Siber Zorbalığın Nedenleri Üzerine Kuramsal Açıklamalar

Öz

Siber zorbalık ve siber mağduriyet İnternet erişiminin ve kullanımının artmasıyla beraber, giderek artan yaygınlık oranlarıyla çocuk ve ergenlerin yaşantılarını, psikolojik iyilik hallerini ve akademik başarılarını etkileyen önemli bir kavramdır. Kuramsal çalışmalar siber zorbalığın nedenlerinin belirlenerek müdahale programlarının geliştirilmesinde önemlidir. Alan yazında son yıllarda siber zorbalığı açıklayan kuramlar ve bu kuramların test edilmesine yönelik pek çok çalışma gerçekleştirilmektedir. Ancak Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmalarda siber zorbalığın çeşitli değişkenlerle ilişkisinin incelenmesine karşın, kuramsal temelli çalışmaların sayıca az olduğu göze çarpmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, siber zorbalık davranışının nedenlerini ve sürdürülmesini etkileyen faktörleri açıklamaya yönelik olarak alan yazında yer alan kuramların incelenmesidir. Bu amaçla, Sosyal Ekolojik Kuram, Çevrimiçi Umursamazlık Etkisi, Genel Saldırganlık Kuramı, Gerekçelendirilmiş Eylem ve Planlanmış Davranış Kuramları, Barlett ve Gentile’in Siber Zorbalık Modeli, Genel Gerginlik Kuramı, Rutin Aktiviteler Kuramı ve Üç I Kuramının siber zorbalık davranışının ortaya çıkmasına ve sürdürülmesine yönelik geliştirdikleri açıklamalar ile bu kuramlara yönelik yapılmış araştırmaların bulgularına yer verilmiştir. Farklı kuramsal çerçevelerin dikkate alındığı bu çalışmalar gözden geçirildiğinde, etkili müdahale ve önleme programlarında; bilgilendirme, konu ile ilgili bilinçlendirme ve önleyici tedbirler öne çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca bu çalışmalarda çocuk ya da ergenlere yönelik müdahalelerin yanı sıra aile, öğretmenler, okul ve akranları da kapsayacak müdahalelerin gerekliliği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Kuramların nedensel açıklamaları, önleme ve müdahale çalışmalarına yönelik katkıları kapsamında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siber Zorbalık
• Kuramlar
• Önleme ve Müdahale

The Theoretical Explanations on the Causes of Cyberbullying

Abstract

Together with the increase of internet access and usage, cyberbullying and victimization has become important concepts which affect children and adolescents’ lives, psychological well-being and academic success due to the high prevalence rates. Theoretical studies are important in the development of intervention programs. In the literature, there is plenty of research which explains theories of cyberbullying and test them. However, despite the research on the relationship between cyberbullying and various variables, the relativeley less number of theoretical research in especially Turkish literature draws attention. The aim of this study is to investigate the theories which try to explain the underlying causes and maintaining factors for cyberbullying behaviours in the literature. Hence, the explanations of Social Ecological Theory, Online Disinhibition Effect, General Aggression Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior, Barlett and Gentile’s Cyberbullying Model, General Strain Theory, Routine Activities Theory and I Cubed Theory for causes and maintaining factors of cyberbullying are presented in the current review study, in addition to research findings about these theories. Intervention and prevention programs which take into account providing information, raising awareness on the subject and preventive measures come into prominence when all these studies are taken together. Besides the intervention programs for child and adolescents, the necessity of more comprehensive programs which include family, teachers, school and peers have emerged. The causal explanations of theories are discussed in terms of their contribution to prevention and intervention studies.

Keywords

• Cyberbullying
• theories
• prevention and intervention

References

1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88.
2. Akbulut, Y., & Eristi, B. (2011). Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish university students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1155-1170. Doi: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.910
3. Akgül, G. & Artar, M. (2020). Cyberbullying: relationship with developmental variables and cyber victimization. Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, 8, 25-37.
4. Ansary, N. S. (2020). Cyberbullying: Concepts, theories, and correlates informing evidence-based best practices for prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50, 101343.
5. Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., & Memmedov, C. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 253-261.
6. Ayas, T. ve Horzum, M.B. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin sanal zorba ve mağdur olma durumu. İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 369-380.
7. Baker, Ö. E. & Tanrıkulu, İ. (2010). Psychological consequences of cyber bullying experiences among Turkish secondary school children. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2771-2776.
8. Barlett, C. P. (2016). Exploring the correlations between emerging adulthood, Dark Triad traits, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 293-298.

