disruption, and success have also been identified as characteristics of cybertrolling (Hardarker, 2010). Cybertrolling is distinguishable from cyberbullying or other forms of cyberharassment due to the pointlessness and disruptiveness of such behavior (Buckels et al., 2014). The intention of cybertrolls is not typically well-known, unlike cyberbullying in which the perpetrator is intending to harm the victim or victims (Lenhardt, 2013). Little attention has been given to the predictors of cybertrolling. Buckels et al. (2014) conducted one of the few studies to examine predictors of cybertrolling among adults. Their focus was on the association between cybertrolling and the Dark Triad of Personality (i.e., sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism). Findings revealed that cybertrolling was related positively to sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Furthermore, sadism was the one personality trait that was consistently associated with cybertrolling. Consequently, Buckels et al. suggest that cybertrolling might be an example of everyday sadism. It is unclear how gender might impact adolescents’ involvement in cybertrolling as little attention has been given to this topic. Additional research should focus on the potential risk and
protective factors associated with cybertrolling as well as whether such factors might differ from cyberbullying and how gender could influence such differences. 2.2. Parental mediation Investigating parental mediation in relation to cyberbullying and cybertrolling provides the opportunity to investigate both risk and protective factors associated with these behaviors. Defined as using an assortment of prevention strategies to manage children's relationship with electronic media, parental mediation involves setting rules concerning their children's use of electronic media (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). Such strategies might involve discussing appropriate use and setting limits on their children's electronic media use (Dehue et al., 2012). For parental mediation to be effective, parents must maintain an open dialogue with their children concerning appropriate content to view and how to use online tools. Some parents set rules regarding negative online behaviors, like cyberbullying. Three parental mediation strategies have also been identified in the literature, including restrictive, coviewing, and instructive (Arrizabalaga-Crespo, Aierbe-Barandiaran, & Medrano-Samaniego, 2010). Restrictive mediation is defined as parents' use of strategies employed to prevent children's access to certain online content. On the other hand, co-viewing mediation involves parents accessing online content with their children, although they might not discuss the content that they encounter. Parents who use instructive mediation maintain an active and continuing dialogue with their children regarding online content and the risks associated with electronic technology use. Attention has been given to parental mediation strategies as some strategies are effective for reducing adolescents' cyberbullying involvement. In one study, Mesch (2009) found that parents' use of monitoring strategies concerned their children's access to appropriate and inappropriate websites. Specifically, parents discussed which websites their children were allowed to visit. When such strategies were implemented, their children experienced lower levels of cybervictimization. Other research has corroborated the negative relationship between cybervictimization and high levels of parental mediation (Chng et al., 2014; Wright, 2015). In their study, Chng et al. (2014) examined active and restrictive parental mediation, and the role of these strategies in cyberbullying. Both parental mediation strategies reduced adolescents' risk of cyberbullying perpetration. However, these patterns were found for boys only and not girls, although girls reported higher levels of parental mediation when compared to boys. Such a finding suggests the importance of also considering gender when examining parental mediation strategies and how such strategies reduce adolescents' risks. They did not investigate how these various parental mediation strategies might mitigate adolescents' risk of cybervictimization. It is unknown how parental mediation might influence cybertrolling. Like cyberbullying, parental mediation might reduce adolescents’ risk of cybertrolling. Given that some parents communicate with their children about appropriate online behavior, it is likely that cybertrolling might be another behavior which is discussed with their children. 2.3. The present study Follow-up research should be conducted to better understand the longitudinal relationships between parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) and cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization, and how gender might impact these associations. To this end, the present study had the following aims:
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
(1) to examine the relationships between parental mediation strategies and cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. (2) to investigate the relationships between parental mediation strategies and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. (3) to examine the moderating role of gender in these associations. The pattern of these relationships were examined over one year among adolescents. Data were first collected in the Spring of 7th grade and the next set of data were collected in the Spring of 8th grade. 3. Methods 3.1. Participants The participants for this study were 568 (52% female; M age ¼ 13.48 years) 8th graders from the Midwestern area of the United States. Their schools were located within predominantly middle-class neighborhoods. Participants primarily self-identified as White (73%), Latino/a (20%), Black/African American (5%), Asian (1%), and biracial (1%). Around 20%e31% of students at the schools qualified for free or reduced cost lunch. No income data was gathered. 3.2. Procedures Schools were recruited from a list of over 150 public middle schools located in the suburbs of a large Midwestern city. Of this list, 10 middle schools were randomly selected. The school principals at these 10 middle schools were sent an email. The email described the study's purpose, what adolescents would be expected to do, and how long adolescents would participate in the study. Six school principals expressed their intention to have their students participate in the study. The principal investigator setup a meeting with school principals and 7th and 8th grade teachers to discuss the project, what adolescents would do if they were to participate, and the length of data collection. Classroom announcements were made to made to the 7th grade classes, which explained how important adolescents' participation is, what they would do, the confidentiality and privacy of their answers, and how long they would participate in the study. A total of 713 parental permission slips were sent home with adolescents. The parental permission slip explained the nature of the study. There were 578 parental permission slips returned with permission, 13 that were returned without permission, and 2 that were unreturned. During the Spring of 7th grade, adolescents participated in the first wave of data collection (Time 1; T1). Some adolescents (n ¼ 11) were absent on the first day of data collection. Of these, 10 were able to complete the questionnaires on a make-up day. Before completing the questionnaires, adolescents provided their assent and they were allowed to ask questions in private, if they desired. They completed questionnaires on their demographic background (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity), self-reported cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization), and parental mediation of their technology use at the first wave. A total of 577 adolescents participated during the first wave of data collection. One year later, during the Spring of 8th grade, adolescents participated in the second wave of data collection (Time 2; T2). A letter was sent home to parents reminding them on their child's participation in the study. Parents wishing to no longer have their child participate in the study were asked to return the letter back to their child's school with their child's name written on it. There were no letters returned to the school. For the second wave of data
191
