Does High Self-Efficacy in Adolescents Minimize Cyber Bullying Behaviour?

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 140 - 145, 31.03.2021

Adem Peker , Yüksel Eroğlu , Melike Nebioğlu Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.864038

Cited By: 7

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to explain the moderation role of self-efficacy in the relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying.

Methods: A total of 340 high school students participated in the study aged between 14 and 18 years. Research data was obtained with the Cyber Bullying and Internet Aggression Survey Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale. Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationships between variables in the study. Hierarchical regression analysis based on the Hayes method was used to test the mediation effects in the study.

Results: As a result of the research, it was found that 42% of the participants were exposed to cyber bullying and 35% engaged in cyber bullying. The research revealed that there is a moderate, positive and significant relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying. As a result of mediation analysis, it was observed that self-efficacy affects the relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying.

Conclusion: The results indicate that a decrease in self-efficacy leads to increased cyber bullying behaviour, while an increase in self-efficacy decreases cyber bullying behaviour after cyber victimization. From this point of view, carrying out studies to increase the self-efficacy levels of students in schools will reduce cyber bullying.
Keywords: Cyber victimization, cyber bullying, self-efficacy, moderation

Anahtar Kelimeler

cyber victim, cyber bullying, self-efficacy, moderation

Kaynakça

• [1] Lapierre KR, Dane AW. Social advantages and disadvantages associated with cyber aggression-victimization: A latent class analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 2020; 113, 106497. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.
• [2] Crone EA, Konijn EA. Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications 2018; 9(1): 588-598. Doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x.
• [3] Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Trends in online social networking: Adolescent use of MySpace over time. New Media & Society 2010; 12:197-216. doi: 10.1177/1461444809341857.
• [4] Smith PK, Del-Barrio C, Tokunaga RS. Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: how useful are the terms? In Bauman S, Cross D, & Walker J, eds. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definition, methods, and measures. 2013; New York: Routledge, pp. 26-40.
• [5] Islam MI, Khanam R, Kabir E. Bullying victimization, mental disorders, suicidality and self-harm among Australian high school children: Evidence from nationwide data. Psychiatry Research 2020; 292: 113364. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113364
• [6] Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 2014; 55(5): 602-611.
• [7] Hemphill SA, Tollit M, Kotevski A, Heerde J. Predictors of traditional and cyber-bullying victimization: A longitudinal study of Australian secondary school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2015; 30(15): 2567-259. doi: 10.1177/0886260514553636.
• [8] Jadambaa A, Thomas H, Scott J, Graves N, Brain D, Pacella R. Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2019; 53(9): 878-888. doi: 10.1177/ 0004867419846393.
• [9] McKenna KY. Influences on the nature and functioning of online groups. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research and applications (pp. 228-242). 2008; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• [10] Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman, T. Cyberbullying victimization in adolescents as related to body esteem, social support, and social self-efficacy. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 2017; 178 (1): 28-43. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195331.
• [11] Bannink R, Broeren S, van de Looij-Jansen PM, de Waart FG, Raat H. Cyber and traditional bullying victimization as a risk factor for mental health problems and suicidal ideation in adolescents. PloS One 2014; 9(4): e94026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094026.
• [12] Gini G, Card NA, Pozzoli T. A meta-analysis of the differential relations of traditional and cyber-victimization with internalizing problems. Aggressive Behavior 2018; 44(2); 185-198.
• [13] Bonanno R A, Hymel S. Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2013; 42: 685-697. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1.
• [14] Przybylski AK, Bowes L. Cyberbullying and adolescent well-being in england: A population-based cross-sectional study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2017; 1: 19-26.
• [15] Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin 2014; 140(4): 1073-1137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618.
• [16] Bauman S, Toomey RB, Walker JL. Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence 2013; 36(2): 341-350.
• [17] Wong DW, Chan H, Cheng CK. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review 2014; 36:133-140. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006.
• [18] Leung ANM, Wong N, Farver J. Cyberbullying in Hong Kong Chinese students: Life satisfaction, and the moderating role of friendship qualities on cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. Personality and Individual Differences 2018; 133: 7-12. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.016.
• [19] Quintana-Orts C, Rey L. Forgiveness and cyberbullying in adolescence: Does willingness to forgive help minimize the risk of becoming a cyberbully? Computers in Human Behaivor 2018; 81: 209-214. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.021.
