Cyberbullying Behavior and Adolescents' Use of Media with Antisocial Content: A Cyclic Process Model

Abstract

The present study examined the role of media use in adolescents' cyberbullying behavior. Following previous research, we propose a Cyclic Process Model of face-to-face victimization and cyberbullying through two mediating processes of anger/frustration and antisocial media content. This model was tested utilizing a cross-sectional design with adolescent participants (N=892). Exposure to antisocial media content was measured with a newly developed content-based scale (i.e., the C-ME), showing good psychometric qualities. Results of structural equation modeling showed that adolescents' exposure to antisocial media content was significantly associated with cyberbullying behavior, especially in adolescents who experienced anger and frustration due to face-to-face victimization. Goodness of fit indices demonstrated a good fit of the theoretical model to the data and indicated that exposure to antisocial media content acts as an amplifier in a cyclic process of victimization-related anger and cyberbullying behavior.

Introduction

Cyberbullying is very severe because it makes you feel you cannot trust anyone and you are nowhere safe.

(Respondent girl, 15 years old)

Cyberbullying is a form of bullying through electronic media, including mobile devices. It may be seen as playful behavior by some and not that severe because of its virtual status,¹ though it often is considered very severe by its victims.² Although the prevalence of this type of bullying is currently debated and varies across research groups,³ it is especially high among adolescents. A recent meta-analysis showed that 20–40% of adolescents reported having been a victim of cyberbullying.⁴ The majority of cybervictims do not tell their parents,⁵ and among these cybervictims, the suicidal ideation is higher than among nonvictims.^6,7 In addition, 16% of adolescents admit having perpetrated acts of cyberbullying once or more often.⁸ These facts highlight the importance of expanding research on cyberbullying behavior among adolescents.

Previous research focused on the profile of a typical cyberbully.^9,10 Research showed a link between being a victim of face-to-face bullying and being a cyberbully (and vice versa).^11,12 Furthermore, other findings suggest that this face-to-face victimization is strongly related to feelings of anger.^2,13–15 However, to our knowledge, no research has been conducted to connect these findings in investigating the relationships between face-to-face victimization, feelings of anger, and becoming a cyberbully. The current study aims to fill this gap. Furthermore, there is a relationship between violent media exposure and cyberbullying behavior.^9,16 However, the impact of media with antisocial content,^17,18 which has a broader scope than violent media,¹⁹ has not yet been included, despite its popularity among adolescents. Investigating this role of media with antisocial content in cyberbullying behavior concerns a second aim of the current study. Thus, the current investigation aims to examine the underlying mechanisms of cyberbullying behavior regarding how victims become bullies¹⁶ and the role of media herein. We propose that media with antisocial content may play a facilitating and cyclic role in the process of being bullied face to face and bullying in cyberspace. When victimized, the adolescent tends to seek out specific media content in the expectation that this will relieve him/her from the stressful event of having been bullied. The cyclic aspect then comes into view when one realizes that media effects research in general shows that effects of exposure to violent media content result in increased aggressiveness. In turn, this may increase the chances that the victim may become a bully him/herself. Thus, media may play a cyclic role in explaining the process from victimization to be(com)ing a cyberbully.

These results will provide valuable information for future intervention programs designed to reduce cyberbullying behavior. In brief, the present study examines the interplay between victimization, exposure to antisocial media content, and cyberbullying behavior in adolescents. Combining various arguments, based on the extant literature as discussed below, the current study proposes and tests a Cyclic Process Model in cyberbullying behavior. This model argues that being bullied face to face instigates feelings of anger and frustration, which draws the adolescent to media with antisocial content, subsequently reinforcing him/her to perform acts of cyberbullying behavior. The various steps in this process will be elaborated below.