collection, ten adolescents did not participate because they had moved away. A total of 568 adolescents participated at the second wave. They completed the self-reported cyberharassment questionnaire. The study was approved by the principal investigator's university's IRB. Permission was also granted from three of the school districts, while the other three schools had principal permission. APA ethical standards were followed throughout this study. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Parental mediation strategies Adolescents were asked how often they perceived their parents as being involving in their technology use (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). There were 8 items included for this questionnaire, which were rated on a scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The questionnaire included three subscales: restrictive mediation, co-viewing mediation, and instructive mediation. Four items were included for restrictive mediation, including “My parents impose a time limit on the amount of time that I surf the internet”. Three items were included on the coviewing mediation subscale. A sample item from this subscale included “My parents surf the internet with me”. There were two items included for the instructive mediation subscale (e.g., “My parents show me how to use the internet and warn me about the risks). This questionnaire was administered in the 7th grade only. Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 for restrictive, 0.83 for co-viewing, and 0.80 for instructive. 3.3.2. Self-reported cyberharassment This questionnaire assessed how often adolescents perpetrated and experienced cyberbullying and cybertrolling, yielding four subscales: cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, and cybertrolling victimization. Sixteen items were included on this questionnaire (Wright & Li, 2013). There were 12 items for cyberbullying, 6 for cyberbullying perpetration (e.g., “I called someone insulting names online or through text messages”) and 6 for cybervictimization (e.g., “Someone called me insulting names online or through text messages”). Four items were included for cybertrolling, 2 for cybertrolling perpetration (i.e., purposefully upsetting people online with the intent to trigger an emotional response, purposefully starting arguments online with the intent to trigger an emotional response) and 2 for cybertrolling victimization (i.e., were upset by something someone purposefully wrote online to get an emotional response, were upset by a purposeful argument online intended to trigger an emotional response). This questionnaire was administered in the 7th and 8th grades. All items were rated on a scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (All of the time). Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 for T1 cyberbullying perpetration, 0.87 for T2 cyberbullying perpetration, 0.92 for T1 cybervictimization, 0.92 for T2 cybervictimization, 0.78 for T1 cybertrolling perpetration, 0.77 for T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and 0.74 for T1 and T2 cybertrolling victimization. 3.4. Analytic plan Before conducting the analyses, analysis of variances (ANOVA) were conducted to examine differences among the six schools on the variables of restrictive mediation, co-viewing mediation, instructive mediation, T1 and T2 cyberbullying perpetration, T1 and T2 cybervictimization, T1 and T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and T1 and T2 cybertrolling victimization. No differences were found among any of the schools concerning each of these variables. Readers interested in more information about these analyses are urged to contact the author. Confirmatory factor analysis was
192
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
conducted to examine the measurement model using Mplus 7.3. The model had adequate fit, c2 ¼ 688.04, df ¼ 703, p ¼ n.s., CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, SRMR ¼ 0.03. The factor loadings had good magnitudes and were significant (ps < 0.001). The items served as indicators for the latent variables in the structural regression model. For the structural regression model, paths were added from T1 parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, instructive, co-viewing) to T2 cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization). T1 cyberharassment variables were allowed to predict their respective T2 variable. Gender was added as a moderator between T1 parental mediation strategies and T2 cyberharassment. Interactions were further examined using the Interaction program, if the interaction was significant. This program provides the significance of the unstandardized simple regression slopes and display graphical representations of the simple slopes.
4. Results Descriptive statistics and correlations were conducted among all variables in the study (see Table 1). The mean of restrictive mediation was 2.76, and 2.63 and 2.58 for co-viewing mediation and instructive mediation, respectively. Means were also conducted for cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. The following means were obtained: 2.03 for T1 cyberbullying perpetration, 2.67 for T1 cyberbullying victimization, 2.18 for T2 cyberbullying perpetration, 2.71 for T2 for cyberbullying victimization, 1.93 for T1 cybertrolling perpetration, 1.86 for T1 cybertrolling victimization, 1.99 for T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and 1.90 for cybertrolling victimization. All variables were correlated with each other, except for a few. T1 restrictive mediation was not associated with T1 co-viewing mediation and T2 cybertrolling victimization. T1 co-viewing mediation was not related to T2 cybertrolling victimization. In addition, T1 instructive mediation was not associated with T1 and T2 cyberbullying perpetration, and T1 and T2 cybertrolling perpetration. T1 cyber aggression perpetration was not related to T2 cybertrolling victimization. T2 cybervictimization was not associated with T2 cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. T1 cybertrolling perpetration was unrelated to T2 cybertrolling victimization. To address the study's aims, a structural regression model was created. The model demonstrated adequate fit, c2 ¼ 991.38, df ¼ 881, p ¼ n.s., CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.96, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, SRMR ¼ 0.03 (see Fig. 1 for a model depiction and Table 2 for all statistics). T1 restrictive (b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.001) and co-viewing (b ¼ 0.30, p < 0.05) mediation were associated negatively with T2
Fig. 1. Structural regression model for the associations among Time 1 (T1) parental mediational strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) and Time 2 (T2) cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization.
cyberbullying perpetration. On the other hand, T1 restrictive mediation was related positively with T2 cybertrolling perpetration and cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.30, p < 0.001). Furthermore, T1 coviewing mediation was associated negatively with T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.05) and T2 cybertrolling perpetration (b ¼ 0.26, p < 0.001). T1 instructive mediation was related negatively to T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.05) and cybertrolling victimization (b ¼ 0.32, p < 0.001). Gender was examined as a moderator in the relationships between parental mediation strategies and the different forms of cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization). The moderation effect was significant for T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.16, p < 0.05) and T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.17, p < 0.05). The association between T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more negative for girls. In contrast, the relationship between T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more positive for girls.
Table 1 Correlation among variables in the study.
1. T1 Restrictive 2. T1 Co-viewing 3. T1 Instructive 4. T1 CBP 5. T1 CBV 6. T2 CBP 7. T2 CBV 8. T1 CTP 9. T1 CTV 10. T2 CTP 11. T2 CTV M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 0.03 -0.25** -0.32*** 0.41*** -0.35*** 0.38*** 0.31*** 0.17* 0.24** 0.10 2.76 (0.81)
e -0.33*** -0.33*** -0.25** -0.30*** -0.24** -0.30*** -0.16* -0.29** 0.08 2.63 (0.98)
e 0.11 -0.28*** 0.08 -0.25** 0.05 -0.33*** 0.04 -0.29*** 2.58 (1.01)
e 0.26** 0.39*** 0.42*** 0.29*** 0.17* 0.33*** 0.13 2.03 (0.55)
e 0.29*** 0.33*** 0.23** 0.29*** 0.16* 0.25** 2.67 (0.61)
e 0.26** 0.29*** 0.16* 0.25** 0.20* 2.18 (0.69)
e 0.18* 0.19* 0.13 0.10 2.71 (0.60)
e 0.20* 0.36*** 0.15 1.93 (0.61)
e 0.17* 0.33*** 1.86 (0.81)
e 0.18* 1.99 (0.70)
e 1.90 (0.73)
Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2; CBP ¼ Cyberbullying perpetration; CBV ¼ Cyberbullying victimization; CTP ¼ Cybertrolling perpetration; CTV ¼ Cybertrolling victimization. * p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
193
Table 2 Standardized coefficients for structural regression model.
