Cyber Bullying and Cyber Victimization - Research Paper Example

? CYBER BULLYING AND CYBER VICTIMIZATION here] of [Due paper] Cyber Bullying and Cyber Victimization The aim of this research was to assess whether cyber bullying (CSB) and cyber victimization (CSV) scales measure a single concept or a number of related concepts. The researcher performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to assess the factor structure. The researcher also developed two different hypotheses to determine the interrelatedness between cyber bullying and cyber victimization. The results of the research indicated that cyber victimization is positively correlated to hostility, social victimization, and neuroticism, whereas it is negatively correlated to self-esteem. On the other hand, cyber bullying is positively correlated to physical aggression, social victimization, neuroticism, anger, hostility, and social anxiety, whereas it was negatively correlated to openness, self-esteem, and agreeableness. The overall results suggested that cyber bullying (CSB) and cyber victimization (CSV) are correlated terms. Introduction Cyber bullying is the type of harassment that is done through electronic means. As Menesini and Nocentiti (2009) state, ‘cyberbullying is growing around the world’ (p. 230). According to Perren, Dooley, Shaw, and Cross (2010), it presents challenges to victimized people. It gives rise to stress, aggression, and other negative feelings in the targeted person (Moore, Huebner, & Hills, 2012). Cyber victimization, on the other hand, refers to ill-treatment or exploitation and has its connection with psychosocial maladjustment (Card & Hodges, 2008). Both cyber bullying and cyber victimization are somewhat interrelated concepts and are aimed towards victimizing some other person or a group of people through the Internet, cell phones, and other communication tools and equipment (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376; Cetin, Yaman, & Peker, 2011; Tokunaga, 2010). In this paper, I will assess whether the concepts of cyber victimization (CSV) and cyber bullying (CSB) measure a single concept or a number of related concepts. The constructs that the scales would measure include hostility, social victimization, verbal aggression, extraversion, neuroticism, self-esteem, agreeableness, anger, social anxiety, openness, and physical aggression. These constructs are the real outcomes of cyber bullying and victimization (Menesini, Nocentiti, & Calussi, 2011). Therefore, I will measure all of them to determine their connection with cyber bullying and victimization. I will use two different hypotheses to determine the level of similarity between the two concepts. Hypothesis for Convergent Validity For convergent validity, I hypothesized that CSB would correlate positively with Buss-Perry measures and negatively with agreeableness, whereas CSV would correlate positively with social victimization and negatively with self-esteem. Hypothesis for Divergent Validity For, divergent validity, I hypothesized that CSB would not correlate with five-factor measures or anxiety and CSV would not correlate with Buss-Perry. Factor Analysis I used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) instead of Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE). The main reason that made me use PCA instead of MLE was that I considered the analysis exploratory rather than confirmatory. For an exploratory analysis, PCA is considered a better option. MLE, on the other hand, is better for confirmatory analyses. MLE requires a larger sample size than PCA, in particular, to avoid the risk of type 2 error. In order for type 2 error rate to be in the acceptable range, one would need at least 390 to 650 participants (minimum 30 to 50 cases per independent variable and 13 independent variables). Another reason that made me use PCA was that PCA aims to maximize the variance explained. It does not assume that all variance will be explained by the factors (Murray et al., 2009). Discussion From the results, we came to know that CSB and CSV scales were positively correlated. Excluding CSB F2, CSV F1, and CSV F3, all subscales were also positively correlated. CSB Factor 1 (nasty text messages, phone photos/videos of intimate scene, insults on instant messaging, nasty or rude email) seems to be positively correlated to social victimization, anger, hostility, physical aggression, neuroticism, and social anxiety. It does not have any correlation with extraversion, verbal aggression, or conscientiousness. Moreover, it is negatively correlated to self-esteem, openness, and agreeableness. In this case, the lack of connection with verbal aggression is doubtful because when a person receives some nasty message on cell phone, he/she definitely calls that number to show verbal aggression. CSB Factor 2 (forwarding spam email) does not seem to be correlated to any external factors. As Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, and Coulter (2012) state, “electronic communications allow cyberbullying perpetrators to maintain anonymity” (p. 171). This is unsurprising given that it is a single item (and thus binary) and that it has been previously identified as problematic. CSB Factor 3 (insults in chat rooms, silent/prank phone call, insults on websites) seems to be positively correlated to social victimization, neuroticism, verbal aggression, physical aggression, anger, hostility, and social anxiety (trend). It does not have any correlation with self-esteem, extraversion, openness, or conscientiousness. Moreover, it is negatively correlated to agreeableness. In this case, the lack of connection with self-esteem raises some questions because insulting messages definitely affect self-esteem of a person. CSV Factor 1 (insults on instant messaging, insults in chat rooms, silent/prank phone call) seems to be positively correlated to social victimization. It does not have any correlation with physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, hostility, self-esteem, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or social anxiety. Moreover, it is negatively correlated to openness. In this case, the lack of connection with verbal aggression, anger, and hostility raises some questions because insulting messages definitely causes anger in a person. CSV Factor 2 (nasty text messages, forwarding spam email, nasty or rude email, forwarding a computer virus, masquerading as someone else on line) seems to be positively correlated to social victimization, physical aggression, hostility, and neuroticism. It does not have any correlation with verbal aggression, anger, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or social anxiety. Moreover, it is negatively correlated to self-esteem. As Buss and Perry (1992) state, “anger is the bridge between both physical and verbal aggression” (p. 452). In this case, the lack of connection with verbal aggression and anger are questionable because nasty text messages and masquerading as someone else give rise to feelings of anger in a person. The reliability of the final scales of this research raises no major questions because every scale has been set up in accordance with the responses of a number of people who have experienced cyber bullying at some point in their lives. I would recommend researchers to use this study for further researches as it includes information about connection of different emotions with cyber bullying and victimization. However, they should use more variables to know their correlation with cyber bullying and victimization. References Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. Card, N., & Hodges, E. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461. Cetin, B., Yaman, E., & Peker, A. (2011). Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2261–2271. Fitzpatrick, S., & Bussey, K. (2011). The development of the Social Bullying Involvement Scales. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 177–192. Mattick, R., & Clarke, J. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470. Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of cyberbullying: Dimensional structure and relative item severity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 267–274. Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230–232. Moore, P., Huebner, E., & Hills, K. (2012). Electronic bullying and victimization and life satisfaction in middle school students. Soc Indic Res, 107, 429–447. Murray, G., Judd, F., Jackson, H., Fraser, C., Komiti, A., Pattison, P., & Robins, G. (2009). Personality for free: Psychometric properties of a public domain Australian measure of the five-factor model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 167–174. Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(28), 1–10. Schneider, S., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. Read More