Cyberbullying behavior and victimization of face-to-face bullying

Several studies have found that boys are more often cyberbullies than girls.^{6,8,9,16,20,21} Others have found girls to be involved in cyberbullying behavior more often,^1,22,23 and yet others have found no significant gender differences.^12,24 In addition to mixed findings regarding gender differences, age-related trends in cyberbullying behavior are also mixed. For example, some studies found that cyberbullying behavior increases with age,¹⁰ while others found no significant relationship.^13,24 However, reviews indicate that involvement in cyberbullying peaks during adolescence.^4,12 Accordingly, the victimization of cyberbullying peaks among 12–14-year-old adolescents.⁴

Various studies have shown a link between being a victim of face-to-face bullying and being a cyberbully.^11,12 Findings suggest that cyberbullies are also involved in face-to-face bullying, both in the role of perpetrator^10,12,25,26 and in the role of victim.^{6,11,12,25,27} A suggestion is that victims of face-to-face bullying become cyberbullies in desire for revenge,^27–30 or that they use cyberbullying as compensation for feeling unable to retaliate by means of face-to-face bullying.^11,12 In the following, we attempt to identify the underlying mechanisms between face-to-face victimization and bullying in cyberspace.

An explanation for the relationship between face-to-face victimization and cyberbullying behavior could be found in experiencing negative emotions such as anger or frustration. Research shows that face-to-face victimization is strongly related to feelings of anger.^2,13,14,15 In explaining their finding that adolescents who experienced anger were more likely to be involved in cyberbullying, Patchin and Hinduja suggest that this relationship can be explained by the General Strain Theory.³¹ This theory argues that people who experience strain (and as a result feel angry or frustrated) are more at risk of engaging in deviant behavior.³² Given that adolescence comes with higher levels of deviant behavior anyway,³³ the General Strain Theory might hold in particular for victimized adolescents whose increased strain may find an outlet in cyberbullying behavior.

The role of media in cyberbullying behavior

We suggest that adolescents who experience anger or frustration (e.g., because of face-to-face victimization) are more at risk of engaging in cyberbullying behavior. This is supported by studies indicating that adolescents tend to use violent media to cope with their anger.^34–37 Previous research showed that the media play an important role in the developmental process of identification among adolescents in search for attractive role models.³⁸ Accordingly, adolescents are heavy media consumers³⁹ of more traditional media, such as television, and of newer social media, such as digital games and YouTube. Moreover, antisocial media content seems highly popular among them,^17,18 which may coincide with their increased need for deviant behavior due to their developmental stage and search for an independent identity.^33,40

Hence, an important next step is to investigate how exposure to antisocial media content is related to cyberbullying behavior in adolescents. This fourth assumption underlying the development of cyberbullying in adolescents finds support in a number of previous studies. Thus far, however, only a few studies are available extending the line of (violent) media effects research into the domain of (cyber)bullying. A longitudinal study⁴¹ showed that television exposure at the age of four, regardless of content, was associated with becoming a bully between the ages of 6 and 11. In addition, recent studies^42,43 reported that increased exposure to violent media was related to face-to-face bullying, which was amplified by feelings of anger.⁴² Furthermore, two studies showed that exposure to violent media is related to cyberbullying behavior.^9,16 These findings are in line with the rich body of research showing that exposure to violent media leads to higher levels of aggressiveness.^44,45 Theories like the General Aggression Model⁴⁵ and Social Cognitive Theory^46,47 suggest that observation and modeling foster vicarious learning through media by encouraging rewarding and attractive behavior.^45,48,49 Related to this, research regarding the Downward Spiral Model⁵⁰ found that aggressiveness among adolescents led to higher attractiveness to violent media content. In turn, exposure to such violent content reinforced their aggressiveness, indicating a downward spiral of negativity.