Main Effects T1 Restrictive Mediation T1 Co-Viewing Mediation T1 Instructive Mediation Interactions T1 Restrictive Mediation Gender T1 Co-Viewing Mediation Gender T1 Instructive Mediation Gender Covariates T1 Cyberbullying perpetration T1 Cyberbullying victimization T1 Cybertrolling perpetration T1 Cybertrolling victimization
T2 Cyberbullying perpetration
T2 Cyberbullying victimization
T2 Cybertrolling perpetration
T2 Cybertrolling victimization
0.23*** 0.30*** 0.05
0.30*** 0.19* 0.31***
0.18* 0.26** 0.11
0.03 0.13 0.32***
0.02 0.03 0.01
0.16* 0.10 0.17*
0.05 0.11 0.10
0.03 0.02 0.05
0.43*** e e e
e 0.48*** e e
e e 0.44*** e
e e e 0.32***
Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2; CBP ¼ Cyberbullying perpetration; CV ¼ Cybervictimization; CTP ¼ Cybertrolling perpetration; CTV ¼ Cybertrolling victimization. * p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
5. Discussion This study investigated the associations between parental mediation strategies (i.e., instructive, co-viewing, restrictive) and cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization). The moderating effect of gender in these relationships was also examined. Consistent with the previous literature, some parental mediation strategies were related positively to cyberharassment, while some strategies were associated negatively with these behaviors (Chng et al., 2014; Wright, 2015). Parental mediation might function as a form of social support (Livingstone, €rzig, & Olafsson, Haddon, Go 2011). It provides adolescents with the opportunity to discuss various negative situations that they encounter through electronic technologies. Parents are able to discuss strategies that have the potential to mitigate or reduce their children's exposure to cyberharassment (Wright, 2015). Furthermore, parents who take an active role in their children's digital lives might also provide guidance on appropriate online behaviors. Such guidance might help to reduce adolescents' perpetration of cyberharassment. Actively taking a role in adolescents' digital lives might further encourage adolescents to seek out social support and guidance from their parents regarding the potential exposure and experience of various online risks (Nikken & de Haan, 2015; Talves & Kalmus, 2015). There were a few distinctive findings from the present study. For instance, T1 restrictive mediation was related negatively to T2 cyberbullying perpetration. On the other hand, this type of mediation was associated positively with T2 cybervictimization and cybertrolling victimization. Restrictive mediation concerns parents' use of strategies that prevent their children's access to online content (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). Such prevention of adolescents' online content seems to reduce their perpetration of cyberbullying one year later. It might be likely that parents are sources of information regarding what content adolescents should avoid online, and this knowledge could lead to future conversations about online activities (Chng et al., 2014; Nikken & de Haan, 2015). Restricting adolescents' online activities might reduce their opportunities for perpetrating negative behaviors. In contrast, restrictive mediation might not prevent cybervictimization and cybertrolling victimization. Although it might be that restrictive mediation strategies prevent adolescents from accessing various online content, this strategy might not involve sharing methods to mitigate the potential for victimization by cyberharassment. Restrictive mediation might be similar to the overprotective parenting style. The overprotective parenting style involves parenting behaviors that do not encourage children to develop autonomy, problem-solving skills, and social skills (Clarke, Cooper,
& Creswell, 2013; Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Overprotective parenting also involves fear. Such fear leaves children vulnerable to risks, particularly cyberharassment. The exposure to risky online behaviors is probably inevitable and parents who use restrictive mediation strategies might not allow their children to develop strategies for dealing with these situations (Smahel & Wright, 2014). Restrictive mediation might prevent adolescents from accessing content, which reduces their risk of perpetrating cyberbullying, while these strategies do not involve sharing methods for avoiding or dealing with these behaviors. Mesch’s (2009) study provided some evidence that parents enforce strict rules regarding their children's access to online content, but that they rarely discuss strategies for dealing with the exposure to negative online interactions. Follow-up research should be conducted on restrictive mediation and the differential associations of these strategies to cyberharassment perpetration and victimization. T1 co-viewing mediation was related negatively to all forms of T2 cyberharassment, except cybertrolling victimization. Coviewing mediation involves parents using electronic technologies with their children (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). Parents who use this strategy are not likely to discuss content with their children, though they might discuss ways to deal with such content. Such minimal levels of intervention might reduce adolescents’ risk of experiencing cybervictimization. Furthermore, co-viewing mediation involves high levels of monitoring and supervision, which might prevent adolescents from having the opportunity to engage in cyberhassment. T1 instructive mediation was negatively associated with T2 cyberharassment victimization. However, no significant associations were found between this form of mediation and T2 cyberharassment perpetration. Instructive mediation involves parents and their children being actively involved in communication about electronic technologies (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). This form of mediation involves parents who discuss the risk of using electronic technologies and various strategies for avoiding these risks (Mesch, 2009; Nikken & de Haan, 2015; Talves & Kalmus, 2015). Consequently, adolescents might avoid situations that could potentially be problematic and if they do encounter such situations they are able to mitigate the effects and potentially reduce their exposure in the future. These parents might also discuss ways to encourage appropriate online interactions and the consequences of engaging in negative online behaviors. Due to such discussions, adolescents might begin to think about their online actions before impulsively responding or initiating cyberharassment. Furthermore, parents who stress the consequences of negative online behaviors might also have adolescents who think about their actions before performing them and are concerned with the consequences
194
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
of their actions. We are better able to understand the relationships among the variables in this study by examining the moderating effects of gender. In particular, there were gender differences in the associations between T1 parental mediation and T2 cybervictimization. The association between T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more positive for girls when compared to boys. On the other hand, the relationship between T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more negative for girls in comparison to boys. A potential reason for these findings might be that girls typically report more restrictive and instructive parental mediation when compared to boys (Chng et al., 2014; Mesch, 2009; Wright, 2015). Parents might believe that online interactions are potentially riskier for girls than for boys, due to their belief that girls might be more vulnerable to exploitation online. Such beliefs might increase the likelihood that parents implement mediational strategies with their daughters more often than with their sons. Moderation effects were not found for parental mediation, and cyberbullying perpetration, cybertrolling perpetration, and cybertrolling victimization. It is unclear why gender did not impact the association between parental mediation and cyberbullying perpetration and cybertrolling involvement. More research attention should be given to the role of parental mediation in cyberbullying perpetration. Most of the research focuses on how parental mediation can reduce adolescents' exposure to cyberbullying victimization. Restrictive, instructive, and co-viewing mediation strategies might involve more opportunities for parents to discuss strategies to mitigate or reduce adolescents' vulnerability to online risks, including cyberbullying. These strategies might not have a role in reducing adolescents' perpetration of cyberbullying. Given that cybertrolling often occurs for no apparent reason, it could be that neither girls or boys are likely to engage in these behaviors, despite their parents’ use of mediational strategies. Additional research should focus on cybertrolling and the predictors of these variables. This research should also focus on strategies to prevent or reduce cybertrolling. 5.1. Limitations and future directions The present study relied on self-reports to assess cyberharassment and parental mediation. Self-reports are subject to biases, and therefore follow-up research should include multiple informants to assess cyber behaviors and parental mediation strategies. The study involved a two-wave longitudinal design. Although general patterns were found concerning the associations among the variables, additional research should be conducted to better understand the relationships between these variables and how parental mediation might impact cyberharassment over time. Furthermore, parental mediation might change as children become adolescents. Therefore, longitudinal studies should be designed to investigate changes in parental mediation over time and how mediation might relate to cyberharassment. The quality of the parent-adolescent relationship and parenting styles might impact parental mediation and adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. Thus, additional research should be conducted to investigate how parent-adolescent relationships and parenting styles might influence the association between parental mediation and cyberharassment. Cultural background might also have a role in parents’ use of technology mediational strategies, and these strategies might also vary based on the gender of the child. Follow-up research should be conducted to better understand the role of culture in technology mediation. 6. Conclusions This study examined the moderation of gender in the
