Bağımsız Benlik Anlamladırması, Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rollerine dair Yönelimler ve Siberzorbalık / Siberzorbalığa Maruz Kalma Arasındaki İlişkiler: Kuzey Kıbrıs’tan bir Üniversite Öğrencisi Örneklemine İlişkin Bulgular

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı bir grup üniversite öğrencisinde bağımsız benlik anlamlandırması, kadınsılıkerkeksilik ve siberzorbalık-siberzorbalığa maruz kalma arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesidir. Araştırmaya üç farklı Kuzey Kıbrıs üniversitesinde öğrenim gören ve yaşları 19 ile 35 arasında değişen Ort.= 24.25, S=2.51 toplam 393 öğrenci %56.2 kadın, %44.8 erkek katılmıştır. Örneklem farklı etnik ve kültürel kökenlerden gelen öğrencilerden oluşmuştur. Görgül kanıtları ve Masten’in 2001 risk ve dayanıklılığa ilişkin dolaylı ilişki/etkileşim modellerini takip ederek, bağımsız benlik anlamlandırmasının, kadınsılıkerkeksilik ve siberzorbalık-siberzorbalığa maruz kalma arasında aracı ve düzenleyici değişken olarak rol alacağı düşünülmüştür. Daha spesifik biçimde belirtmek gerekirse, bağımsız benlik anlamlandırması koruyucu bir etmen, siberzorbalık ve siberzorbalığa maruz kalma durumlarında ise hem kadınsılık hem de erkeksilik birer risk etmeni olarak tanımlanmıştır. Bulgular hipotezimizi kısmen desteklemiştir. Önerilen aracı ve düzenleyici roller, siberzorbalık ve erkeksiliğin yer aldığı modeller için anlamlı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarmamıştır. Ancak bağımsız benlik anlamlandırmasına yönelik eğilimlerin kadınsılıkla siberzorbalığa maruz kalma arasında hem aracı hem de düzenleyici değişken olarak yer aldığı belirlenmiştir. Diğer bir deyişle bağımsız benlik anlamlandırmasının, bireylerin bir risk etmeni olarak kadınsı özellikler gösterdiği durumlarda siberzorbalığa karşı koruyucu bir etmen olduğu bulunmuştur. Araştırma bulgularının özellikle siberzorbalığa maruz kalan duyarlı popülasyonlarla çalışan uygulamacılara yol gösterici olabileceği düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Benlik anlamlandırması
• Kadınsılık
• Erkeksilik
• Siberzorbalık
• Siberzorbalığa maruz kalma
• Beliren yetişkinlik

Associations Between Independent Self-Construal, Gender-Role Orientation, and Cyberbullying / Cybervictimization: Findings from a University Student Sample in North Cyprus

Öz

The major aim of this study was to test the associations among independent self-contrual, femininitymasculinity and cyberbullying/cybervictimization among a university student sample. Atotal of 393 participants 56.2% females, 44.8% males between the ages of 19 and 35 M= 24.25, SD =2.51 were enrolled in three North Cyprus universities. The sample included the students from various national and cultural backgrounds. Following the empirical evidence and indirect/interaction models of risk and resilience proposed by Masten 2001 , we hypothesized that independent self-construal would mediate and moderate the association between femininity-masculinity and cyberbullying / cybervictimization. Specifically, independent self-construal was operationalized as a protective factor and femininitymasculinity dimensions were defined as risk factors when cyberbullying and cybervictimization was into account. The findings partly supported our hypotheses. The proposed mediator and moderator roles were not significant for the models which included masculinity and cyberbullying. However, the results revealed that higher independent self-construal orientation mediated and moderated significantly between femininity and cybervictimization. In other words, independent self-construal has been found as a protective factor against cybervictimization when the participants had feminine tendencies as a risk factor. The findings might have implications especially for practitioners who are working with vulnerable populations like victims of cyberbullying

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Self-construal
• Femininity
• Masculinity
• Cyberbullying
• Cybervictimization
• Emerging adulthood

Kaynakça

1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Akbulut, Yavuz, & Eristi, Bahadır (2011). Cyberbullying and victimization among Turkish university students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27: 1155-1170.
2. Aricak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of cyberbullying among university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34: 167-184.
3. Aricak, O. T. (2008). Siyahnan, Sinem; Uzunhasanoglu, Ayşegül; Saribeyoglu, Sevda; Ciplak, Songül; Yilmaz, Nesrin, & Memmedov, Cemil. Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11: 253-261.
4. E. L., Lucia, V. C. (1999). Vulnerability to
5. assaultive violence: Further speculation of the sex difference in post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Medicine, 29: 813–821.
6. Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21: 230-258.
7. Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber-bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 15: 68-76.
8. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, Gita. M., Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of intercorrelations, gender differences, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79: 1185–1229.

9. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H. (1997). Family economic hardship and adolescent academic performance: Mediating and moderating processes. In G. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 228-310). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80: 389-407.
11. Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E. (2012). Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analysis. In S.H. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An international perspective (pp. 347-363). New York: Routledge.
12. Cowie, H. (2009). Tackling cyberbullying: A cross- cultural comparison. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 1: 3-13.
13. Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton. B., Molcho, M. et al. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54: S216-S224.
14. Craig, W. M., Peppler, D. J. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization on the playground. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2: 41-60.
15. Cross, D., Li, Q., Smith, P. K., Monks, H. (2012). Understanding and preventing cyberbullying. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P.K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground. Research from international perspectives. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
16. Cross, S.E., Bacon, P.L., Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 791-808.
17. Cross, S. E., Madson, L. (1997a). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122: 5-37.
18. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997b). Elaboration of models of the self: reply to Baumeister and Sommer (1997) and Martin and Ruble (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122: 51–55.
19. d’Haenens, L. (2012, November). Vulnerability and On-line resilience among children across Europe. Paper presented at Cyberspace 2012, Brno, Czech Republic.
20. Diener, E., Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. In E. Diener (Ed.), Culture and well-being. Netherlands: Springer.
21. Dilmac, B. (2009). Psychological needs as a predictor of cyberbullying: a preliminary report on college students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9: 1307-1325.
22. Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying vs. face-to-face bullying. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217: 182–188.
23. Dökmen, Z. Y. (1999). BEM Cinsiyet Rolü Envanteri Kadınsılık ve Erkeksilik Ölçekleri Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. Kriz Dergisi, 7: 27-40.
24. Erdur-Baker, Ö., Kavşut, F. (2007). A new face of peer bullying: cyberbullying. Journal of Euroasian Educational Research, 27: 31-42.
25. and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA Sage.
26. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Abridged Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Joreskog, Karl G., & Sorbom, Dag (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with sımplıs command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
27. Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M. J., Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism- collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 925-937.
28. Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21: 128– 151.
29. Kowalski, R., Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle-school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: S22-S30.
30. Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I. (1999). Children involved in bullying: Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the involvement. Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal, 23: 1253–62.
31. Lazar, M. M. (2006). “Discover the power of femininity”: Analyzing global “power femininity” in local advertising. Feminist Media Studies, 6: 505-517.
32. Lee, E. A.E., Troop-Gordon, W. (2011). Peer socialization of masculinity and femininity: Differential effects of overt and relational forms of peer victimization. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29: 197-213.
33. Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23: 1777-1791.
34. Li, Q., Smith, P. K., Cross, D. (2012). Research into cyberbullying context. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P.K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground. Research from international perspectives. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
35. Lippa, R., Connely, Sh. (1990). Gender diagnosticity: A new Bayesian approach to gender-related indivudal diferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1051-1065.
36. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 151-173.
37. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K., with members of the EU Kids Online network (2011). Risks and safety on the internet. The perspective of European children. Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of their parents in 25 countries. Retrieved from: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/ EUKidsOnline/ EUKidsII%20 (2009-11)/ EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D4FullFindings.pdf
38. Lu, L., Gilmour, R. (2007). Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41: 249- 257.
39. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71: 543-562.
40. Macháčková, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., Cerna, A. (2013). Bystanders’ support of cyberbullied schoolmates. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 25-36. doi:10.1002/ casp.2135
41. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
42. Martin, C. L., Fabes, R A., Evans, S. M., Wyman, H. (1999). Social cognition on the playground: Children’s beliefs about playing with girls versus boys and their relations to sex segregated play. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16: 751–771.
43. Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98: 224–253.
44. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56: 227-238.
45. Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,49: 376-385.
46. Sourander, Andre; Klomek, Anat B.; Ikonen, Maria; Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., Ristkari, T., Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67: 720–28.
47. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/ province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50: 269-281.
48. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus Norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 482-493.
49. Tafarodi, R. W., Swann, W. B. (1996). Individualism- collectivism and global self-esteem: Evidence for a cultural trade-off. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27: 651-672.
50. Takahashi, T., Nasser, F. (1996). The impact of using item parcels on ad hoc goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: An empirical example. American Educational Research Association, April 1996, New York - USA.
51. Terman, L., Miles, C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York: Russell & Russell.
52. Thompson, B., & Melancon, J. G. (1996). Using item “Testlest” / “Parcels” in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using the PPSDQ-78. (ERIC Document No. ED 404349).
53. Thompson, R. A., Goodvin, R. (2005). The individual child: Temperament, emotion, self, and personality. In M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 391–428). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
54. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26: 277-287.
55. Topçu, Ç., Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). The Revised Cyberbullying Inventory (RCBI): validity and reliability studies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5: 660-664.
56. Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34: 221-235.
57. Wade, A., Beran, T. (2011). Cyberbullying: A new era of bullying. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26: 44-61.
58. Walkerdine, V. (1989). Femininity as performance. Oxford Review of Education, 15: 267-279.
59. Walrave, M., Heirman, W. (2010). Towards understanding the potential triggering features of technology. In S. Shariff, & A.H. Churchill (Eds.), Truths and myths of Cyber-Bullying: International perspectives on stakeholder responsibility and children’s safety. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
60. Wild, L. G., Flisher, A. J., Bhana, A., Carl, L. (2004) Associations among adolescent risk behaviours and self-esteem in six domains. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45: 1454-1467.
61. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harrasment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harrasment by known pers and online-only contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: 851-858.
62. Wong, F.Y., McCreary, D., Duffy, K. G. (1990) A further validation of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A multitrait multimethod study. Sex Roles, 22: 249-259.
63. Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11: 205 – 224.
64. Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressors/ targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45: 1308-1316.
65. Yoshihisa, K., Susumu, Y., Uichol, K., Sang-Chin, C., Michele, G. J., Masaki, Y. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism- collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 925-937.
66. Young, R., Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying, relatonships, psychological well-being, and gender- atypical behavior: A Gender Diagnosticity Approach. Sex Roles, 50: 525-537.
67. Zhang, A. T., Land, L. P.W., Dick, G. (2010). Key influences of cyberbullying for university students. Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei, Taiwan.