The present study

The current study expands on the investigation of the role of the media in cyberbullying behavior by focusing on antisocial media content. Given today's broad array of antisocial media portrayals (both on television and online), including risky behavior, substance abuse, rough language, gossiping, and so on,⁵¹ we broadened our scope to media with antisocial content rather than violent content alone. In line with their developmental stage, adolescents show an increased preference for media with this kind of antisocial content.^52,53

Taken together, these lines of research have thus far not been integrated into a coherent chain of events, and the role of media use in cyberbullying has hardly been investigated even though adolescents are avid media users. Combining the above lines of thought brings an integrated picture of how the various building blocks from face-to-face victimization, anger, the media, and cyberbullying behavior are interrelated. In sum, the current study proposes and tests a Cyclic Process Model of cyberbullying. This model proposes that face-to-face victimization in adolescents instigates feelings of anger and frustration, which in turn draws the adolescent to use media with antisocial content. Such media use then reinforces him/her to perform cyberbullying behavior. Thus, the underlying mechanisms between face-to-face victimization and becoming a cyberbully would then be the victims' feelings of anger following face-to-face victimization, and exposure to antisocial media content in response. They end up in a cyclical process because victims of bullying behavior then become cyberbullies themselves, and vice versa.^10,54,55 The Cyclic Process Model underlying the present study in explaining cyberbullying behavior is visualized in Figure 1.

FIG. 1.

A Cyclic Process Model of cyberbullying behavior underlying the current study.

Method

Participants

In a cross-sectional design (N=892; 57% boys, around the age of 13, M_age=13.73, SD_age=1.36), adolescents participated voluntarily and were recruited from 16 different schools throughout the country. Participants were all in secondary education: 43.7% first-grade (aged around 12), 24.9% second grade (aged around 13), 22.5% third grade (aged around 14), 8.9% fourth through sixth grade (aged around 15–18). The majority were white Caucasian (83%); others had a Turkish (5.8%), Surinam (2.8%), or other background.

Procedure

After permission from headmasters and section heads of the schools, pupils were reassured that the study was anonymous. Parents were asked for their consent and were given the opportunity to withdraw their child from participation at any time. Due to the class-wise procedure and the reward of providing media literacy lessons (only after completion of all questionnaires), we received 100% consent. All adolescents provided assent as well. In the classroom, participants completed the questionnaire individually and were encouraged to ask questions whenever needed. After completing all questionnaires, we discussed with the adolescents how they thought the media might influence them. We proposed several statements (e.g., “gaming makes you aggressive”) and further discussed what they thought about cyberbullying behavior. We intentionally did not focus on cyberbullying behavior alone because we told the pupils that the questionnaire was about adolescents' media use in general.

Measurements

Each measurement device, as described below, included 5-point Likert-type items with the following answering options: 1=“never,” 2=“incidentally,” 3=“several times,” 4=“often,” and 5=“very often.”

Cyberbullying behavior

The Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ)⁹ was used to measure various categories of cyberbullying behavior. Because of too much overlap, given today's cell phone technology, we had to combine several of the original 16 items, resulting in a total of 12 items. For example, “Sending threatening or insulting messages by e-mail” was combined with “Sending threatening or insulting messages by cell phone.” Likewise, “Hanging humiliating images of classmates on the Internet” and “Sending links with humiliating images of classmates” were combined, as well as “Writing embarrassing jokes, rumors, gossip, or comments about a classmate on the Internet” and “Sending links with embarrassing jokes, rumors, gossip, or comments about a classmate.” All items loaded onto one factor and explained 39.2% of the variance. Factor loadings for all items can be found in Table 1. The resulting 12-item CBQ was reliable (Cronbach's α=0.83; M=1.11, SD=0.25).

Table 1.

Factor Loadings of the Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ)

Each item starts with “How often do you…”	Factor 1: Cyberbullying behavior
… send links with videos or cell phone pictures of classmates performing some kind of behavior of a sexual nature?	0.74
… record a video or take cell phone pictures of classmates performing some kind of behavior of a sexual nature?	0.71
… broadcast online other people's secrets, compromising information or images?	0.68
… send links with videos or cell phone pictures of classmates who is being laughed at by a group and forced to do something humiliating or ridiculous?	0.67
… record a video or take cell phone pictures while a group laughs and forces another person to do something humiliating or ridiculous?	0.66
… record a video or take cell phone pictures while someone hits or hurts another person?	0.66
… hang humiliating images of classmates on the Internet or send links of these images to other people for them to see?	0.65
… hack to send messages by e-mail that could make trouble for the other person?	0.63
… send links of videos or cell phone pictures while someone hits or hurts another person?	0.55
… send threatening or insulting messages by e-mail or mobile phone?	0.53
… write or send links of embarrassing jokes, rumors, gossip, etc. about a classmate to other people so they can read them?	0.52
… do you deliberately exclude someone from an online group?	0.48
Cronbach's alpha	0.83