associations between parental mediation (i.e., instructive, restrictive, co-viewing) and cyberharassment. The findings from the study suggested that the impact of parental mediation on adolescents' cyberharassment depends on the type of behavior. Furthermore, gender also had a role in these relationships. Taken together, the results from this study indicate the importance of raising awareness of cyberharassment and how parental mediation might impact adolescents' online behaviors. Parents have a supportive role in adolescents' electronic technology use and such a role might prevent negative cyber behaviors. Furthermore, parents should be involved in their children's electronic technology use as such involvement reduces cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. The findings from the present study underscore the importance of conducting more research on parenting youths in the digital age. References Adams, C. (2010). Cyberbullying: How to make it stop. Instructor, 120(2), 44e49. Akbulut, Y., Sahin, T. L., & Eristi, B. (2010). Cyberbullying victimization among Turkish online social utility members. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 192e201. Arrizabalaga-Crespo, C., Aierbe-Barandiaran, A., & Medrano-Samaniego, C. (2010). Internet uses and parental mediation in adolescents with ADHD. Revista Latina de Comunicacion, 65, 561e571. Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 341e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265e277. Bhem-Morawitz, E., & Schipper, S. (2015). Sexing the avatar: Gender, sexualization, and cyber-harassment in a virtual world. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000152. Boulton, M., Lloyd, J., Down, J., & Marx, H. (2012). Predicting undergraduates' selfreported engaged in traditional and cyberbullying from attitudes. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 141e147. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/cyber.2011.0369. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97e102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2014.01.016. Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P. H., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims' perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3e4), 389e401. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704316. Cao, B., & Lin, W. (2015). How do victims reach to cyberbullying on social networking sites? The influence of previous cyberbullying victimization experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 458e465. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.009. Chng, G. S., Liau, A., Khoo, A., & Li, D. (2014). Parental mediation and cyberbullying e a longitudinal study. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 12, 98e102. Clarke, K., Cooper, P., & Creswell, C. (2013). The parental overprotection scale: Associations with child and parental anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151(2), 618e624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.007. Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents' perceptions of parenting. Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 5(1), 25e34. Del Rey, R., Lazuras, L., Casas, J., Barkoukis, V., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Haralambos, T. (2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 275e281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021. Didden, R., Scholte, R. H. J., Korzilius, H., de Moore, J. M. H., Vermeulen, A., O'Reilly, M., et al. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 146e151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17518420902971356. Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217, 182e188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182. Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 143e156. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215e242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/Jplr.2010.011. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v06n03_ 06. Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6),
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195 1581e1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2007.08.017. Lenhardt, A. (2013). Teens, smartphones & texting. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet. org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx. Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(12), 1091e1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001. Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cybervictimization. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435e454. €rzig, A., & Olafsson, Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Go K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. EU Kids Online. London: LSE. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581e599. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08838150802437396. Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting children's privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 2015e2217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Freiburger, T. L., & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Battle of the sexes: An examination of male and female cyber bullying. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 904e911. Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387e393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0068. Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2015). Guiding young children's internet use at home: Problems that parents experience in their parental mediation and the need for parenting support. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9. article 3. Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 129e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/AJGC.20.2.129. Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81e94. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.20336. Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 357e370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016555150365390.
195
Sjurso, I. R., Fandream, H., & Roland, E. (2016). Emotional problems in traditional and cyber victimization. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 114e131. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.996718. Smahel, D., & Wright, M. F. (2014). Meaning of online problematic situations for children. Results of qualitative cross-cultural investigation in nine European countries. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. EU Kids Online. Smith, P. K., Del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, methodology (pp. 26e40). New York, NY: Routledge. 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 Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376e385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x. Talves, K., & Kalmus, V. (2015). Gendered mediation of children's internet use: A keyhole for looking into changing socialization practices. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9. article 4. Vandebosch, H., & van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499e503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042. Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber victimization and adjustment difficulties: The mediation of Chinese and American adolescents' digital technology usage. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research in Cyberspace, 9. article 1. Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku¼2015051102&article¼1. Wright, M. F. (2016). Cyber victimization and substance use among adolescents: The moderation of perceived social support. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 16(1e2), 93e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2016.1143371. Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(5), 662e674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-0129903-3. Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 42e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2007.09.004. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308e1316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2004.00328.x.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling: The role of gender Michelle F. Wright a, b, * a b
Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, USA Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 October 2016 Received in revised form 26 January 2017 Accepted 28 January 2017 Available online 3 February 2017
Researchers are concerned with identifying the risk and protective factors associated with adolescents' involvement in cyberharassment. One such factor is parental mediation of children's electronic technology use. Little attention has been given to how different parental mediation strategies (i.e., instructive, restrictive, co-viewing) relate to adolescents' cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying, cybertrolling) perpetration and victimization, and how gender might impact these associations. To this end, the present study examined the moderating effect of gender on the longitudinal association between parental mediation strategies and adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. This focus was examined using a sample of 568 (53% female) adolescents from the 8th grade in the United States. The association between restrictive mediation and cybervictimization was more positive for girls when compared to boys, while the relationship between instructive mediation and cybervictimization was more negative for girls than for boys. The findings underscore the importance of considering parents in adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cybertrolling Cyberbullying Cybervictimization Adolescent Parental mediation
1. Introduction Cyberharassment is a risk factor associated with adolescents' electronic technology use. Cyberharassment involves an assortment of behavioral risks, including cyberbullying and cybertrolling (Bhem-Morawitz & Schipper, 2015). To mitigate the risk factors associated with adolescents' electronic technology use, many parents have increased their supervision of their children's online lives. Parental mediation reduces adolescents experience of cybervictimization (Lwin, Stanaland, & Miyazaki, 2008; Mesch, 2009; Wright, 2015). Less attention has been given to how parental mediation relates to adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration, although a few studies have found negative associations (Chng, Liau, Khoo, & Li, 2014). It is also unclear how various parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) might reduce adolescents' risk of cyberbullying involvement. Little attention has been given to predictors of cybertrolling, and parental mediation might be one such predictor. Girls typically report more parental mediation (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008).