• [20] Hood M, Duffy AL. Understanding the relationship between cyber-victimisation and cyber-bullying on Social Network Sites: The role of moderating factors. Personality and Individual Differences 2018; 133:103-108. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.004.
• [21] Ayas T. Investigation of the relationship between self-respect and extraversion of students who are involved in virtual bullying and do not confuse. Education and Science 2016; 41(186): 205-216. doi: 10.15390/EB.2016.4928.
• [22] Akbulut Y, Eristi B. Cyberbullying and victimisation among Turkish university students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2011; 27(7): 1155-1170.
• [23] Erdur-Baker Ö. Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society 2010; 12(1): 109-125. doi: 10.1177/1461444809341260.
• [24] Peker A. Investigating the predictive role of negative affect on cyber bullying and victimization. Kastamonu Education Journal 2015; 23(4): 1633-1646.
• [25] Taştekin E, Bayhan P. Examination of cyber bullying and victimization among adolescents. Online Journal of Technology Addiction & Cyberbullying 2018; 5(2): 21-45.
• [26] Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs 1986; NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• [27] Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.]. 1997. Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press.
• [28] Barchia K, Bussey K. The psychological impact of peer victimization: Exploring social cognitive mediators of depression. Journal of Adolescence 2010; 33: 615-623.doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.12.002.
• [29] Erath SA, Flanagan KS, Bierman KL, Tu KM. Friendships moderate psychosocial maladjustment in socially anxious early adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2010; 31: 15-26. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.005.
• [30] Trompeter N, Bussey K, Fitzpatrick S. Cyber victimization and internalizing difficulties: The mediating roles of coping self-efficacy and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2018; 46: 1129-1139. doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0378-2.
• [31] Bussey K, Fitzpatrick S, Raman A. The role of moral disengagement and self-efficacy in cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence 2015;14: 30-46. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.954045.
• [32] Heiman T, Olenik-Shemesh D, Eden S. Aggressive behavior and vulnerability on the Internet: Characteristics, patterns, risk and protective factors among children and adolescents (Research Report). Jerusalem, Israel: The Israeli Ministry of Education. Retrieved from 2014 http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/5B2E6358-A9D7-4F8B-83A2-E1F46CB4DF94/185400/Unnamed6.pdf.
• [33] Ak S¸ Ozdemir Y, Kuzucu Y. Cybervictimization and cyberbullying: The mediating role of anger, don’t anger me! Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 49: 437-443. doi 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.030.
• [34] Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society 2011; 43(2): 727-751. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.05.009.
• [35] Çelikkaleli Ö, Gündoğdu M, Kıran-Esen B. Competency expectation scale in adolescents: Validity and reliability study of Turkish adaptation. Educational Research 2006; 25: 62-72. doi: 10.4274/jpr.galenos.2018.23855.
• [36] Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior 2008; 29: 129-156.
• [37] Ozdemir M, Akar F. Investigation of high school students' views on cyberbullying in terms of some variables. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 2011; 17(4): 605-626. doi: 10.17718/tojde.07460.
• [38] Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 2018; New York: The Guilford Press.
• [39] Elipe P, Mora-Merchan JA, Ortega-Ruiz R, Casas JA. Perceived emotional intelligence as a moderator variable between cybervictimization and its emotional impact. Frontiers in Psychology 2015; 6: 1-11. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00486.
• [40] Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence 2007; 6(3): 89-112. doi: 10.1300/J202v06n03_06.
• [41] Worthington E. Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. 2006; New York: Routledge.
• [42] Konig A, Gollwitzer M, Steffgen G. Cyberbullying as an act of revenge? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 2010; 20: 210-224. doi:10. 1375/ajgc.20.2.210.
• [43] Clark M, Bussey K. The role of self-efficacy in defending cyberbullying victims. Computers in Human Behavior 2020; 109: 106340. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106340.
• [44] Bingöl TY. Determining the predictors of self-efficacy and cyber bullying. International Journal of Higher Education 2018; 7(2): 138-143. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v7n2p138.
• [45] Nikel L. Submissiveness, assertiveness, and agressiveness in school-age children: The role of self-efficacy and Big Five. Children and Youth Servicess Review 2020; 110: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104746.
• [46] Buser TJ, Peterson CH, Kearney A. Self-efficacy pathways between relational aggression and nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of College Counseling 2015; 18(3): 195-208. doi: 10.1002/jocc.12014.
• [47] Hipson WE, Coplan RJ, Séguin DG. Active emotion regulation mediates links between shyness and social adjustment in preschool. Social Development 2019; 28(4): 893-907. doi: 10.1111/sode.12372.
• [48] Li L, Peng Z, Lu L, Liao H, H Li. Peer relationships, self-efficacy, academic motivation, and mathematics achievement in Zhauang adolescents: A moderated-mediation model. Children and Youth Services Review 2020; 118: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105358.