Note. Items are based on the CBQ of Calvete et al. (2010).⁹

Antisocial media exposure

This was measured with the newly developed Content-based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME). Conventional media exposure measurements generally ask for frequency of exposure or one's favorite programs (to be coded afterwards, which is quite labor intensive), rather than measuring the specific content one is exposed to across various types of media. Therefore, we developed the C-ME scale, asking for the content one has been exposed to through media use. In a separate validation study, the C-ME correlates positively, as expected, with trait aggression, general exposure to violent media, and negatively with empathy (den Hamer A, Konijn EA, Krabbendam AC, Plaisier XS, Keijer MG, Bushman BJ. “Development and Validation of the Content-Based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME),” manuscript in preparation). The C-ME scale contains 14 items, and measures how often someone watches portrayals of various antisocial media content, such as violence, sex, drug abuse, reckless driving, and general antisocial behavior (e.g., stealing, destroying someone's property). The items were based on the extant literature regarding adolescent antisocial and risk behavior.⁴⁹ To counterbalance these items, three filler items were included, reflecting prosocial behavior such as helping another person, and neutral behavior such as watching the news. Sample items are, for example, “On television/the Internet, how often do you watch people fighting?” and “On television/the Internet, how often do you watch people destroy someone else's property?”. An Oblimin factor analysis (Table 2) revealed that the 11 items belonged to one factor reflecting antisocial media content (Cronbach's α=0.84; M=2.50, SD=0.65).

Table 2.

Factor Loadings of the Content-Based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME)

Each item starts with “On television or on the Internet, how many times do you watch…”	Factor 1: Antisocial content	Factor 2: Neutral/social content
… people destroying someone else's belonging?	0.78	−0.01
… people shooting another person?	0.75	−0.13
… people stealing?	0.75	0.15
… people who drink (too much) alcohol?	0.75	0.15
… people fight?	0.71	−0.11
… people using drugs?	0.71	0.21
… people having sex?	0.61	−0.09
… people talking about sex?	0.61	0.05
… people performing stunts on their scooter?	0.58	−0.19
… people who are making a fool about someone?	0.56	−0.01
… people street racing?	0.54	−0.02
… people helping another person?	−0.02	0.86
… people standing up for another person?	0.13	0.84
… the news?	−0.09	0.52
Cronbach's alpha	0.84	0.64

Note. The C-ME scale has been developed by the authors.

Victimization

The Peer Victimization Scale⁵⁶ was used to measure face-to-face victimization, which contained 10 items (seven items of the original Peer Victimization Scale and three items added by the authors), such as “How often do classmates bully or pick on you?”. Factor loadings can be found in Table 3. As can be seen, one reversed item had a relatively low factor loading. However, removing this item would not improve the Cronbach's alpha by more than 0.05. Thus, it was kept in the scale (Cronbach's α=0.76; M=2.01, SD=0.55).

Table 3.

Factor Loadings of the Peer Victimization Scale

Each item starts with “How often do…”	Factor 1: Face-to-face victimization
… other kids bully or pick on you?	0.78
… other kids hurt your feelings?	0.77
… other kids gossip or say mean thing about you?	0.77
… other kids exclude you?	0.76
… other kids tease or make fun of you?	0.70
… other kids ignore you?	0.69
… other kids hit or push you?	0.44
… other kids make you feel better when you're having a bad day? (reversed)	0.36
… other kids try to cheer you up when you're sad? (reversed)	0.30
… other kids help you when others pick on you or tease you? (reversed)	0.14
Cronbach's alpha	0.76

Note. Items 1–7 are taken from Schwzartz et al. (2002).⁵⁶ Items 8–10 were added by the authors (see Measurements).