* Department of Psychology, Child Study Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.059 0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thus, it is also important to understand how gender might impact the relationships between parental mediation and cyberbullying and cybertrolling. To this end, the present study examined the moderating effect of gender on these associations, utilizing a longitudinal design and different types of parental mediation strategies. 2. Literature review 2.1. Cyberharassment Cyberharassment is defined as “computer-mediated obscene comments, sexual harassment, and generally harassing behaviors aimed at debasing and/or driving out a virtual world user” (BhemMorawitz & Schipper, 2015 p. 2). Such behaviors can include flaming, nasty comments in chatrooms, offensive emails, or harassing blog posts. Furthermore, cyberharassment is a broad term for an array of negative and hostile online behaviors, including cyberbullying and cybertrolling. Typically conceptualized as an extension of face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying involves malicious behaviors carried out through a variety of information and communication technologies, such as instant messaging tools, social networking sites, gaming
190
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
consoles, text messages and cell phones, email, and websites (Smith et al., 2008). These malicious behaviors are often tormenting threatening, and/or perceived as harassing by a victim or a group of victims (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009; Grigg, 2010). Other examples of cyberbullying include sharing secrets about the victim, spreading nasty rumors, and threatening to harm someone (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Similar to traditional forms of face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying often involves repetition of the behavior or behaviors and sometimes an imbalance of power between the victim and the perpetrator. The concept of repetitiveness is complex in the cyber context because it is possible to share harassing messages or videos one time or multiple times and with one person or multiple people (Nocentini et al., 2010; Smith, Del Barrio, & Tokunaga, 2013; Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2008). In addition, recipients of such messages or videos can also choose to re-share such content. Cyberbullying has received increased attention because of its linkages to depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicidal ideation and attempts, poor academic performance, and alcohol and drug use (Bauman, Toomey, & Walker, 2013; Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Huang & Chou, 2010; Wright, 2016). Gender differences in cyberbullying perpetration and cybervictimization are mixed. Some researchers (e.g., Boulton, Lloyd, Down, & Marx, 2012; Li, 2007; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007) have found that boys were more often cyberbullies, while girls were more likely than boys to report cybervictimization (e.g., Adams, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). However, opposite patterns have been found in other research. In particular, girls in some samples have self-reported more cyberbullying perpetration when compared to boys (e.g., Cao & Lin, 2015; Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2012; Pornari & Wood, 2010). Other researchers (e.g., Akbulut, Sahin, & Eristi, 2010; Del Rey et al., 2016; Sjurso, Fandream, & Roland, 2016) have found that boys were more often cybervictims than girls. No gender differences in cyberbullying involvement have been found in other research as well (e.g., Beran & Li, 2005; Didden et al., 2009; Marcum, Higgins, Freiburger, & Ricketts, 2012; Wright & Li, 2013). Gender has continued to be an inconsistent predictor of cyberbullying involvement. Cybertrolling is defined as “the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the internet with no apparent instrumental purpose” (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). Few studies have focused on examining cybertrolling. In one study, Shachaf and Hara (2010) identified boredom, attention seeking, revenge, pleasure, and a desire to cause damage to the community as underlying motivations for engaging in cybertrolling. In addition, aggression, deception, disruption, and success have also been identified as characteristics of cybertrolling (Hardarker, 2010). Cybertrolling is distinguishable from cyberbullying or other forms of cyberharassment due to the pointlessness and disruptiveness of such behavior (Buckels et al., 2014). The intention of cybertrolls is not typically well-known, unlike cyberbullying in which the perpetrator is intending to harm the victim or victims (Lenhardt, 2013). Little attention has been given to the predictors of cybertrolling. Buckels et al. (2014) conducted one of the few studies to examine predictors of cybertrolling among adults. Their focus was on the association between cybertrolling and the Dark Triad of Personality (i.e., sadism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism). Findings revealed that cybertrolling was related positively to sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Furthermore, sadism was the one personality trait that was consistently associated with cybertrolling. Consequently, Buckels et al. suggest that cybertrolling might be an example of everyday sadism. It is unclear how gender might impact adolescents’ involvement in cybertrolling as little attention has been given to this topic. Additional research should focus on the potential risk and
protective factors associated with cybertrolling as well as whether such factors might differ from cyberbullying and how gender could influence such differences. 2.2. Parental mediation Investigating parental mediation in relation to cyberbullying and cybertrolling provides the opportunity to investigate both risk and protective factors associated with these behaviors. Defined as using an assortment of prevention strategies to manage children's relationship with electronic media, parental mediation involves setting rules concerning their children's use of electronic media (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). Such strategies might involve discussing appropriate use and setting limits on their children's electronic media use (Dehue et al., 2012). For parental mediation to be effective, parents must maintain an open dialogue with their children concerning appropriate content to view and how to use online tools. Some parents set rules regarding negative online behaviors, like cyberbullying. Three parental mediation strategies have also been identified in the literature, including restrictive, coviewing, and instructive (Arrizabalaga-Crespo, Aierbe-Barandiaran, & Medrano-Samaniego, 2010). Restrictive mediation is defined as parents' use of strategies employed to prevent children's access to certain online content. On the other hand, co-viewing mediation involves parents accessing online content with their children, although they might not discuss the content that they encounter. Parents who use instructive mediation maintain an active and continuing dialogue with their children regarding online content and the risks associated with electronic technology use. Attention has been given to parental mediation strategies as some strategies are effective for reducing adolescents' cyberbullying involvement. In one study, Mesch (2009) found that parents' use of monitoring strategies concerned their children's access to appropriate and inappropriate websites. Specifically, parents discussed which websites their children were allowed to visit. When such strategies were implemented, their children experienced lower levels of cybervictimization. Other research has corroborated the negative relationship between cybervictimization and high levels of parental mediation (Chng et al., 2014; Wright, 2015). In their study, Chng et al. (2014) examined active and restrictive parental mediation, and the role of these strategies in cyberbullying. Both parental mediation strategies reduced adolescents' risk of cyberbullying perpetration. However, these patterns were found for boys only and not girls, although girls reported higher levels of parental mediation when compared to boys. Such a finding suggests the importance of also considering gender when examining parental mediation strategies and how such strategies reduce adolescents' risks. They did not investigate how these various parental mediation strategies might mitigate adolescents' risk of cybervictimization. It is unknown how parental mediation might influence cybertrolling. Like cyberbullying, parental mediation might reduce adolescents’ risk of cybertrolling. Given that some parents communicate with their children about appropriate online behavior, it is likely that cybertrolling might be another behavior which is discussed with their children. 2.3. The present study Follow-up research should be conducted to better understand the longitudinal relationships between parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) and cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization, and how gender might impact these associations. To this end, the present study had the following aims:
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