9. Barlett, C. P. (2017). From theory to practice: Cyberbullying theory and its application to intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 269-275.
10. Barlett, C. P. & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Attacking others online: The formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(2), 123-135.
11. Barlett, C.P., Chamberlin, K., & Witkower, Z. (2017). Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in emerging adults: a theoretical test of the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model. Aggressive Behavior, 43(2), 147-154.
12. Barlett, C. P., Madison, C. S., Heath, J. B., & DeWitt, C. C. (2019). Please browse responsibly: A correlational examination of technology access and time spent online in the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 250-255.
13. Barlett, C. P., Seyfert, L. W., Simmers, M. M., Hsueh Hua Chen, V., Cavalcanti, J. G., Krahé, B., ... & Skowronski, M. (2020). Cross‐cultural similarities and differences in the theoretical predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: Results from a seven‐country study. Aggressive Behavior, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21923
14. Beran, T. & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. The Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 16-33.
15. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480.
16. Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400-420.
17. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531.
18. Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1679-1686.
19. Choi, J., & Kruis, N. E. (2018). The Effects of Life Domains on Cyberbullying and Bullying: Testing the Generalizability of Agnew’s Integrated General Theory. Crime & Delinquency, 1-29. Doi:10.1177/0011128718814860
20. Choi, K. S., Earl, K., Lee, J. R., & Cho, S. (2019). Diagnosis of cyber and non-physical bullying victimization: A lifestyles and routine activities theory approach to constructing effective preventative measures. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 11-19.
21. Cohen, L. & M. Felson. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
22. Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. (2015). A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 109-117.
23. Doane, A. N., Pearson, M. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2014). Predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among college students: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 154-162.
24. Doane, A.N., Ehlke, S. & Kelley, M.L. (2020). Bystanders Against Cyberbullying: a Video Program for College Students. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 2, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00051-5
25. Espelage, D. L., Rao, M. A., & Craven, R. G. (2013). Theories of cyberbullying. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, Measures, and Methodology, (Eds. Bauman, S., Cross, D., & Walker, J. L.). (2013). Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology, 49-67. Routledge.
26. Field, T. (2018). Cyberbullying: A narrative review. Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research,2, 10-27. https://dx.doi.org/10.29328/journal.jatr.1001007
27. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond Jr, R. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2012). Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 533.
28. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. MA: Addison-Wesley.
29. Gardella, J. H., Fisher, B. W., & Teurbe-Tolon, A. R. (2017). A Systematic review and meta-analysis of cyber- victimization and educational outcomes for adolescents. Review Educational Research, 87(2), 283-308.
30. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
31. Gunawardena, C.N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997) Social presence as apredictor of satisfaction within a computer‐ mediated conferencing environment, American Journal of Distance Education, (11)3, 8-26, Doi:10.1080/08923649709526970
32. Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24(4), 614-620.
33. Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
34. Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
35. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2018). Cyberbullying research summary: Cyberbullying and suicide. Online: http://www.cyberbullying.us/myspace_youth_research.pdf
36. Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of general strain theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 85-93.
37. Kim, H., & Chang, Y. (2017). Managing online toxic disinhibition: The impact of identity and social presence. SIGHCI 2017 Proceedings, 1-5.
38. Kim, S., Colwell, S. R., Kata, A., Boyle, M. H., & Georgiades, K. (2017). Cyberbullying victimization and adolescent mental health: evidence of differential effects by sex and mental health problem type. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1-12.
39. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137.
40. Leukfeldt, E. R. (2014). Phishing for suitable targets in the Netherlands: Routine activity theory and phishing victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(8), 551-555.
41. Lianos, H., & McGrath, A. (2017). Can the general theory of crime and general strain theory explain cyberbullying perpetration?. Crime & Delinquency, 1-27.
42. Link, N. W., Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Link, B. G. (2016). Can general strain theory help us understand violent behaviors among people with mental illnesses?. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 729-754.