Anger and frustration

This was measured with the anger and frustration-scale,³¹ after Brezina (1996),⁵⁷ covering 10 items, such as “How often do you lose your temper?” (factor loadings can be found in Table 4; Cronbach's α=0.72; M=2.46, SD=0.64).

Table 4.

Factor Loadings of the Anger and Frustration Scale

Each item starts with “How often do you…”	Factor 1: Anger and frustration
… feel like yelling at a parent or teacher?	0.69
… feel like getting even with someone who has harmed you?	0.69
… feel like physically lashing out against a parent or teacher?	0.65
… feel like life has given you a raw deal (has been unfair)?	0.61
… feel like a powder keg ready to explode?	0.53
… feel like other people are always lucky and they get all of the breaks in life?	0.53
… lose your temper?	0.52
… stay mad at someone who hurts you?	0.47
… are jealous of other people?	0.41
… let little things irritate you?	0.34
Cronbach's alpha	0.72

Note. Scale is taken from Patchin and Hinduja (2010).

Results

Structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was used to test the theoretical Cyclic Process Model (Fig. 1). Goodness of fit was assessed by means of chi square, including the degrees of freedom (df), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). In general, an insignificant chi square, as well as a CFI and TLI value close to 0.95, reflect a good fit of the empirical data to the theoretical model. An RMSEA value below 0.10 further indicates a good fit, and a value below 0.06 a very good fit.⁵⁸ The model was tested in MPlus, using bootstrapping (1,000 iterations) to test for mediation.⁵⁹

Figure 2 shows the results of testing the model, in which both a direct and an indirect relationship of face-to-face victimization with cyberbullying behavior was tested. A double mediation was tested with both anger/frustration and exposure to antisocial media content between face-to-face victimization and cyberbullying behavior.

FIG. 2.

The results of testing the theoretical Cyclic Process Model using structural equation modeling (N=892). **p<0.01.

Mean values and standard deviations of all instruments administered are shown in Table 5. In assessing the overall model fit, the fit indices suggest a good fit of the data to the hypothesized double mediation model, χ²(688)=1920.13, p<0.01; CFI=0.90, TLI=0.890, RMSEA=0.05. Significant positive relationships are shown between face-to-face victimization and feelings of anger and frustration (β=0.24, p<0.01), as well as between anger and exposure to media with antisocial content (β=0.48, p<0.01), and between exposure to media with antisocial content and cyberbullying behavior (β=0.24, p<0.01). Furthermore, direct positive significant relations were also found between victimization and cyberbullying behavior (β=0.15, p<0.01) and between anger and cyberbullying behavior (β=0.19, p<0.01). The model test indicated that anger mediates significantly between victimization and cyberbullying behavior (β=0.05, p<0.05), and anger also mediates significantly between victimization and exposure to media with antisocial content (β=0.12, p<0.01). Finally, antisocial media exposure mediates significantly between anger/frustration and cyberbullying behavior (β=0.14, p<0.01). Thus, support was found for both a direct relationship between face-to-face victimization and cyberbullying behavior, as well as for a double mediation model as implicated by our Cyclic Process Model.

Table 5.

Percentages of Occurrence

		Answering categories
Variable	Gender	1 (never)	2 (incidentally)	3 (several times)	4 (often)	5 (very often)
Victimization	Boys	1.0%	56.2%	36.8%	5.6%	0.4%
	Girls	2.9%	70.4%	23.2%	3.5%	0.0%
Anger	Boys	0.0%	29.3%	56.6%	11.9%	2.1%
	Girls	0.0%	27.0%	57.5%	13.6%	1.9%
Antisocial media	Boys	0.4%	16.1%	53.9%	26.1%	3.5%
	Girls	1.6%	48.3%	43.5%	5.6%	1.1%
Cyberbullying	Boys	51.6%	47.5%	0.8%	0.2%	0.0%
	Girls	64.0%	35.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.3%

Discussion

The goal of our study was twofold. The first aim was to examine the role of exposure to antisocial media content in cyberbullying behavior of adolescents. Results showed that this role is rather prominent: the higher the exposure to antisocial media content, the higher the cyberbullying behavior. The second aim was to identify the underlying mechanisms between face-to-face victimization and bullying in cyberspace, and to find support for the Cyclic Process Model. Results of structural equation modeling do support such a Cyclic Process Model in showing a good fit between the data and the theoretical model, in which face-to-face victimization instigates feelings of anger and frustration, drawing adolescents to use media with antisocial content, which in turn stimulates cyberbullying behavior.