(1) to examine the relationships between parental mediation strategies and cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. (2) to investigate the relationships between parental mediation strategies and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. (3) to examine the moderating role of gender in these associations. The pattern of these relationships were examined over one year among adolescents. Data were first collected in the Spring of 7th grade and the next set of data were collected in the Spring of 8th grade. 3. Methods 3.1. Participants The participants for this study were 568 (52% female; M age ¼ 13.48 years) 8th graders from the Midwestern area of the United States. Their schools were located within predominantly middle-class neighborhoods. Participants primarily self-identified as White (73%), Latino/a (20%), Black/African American (5%), Asian (1%), and biracial (1%). Around 20%e31% of students at the schools qualified for free or reduced cost lunch. No income data was gathered. 3.2. Procedures Schools were recruited from a list of over 150 public middle schools located in the suburbs of a large Midwestern city. Of this list, 10 middle schools were randomly selected. The school principals at these 10 middle schools were sent an email. The email described the study's purpose, what adolescents would be expected to do, and how long adolescents would participate in the study. Six school principals expressed their intention to have their students participate in the study. The principal investigator setup a meeting with school principals and 7th and 8th grade teachers to discuss the project, what adolescents would do if they were to participate, and the length of data collection. Classroom announcements were made to made to the 7th grade classes, which explained how important adolescents' participation is, what they would do, the confidentiality and privacy of their answers, and how long they would participate in the study. A total of 713 parental permission slips were sent home with adolescents. The parental permission slip explained the nature of the study. There were 578 parental permission slips returned with permission, 13 that were returned without permission, and 2 that were unreturned. During the Spring of 7th grade, adolescents participated in the first wave of data collection (Time 1; T1). Some adolescents (n ¼ 11) were absent on the first day of data collection. Of these, 10 were able to complete the questionnaires on a make-up day. Before completing the questionnaires, adolescents provided their assent and they were allowed to ask questions in private, if they desired. They completed questionnaires on their demographic background (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity), self-reported cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization), and parental mediation of their technology use at the first wave. A total of 577 adolescents participated during the first wave of data collection. One year later, during the Spring of 8th grade, adolescents participated in the second wave of data collection (Time 2; T2). A letter was sent home to parents reminding them on their child's participation in the study. Parents wishing to no longer have their child participate in the study were asked to return the letter back to their child's school with their child's name written on it. There were no letters returned to the school. For the second wave of data
191
collection, ten adolescents did not participate because they had moved away. A total of 568 adolescents participated at the second wave. They completed the self-reported cyberharassment questionnaire. The study was approved by the principal investigator's university's IRB. Permission was also granted from three of the school districts, while the other three schools had principal permission. APA ethical standards were followed throughout this study. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Parental mediation strategies Adolescents were asked how often they perceived their parents as being involving in their technology use (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). There were 8 items included for this questionnaire, which were rated on a scale of 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The questionnaire included three subscales: restrictive mediation, co-viewing mediation, and instructive mediation. Four items were included for restrictive mediation, including “My parents impose a time limit on the amount of time that I surf the internet”. Three items were included on the coviewing mediation subscale. A sample item from this subscale included “My parents surf the internet with me”. There were two items included for the instructive mediation subscale (e.g., “My parents show me how to use the internet and warn me about the risks). This questionnaire was administered in the 7th grade only. Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 for restrictive, 0.83 for co-viewing, and 0.80 for instructive. 3.3.2. Self-reported cyberharassment This questionnaire assessed how often adolescents perpetrated and experienced cyberbullying and cybertrolling, yielding four subscales: cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, and cybertrolling victimization. Sixteen items were included on this questionnaire (Wright & Li, 2013). There were 12 items for cyberbullying, 6 for cyberbullying perpetration (e.g., “I called someone insulting names online or through text messages”) and 6 for cybervictimization (e.g., “Someone called me insulting names online or through text messages”). Four items were included for cybertrolling, 2 for cybertrolling perpetration (i.e., purposefully upsetting people online with the intent to trigger an emotional response, purposefully starting arguments online with the intent to trigger an emotional response) and 2 for cybertrolling victimization (i.e., were upset by something someone purposefully wrote online to get an emotional response, were upset by a purposeful argument online intended to trigger an emotional response). This questionnaire was administered in the 7th and 8th grades. All items were rated on a scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (All of the time). Cronbach's alphas were 0.88 for T1 cyberbullying perpetration, 0.87 for T2 cyberbullying perpetration, 0.92 for T1 cybervictimization, 0.92 for T2 cybervictimization, 0.78 for T1 cybertrolling perpetration, 0.77 for T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and 0.74 for T1 and T2 cybertrolling victimization. 3.4. Analytic plan Before conducting the analyses, analysis of variances (ANOVA) were conducted to examine differences among the six schools on the variables of restrictive mediation, co-viewing mediation, instructive mediation, T1 and T2 cyberbullying perpetration, T1 and T2 cybervictimization, T1 and T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and T1 and T2 cybertrolling victimization. No differences were found among any of the schools concerning each of these variables. Readers interested in more information about these analyses are urged to contact the author. Confirmatory factor analysis was
192
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
conducted to examine the measurement model using Mplus 7.3. The model had adequate fit, c2 ¼ 688.04, df ¼ 703, p ¼ n.s., CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, SRMR ¼ 0.03. The factor loadings had good magnitudes and were significant (ps < 0.001). The items served as indicators for the latent variables in the structural regression model. For the structural regression model, paths were added from T1 parental mediation strategies (i.e., restrictive, instructive, co-viewing) to T2 cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization). T1 cyberharassment variables were allowed to predict their respective T2 variable. Gender was added as a moderator between T1 parental mediation strategies and T2 cyberharassment. Interactions were further examined using the Interaction program, if the interaction was significant. This program provides the significance of the unstandardized simple regression slopes and display graphical representations of the simple slopes.
4. Results Descriptive statistics and correlations were conducted among all variables in the study (see Table 1). The mean of restrictive mediation was 2.76, and 2.63 and 2.58 for co-viewing mediation and instructive mediation, respectively. Means were also conducted for cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. The following means were obtained: 2.03 for T1 cyberbullying perpetration, 2.67 for T1 cyberbullying victimization, 2.18 for T2 cyberbullying perpetration, 2.71 for T2 for cyberbullying victimization, 1.93 for T1 cybertrolling perpetration, 1.86 for T1 cybertrolling victimization, 1.99 for T2 cybertrolling perpetration, and 1.90 for cybertrolling victimization. All variables were correlated with each other, except for a few. T1 restrictive mediation was not associated with T1 co-viewing mediation and T2 cybertrolling victimization. T1 co-viewing mediation was not related to T2 cybertrolling victimization. In addition, T1 instructive mediation was not associated with T1 and T2 cyberbullying perpetration, and T1 and T2 cybertrolling perpetration. T1 cyber aggression perpetration was not related to T2 cybertrolling victimization. T2 cybervictimization was not associated with T2 cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. T1 cybertrolling perpetration was unrelated to T2 cybertrolling victimization. To address the study's aims, a structural regression model was created. The model demonstrated adequate fit, c2 ¼ 991.38, df ¼ 881, p ¼ n.s., CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.96, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, SRMR ¼ 0.03 (see Fig. 1 for a model depiction and Table 2 for all statistics). T1 restrictive (b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.001) and co-viewing (b ¼ 0.30, p < 0.05) mediation were associated negatively with T2
Fig. 1. Structural regression model for the associations among Time 1 (T1) parental mediational strategies (i.e., restrictive, co-viewing, instructive) and Time 2 (T2) cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization.
cyberbullying perpetration. On the other hand, T1 restrictive mediation was related positively with T2 cybertrolling perpetration and cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.30, p < 0.001). Furthermore, T1 coviewing mediation was associated negatively with T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.05) and T2 cybertrolling perpetration (b ¼ 0.26, p < 0.001). T1 instructive mediation was related negatively to T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.19, p < 0.05) and cybertrolling victimization (b ¼ 0.32, p < 0.001). Gender was examined as a moderator in the relationships between parental mediation strategies and the different forms of cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying perpetration, cybervictimization, cybertrolling perpetration, cybertrolling victimization). The moderation effect was significant for T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.16, p < 0.05) and T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization (b ¼ 0.17, p < 0.05). The association between T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more negative for girls. In contrast, the relationship between T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more positive for girls.