43. Machackova, H. (2020). Bystander reactions to cyberbullying and cyberaggression: individual, contextual, and social factors. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 134-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.003
44. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31(5), 381- 410.
45. Mark, L., & Ratliffe, K. T. (2011). Cyber worlds: New playgrounds for bullying. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 92-116.
46. Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602-611.
47. Morin, H. K., Bradshaw, C. P., & Kush, J. M. (2018). Adjustment outcomes of victims of cyberbullying: the role of personal and contextual factors. Journal of School Psychology, 70, 74-88.
48. Navarro J. N. & Jasinski, J. L. (2012). Going Cyber: Using Routine Activities Theory to Predict Cyberbullying Experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 32(1), 81-94, Doi:10.1080/02732173.2012.628560
49. Nivette, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2017). Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitudes: A Test of General Strain Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 755-790.
50. OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. PISA: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en
51. Oh, G., & Connolly, E. J. (2018). Anger as a Mediator Between Peer Victimization and Deviant Behavior in South Korea: A Cross-Cultural Application of General Strain Theory. Crime & Delinquency, 1-21. Doi:10.1177/0011128718806699
52. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega, E. (2009). The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying: A study of Spanish adolescents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197-204.
53. Özdemir, M., & Akar, F. (2011). Lise öğrencilerinin siber-zorbalığa ilişkin görüşlerinin bazı değişkenler bakımından incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 4(4), 605-626.
54. Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2014). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyberbullying: The importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(4), 463–477. http://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.858626
55. Paez, G. R. (2018). Cyberbullying among adolescents: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of School Violence, 17(1), 74-85.
56. Papatraianou, L. H., Levine, D., & West, D. (2014). Resilience in the face of cyberbullying: An ecological perspective on young people’s experiences of online adversity. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(4), 264- 283.
57. Peker, A., (2013). İnsani değerler yönelimli psiko-eğitim programının problemli İnternet kullanımı ve siber zorbalık üzerindeki etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya, Türkiye.
58. Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 267-296.
59. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149-1169.
60. Savage, M. W., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2017). Moving toward a theory: Testing an integrated model of cyberbullying perpetration, aggression, social skills, and İnternet self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 353-361.
61. Slotter, E. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). I3 Theory: Instigating, impelling, and inhibiting factors in aggression. In M.
62. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Human aggression and violence: Causes, manifestations, and consequences (pp. 35–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
63. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.
64. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
65. Swearer, S., & Hymel, S. (2015). Bullying and discrimination in schools: Exploring variations across student subgroups. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 504-509. doi: 10.1037/a0038929
66. Tanrıkulu, T. (2014). Cyberbullying from the perspective of choice theory. Educational Research And Reviews, 9(18), 660-665. Doi:10.5897/ERR2014.1761
67. Tanrıkulu, I., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2019). Motives behind cyberbullying perpetration: a test of uses and gratifications theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-26. Doi:10.1177/0886260518819882.
68. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277-287.
69. TÜİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu) (2018). Hane Halkı Bilişim Teknolojileri Kullanım Araştırması. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1028
70. Van Wilsem, J. (2011). ‘Bought it, but never got it’Assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimization. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 168-178.
71. Vlaanderen, A., Bevelander, K. E., & Kleemans, M. (2020). Empowering digital citizenship: An anti- cyberbullying intervention to increase children's intentions to intervene on behalf of the victim. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106459
72. Wick, S. E., Nagoshi, C., Basham, R., Jordan, C., Kim, Y. K., Nguyen, A. P., & Lehmann, P. (2017). Patterns of Cyber Harassment and Perpetration among College Students in the United States: A Test of Routine Activities Theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 24-38. Doi:10.5281/zenodo.495770
73. Wong, R. Y., Cheung, C. M., & Xiao, B. (2018). Does gender matter in cyberbullying perpetration? An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 247-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.022
74. Zhang, H., Sun, X., Chen, L., Yang, H., & Wang, Y. (2020). The mediation role of moral personality between childhood psychological abuse and cyberbullying perpetration attitudes of college students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1215-1222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01215