Table 1 Correlation among variables in the study.
1. T1 Restrictive 2. T1 Co-viewing 3. T1 Instructive 4. T1 CBP 5. T1 CBV 6. T2 CBP 7. T2 CBV 8. T1 CTP 9. T1 CTV 10. T2 CTP 11. T2 CTV M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
e 0.03 -0.25** -0.32*** 0.41*** -0.35*** 0.38*** 0.31*** 0.17* 0.24** 0.10 2.76 (0.81)
e -0.33*** -0.33*** -0.25** -0.30*** -0.24** -0.30*** -0.16* -0.29** 0.08 2.63 (0.98)
e 0.11 -0.28*** 0.08 -0.25** 0.05 -0.33*** 0.04 -0.29*** 2.58 (1.01)
e 0.26** 0.39*** 0.42*** 0.29*** 0.17* 0.33*** 0.13 2.03 (0.55)
e 0.29*** 0.33*** 0.23** 0.29*** 0.16* 0.25** 2.67 (0.61)
e 0.26** 0.29*** 0.16* 0.25** 0.20* 2.18 (0.69)
e 0.18* 0.19* 0.13 0.10 2.71 (0.60)
e 0.20* 0.36*** 0.15 1.93 (0.61)
e 0.17* 0.33*** 1.86 (0.81)
e 0.18* 1.99 (0.70)
e 1.90 (0.73)
Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2; CBP ¼ Cyberbullying perpetration; CBV ¼ Cyberbullying victimization; CTP ¼ Cybertrolling perpetration; CTV ¼ Cybertrolling victimization. * p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
193
Table 2 Standardized coefficients for structural regression model.
Main Effects T1 Restrictive Mediation T1 Co-Viewing Mediation T1 Instructive Mediation Interactions T1 Restrictive Mediation Gender T1 Co-Viewing Mediation Gender T1 Instructive Mediation Gender Covariates T1 Cyberbullying perpetration T1 Cyberbullying victimization T1 Cybertrolling perpetration T1 Cybertrolling victimization
T2 Cyberbullying perpetration
T2 Cyberbullying victimization
T2 Cybertrolling perpetration
T2 Cybertrolling victimization
0.23*** 0.30*** 0.05
0.30*** 0.19* 0.31***
0.18* 0.26** 0.11
0.03 0.13 0.32***
0.02 0.03 0.01
0.16* 0.10 0.17*
0.05 0.11 0.10
0.03 0.02 0.05
0.43*** e e e
e 0.48*** e e
e e 0.44*** e
e e e 0.32***
Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2; CBP ¼ Cyberbullying perpetration; CV ¼ Cybervictimization; CTP ¼ Cybertrolling perpetration; CTV ¼ Cybertrolling victimization. * p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
5. Discussion This study investigated the associations between parental mediation strategies (i.e., instructive, co-viewing, restrictive) and cyberharassment (i.e., cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization). The moderating effect of gender in these relationships was also examined. Consistent with the previous literature, some parental mediation strategies were related positively to cyberharassment, while some strategies were associated negatively with these behaviors (Chng et al., 2014; Wright, 2015). Parental mediation might function as a form of social support (Livingstone, €rzig, & Olafsson, Haddon, Go 2011). It provides adolescents with the opportunity to discuss various negative situations that they encounter through electronic technologies. Parents are able to discuss strategies that have the potential to mitigate or reduce their children's exposure to cyberharassment (Wright, 2015). Furthermore, parents who take an active role in their children's digital lives might also provide guidance on appropriate online behaviors. Such guidance might help to reduce adolescents' perpetration of cyberharassment. Actively taking a role in adolescents' digital lives might further encourage adolescents to seek out social support and guidance from their parents regarding the potential exposure and experience of various online risks (Nikken & de Haan, 2015; Talves & Kalmus, 2015). There were a few distinctive findings from the present study. For instance, T1 restrictive mediation was related negatively to T2 cyberbullying perpetration. On the other hand, this type of mediation was associated positively with T2 cybervictimization and cybertrolling victimization. Restrictive mediation concerns parents' use of strategies that prevent their children's access to online content (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). Such prevention of adolescents' online content seems to reduce their perpetration of cyberbullying one year later. It might be likely that parents are sources of information regarding what content adolescents should avoid online, and this knowledge could lead to future conversations about online activities (Chng et al., 2014; Nikken & de Haan, 2015). Restricting adolescents' online activities might reduce their opportunities for perpetrating negative behaviors. In contrast, restrictive mediation might not prevent cybervictimization and cybertrolling victimization. Although it might be that restrictive mediation strategies prevent adolescents from accessing various online content, this strategy might not involve sharing methods to mitigate the potential for victimization by cyberharassment. Restrictive mediation might be similar to the overprotective parenting style. The overprotective parenting style involves parenting behaviors that do not encourage children to develop autonomy, problem-solving skills, and social skills (Clarke, Cooper,
& Creswell, 2013; Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Overprotective parenting also involves fear. Such fear leaves children vulnerable to risks, particularly cyberharassment. The exposure to risky online behaviors is probably inevitable and parents who use restrictive mediation strategies might not allow their children to develop strategies for dealing with these situations (Smahel & Wright, 2014). Restrictive mediation might prevent adolescents from accessing content, which reduces their risk of perpetrating cyberbullying, while these strategies do not involve sharing methods for avoiding or dealing with these behaviors. Mesch’s (2009) study provided some evidence that parents enforce strict rules regarding their children's access to online content, but that they rarely discuss strategies for dealing with the exposure to negative online interactions. Follow-up research should be conducted on restrictive mediation and the differential associations of these strategies to cyberharassment perpetration and victimization. T1 co-viewing mediation was related negatively to all forms of T2 cyberharassment, except cybertrolling victimization. Coviewing mediation involves parents using electronic technologies with their children (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). Parents who use this strategy are not likely to discuss content with their children, though they might discuss ways to deal with such content. Such minimal levels of intervention might reduce adolescents’ risk of experiencing cybervictimization. Furthermore, co-viewing mediation involves high levels of monitoring and supervision, which might prevent adolescents from having the opportunity to engage in cyberhassment. T1 instructive mediation was negatively associated with T2 cyberharassment victimization. However, no significant associations were found between this form of mediation and T2 cyberharassment perpetration. Instructive mediation involves parents and their children being actively involved in communication about electronic technologies (Arrizabalaga-Crespo et al., 2010). This form of mediation involves parents who discuss the risk of using electronic technologies and various strategies for avoiding these risks (Mesch, 2009; Nikken & de Haan, 2015; Talves & Kalmus, 2015). Consequently, adolescents might avoid situations that could potentially be problematic and if they do encounter such situations they are able to mitigate the effects and potentially reduce their exposure in the future. These parents might also discuss ways to encourage appropriate online interactions and the consequences of engaging in negative online behaviors. Due to such discussions, adolescents might begin to think about their online actions before impulsively responding or initiating cyberharassment. Furthermore, parents who stress the consequences of negative online behaviors might also have adolescents who think about their actions before performing them and are concerned with the consequences
194
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195
of their actions. We are better able to understand the relationships among the variables in this study by examining the moderating effects of gender. In particular, there were gender differences in the associations between T1 parental mediation and T2 cybervictimization. The association between T1 restrictive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more positive for girls when compared to boys. On the other hand, the relationship between T1 instructive mediation and T2 cybervictimization was more negative for girls in comparison to boys. A potential reason for these findings might be that girls typically report more restrictive and instructive parental mediation when compared to boys (Chng et al., 2014; Mesch, 2009; Wright, 2015). Parents might believe that online interactions are potentially riskier for girls than for boys, due to their belief that girls might be more vulnerable to exploitation online. Such beliefs might increase the likelihood that parents implement mediational strategies with their daughters more often than with their sons. Moderation effects were not found for parental mediation, and cyberbullying perpetration, cybertrolling perpetration, and cybertrolling victimization. It is unclear why gender did not impact the association between parental mediation and cyberbullying perpetration and cybertrolling involvement. More research attention should be given to the role of parental mediation in cyberbullying perpetration. Most of the research focuses on how parental mediation can reduce adolescents' exposure to cyberbullying victimization. Restrictive, instructive, and co-viewing mediation strategies might involve more opportunities for parents to discuss strategies to mitigate or reduce adolescents' vulnerability to online risks, including cyberbullying. These strategies might not have a role in reducing adolescents' perpetration of cyberbullying. Given that cybertrolling often occurs for no apparent reason, it could be that neither girls or boys are likely to engage in these behaviors, despite their parents’ use of mediational strategies. Additional research should focus on cybertrolling and the predictors of these variables. This research should also focus on strategies to prevent or reduce cybertrolling. 5.1. Limitations and future directions The present study relied on self-reports to assess cyberharassment and parental mediation. Self-reports are subject to biases, and therefore follow-up research should include multiple informants to assess cyber behaviors and parental mediation strategies. The study involved a two-wave longitudinal design. Although general patterns were found concerning the associations among the variables, additional research should be conducted to better understand the relationships between these variables and how parental mediation might impact cyberharassment over time. Furthermore, parental mediation might change as children become adolescents. Therefore, longitudinal studies should be designed to investigate changes in parental mediation over time and how mediation might relate to cyberharassment. The quality of the parent-adolescent relationship and parenting styles might impact parental mediation and adolescents' cyberharassment involvement. Thus, additional research should be conducted to investigate how parent-adolescent relationships and parenting styles might influence the association between parental mediation and cyberharassment. Cultural background might also have a role in parents’ use of technology mediational strategies, and these strategies might also vary based on the gender of the child. Follow-up research should be conducted to better understand the role of culture in technology mediation. 6. Conclusions This study examined the moderation of gender in the
associations between parental mediation (i.e., instructive, restrictive, co-viewing) and cyberharassment. The findings from the study suggested that the impact of parental mediation on adolescents' cyberharassment depends on the type of behavior. Furthermore, gender also had a role in these relationships. Taken together, the results from this study indicate the importance of raising awareness of cyberharassment and how parental mediation might impact adolescents' online behaviors. Parents have a supportive role in adolescents' electronic technology use and such a role might prevent negative cyber behaviors. Furthermore, parents should be involved in their children's electronic technology use as such involvement reduces cyberbullying and cybertrolling perpetration and victimization. The findings from the present study underscore the importance of conducting more research on parenting youths in the digital age. References Adams, C. (2010). Cyberbullying: How to make it stop. Instructor, 120(2), 44e49. Akbulut, Y., Sahin, T. L., & Eristi, B. (2010). Cyberbullying victimization among Turkish online social utility members. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 192e201. Arrizabalaga-Crespo, C., Aierbe-Barandiaran, A., & Medrano-Samaniego, C. (2010). Internet uses and parental mediation in adolescents with ADHD. Revista Latina de Comunicacion, 65, 561e571. Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 341e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265e277. Bhem-Morawitz, E., & Schipper, S. (2015). Sexing the avatar: Gender, sexualization, and cyber-harassment in a virtual world. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000152. Boulton, M., Lloyd, J., Down, J., & Marx, H. (2012). Predicting undergraduates' selfreported engaged in traditional and cyberbullying from attitudes. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 141e147. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/cyber.2011.0369. Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97e102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2014.01.016. Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P. H., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims' perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3e4), 389e401. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704316. Cao, B., & Lin, W. (2015). How do victims reach to cyberbullying on social networking sites? The influence of previous cyberbullying victimization experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 458e465. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.009. Chng, G. S., Liau, A., Khoo, A., & Li, D. (2014). Parental mediation and cyberbullying e a longitudinal study. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 12, 98e102. Clarke, K., Cooper, P., & Creswell, C. (2013). The parental overprotection scale: Associations with child and parental anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151(2), 618e624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.007. Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents' perceptions of parenting. Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 5(1), 25e34. Del Rey, R., Lazuras, L., Casas, J., Barkoukis, V., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Haralambos, T. (2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 275e281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021. Didden, R., Scholte, R. H. J., Korzilius, H., de Moore, J. M. H., Vermeulen, A., O'Reilly, M., et al. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 146e151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17518420902971356. Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217, 182e188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182. Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 143e156. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215e242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/Jplr.2010.011. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v06n03_ 06. Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6),
M.F. Wright / Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017) 189e195 1581e1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2007.08.017. Lenhardt, A. (2013). Teens, smartphones & texting. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet. org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx. Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(12), 1091e1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001. Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cybervictimization. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435e454. €rzig, A., & Olafsson, Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Go K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. EU Kids Online. London: LSE. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581e599. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/08838150802437396. Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting children's privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 2015e2217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Freiburger, T. L., & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Battle of the sexes: An examination of male and female cyber bullying. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6(1), 904e911. Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387e393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0068. Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2015). Guiding young children's internet use at home: Problems that parents experience in their parental mediation and the need for parenting support. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9. article 3. Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 129e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/AJGC.20.2.129. Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81e94. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.20336. Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 357e370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016555150365390.
195
Sjurso, I. R., Fandream, H., & Roland, E. (2016). Emotional problems in traditional and cyber victimization. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 114e131. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.996718. Smahel, D., & Wright, M. F. (2014). Meaning of online problematic situations for children. Results of qualitative cross-cultural investigation in nine European countries. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. EU Kids Online. Smith, P. K., Del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, methodology (pp. 26e40). New York, NY: Routledge. 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 Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376e385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x. Talves, K., & Kalmus, V. (2015). Gendered mediation of children's internet use: A keyhole for looking into changing socialization practices. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9. article 4. Vandebosch, H., & van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499e503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042. Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber victimization and adjustment difficulties: The mediation of Chinese and American adolescents' digital technology usage. CyberPsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research in Cyberspace, 9. article 1. Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku¼2015051102&article¼1. Wright, M. F. (2016). Cyber victimization and substance use among adolescents: The moderation of perceived social support. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 16(1e2), 93e112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2016.1143371. Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(5), 662e674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-0129903-3. Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 42e50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2007.09.004. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308e1316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2004.00328.x.