In identifying the underlying mechanisms between face-to-face victimization and bullying in cyberspace, we formulated the Cyclic Process Model based on the extant body of research, as argued in the introduction. The first step in the model assumes that face-to-face victimization instigates feelings of anger and frustration in the adolescent victim. This relationship is clearly supported by our findings, and is consistent with previous findings showing that face-to-face victimization is related to feelings of anger.^2,14,31 Furthermore, cognitive skills needed to regulate emotions resulting from such painful experiences are still developing, making it hard for adolescents to keep their emotions under control.^60,61 Thus, victimization comes with intensely felt emotions of anger and frustration.

As a second step in the Cyclic Process Model, findings supported the relationship between anger/frustration in victimized adolescents and their cyberbullying behavior. This result is consistent with findings from the Downward Spiral Model,⁵⁰ showing that aggressive adolescents feel attracted to violent media content. As such, the General Strain Theory³¹ is also supported in that individuals who experience anger and frustration (i.e., co-occurring with strain according to Patchin and Hinduja³¹) are more at risk of engaging in deviant behavior.³² Cyberbullying may be seen as a form of deviant behavior, or the least as undesired behavior. The increased levels of strain of victimized adolescents may find an outlet in cyberbullying behavior.

Next, a third step in our Cyclic Process Model suggests that angry adolescents are inclined to seek antisocial media content in order to cope with their anger.^28,34,35,36 On the one hand, this finding supports in a more systematic way the results of previous qualitative research of Olson et al.,³⁶ in which participants reported that they play violent video games to “vent their anger.” On the other hand, our findings supporting this step highlight another important underlying mechanism between the anger/frustration felt by the victims and being more at risk of engaging in deviant behavior, as proposed by the General Strain Theory³¹ in becoming a cyberbully. As such, this is an important addition to the extant body of theorizing on cyberbullying and also has important implications for future intervention in cyberbullying. That is, the role of media with antisocial content as an important underlying mechanism between victimization-related anger/frustration and facilitating or amplifying cyberbullying behavior has thus far hardly been investigated.

Related, as a fourth step in the Cyclic Process Model, our results supported that exposing oneself to media with antisocial content positively relates to cyberbullying behavior. This finding further supports Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory in terms of modeling or vicarious learning through role models and examples aired through media fare.^46,47 These findings relating antisocial media use to cyberbullying behavior are further in line with and extend the results of Lee and Kim⁴² and Knutsche,⁴³ who found a relationship between face-to-face bullying behavior and the use of violent media. Likewise, our findings are consistent with the recent findings of Calvete et al.⁹ and Fanti et al.,¹⁶ who found a significant association between exposure to violent media and cyberbullying behavior. Finally, the significant role of media with antisocial content in the process of victimized adolescents in becoming cyberbullies (and likely become cybervictims again^11,12) are also in line with previous research regarding the Downward Spiral Model of violent media exposure and aggression.⁵⁰

In all, each of these theories, as steps in the Cyclic Process Model, is supported by our study's findings. The Cyclic Process Model integrates and encompasses previous findings on cyberbullying in view of the General Strain Theory,³¹ insights from Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory,^46,47 and Slater's Downward Spiral Model of violent media exposure and aggression.⁵⁰ The Cyclic Process Model thus explains how victims may become cyberbullies, and how media use following victimization plays a role in this process. The results of our analyses provided first evidence for such a Cyclic Process Model in showing that exposure to antisocial media content mediated between victimization-related anger/frustration and cyberbullying behavior.

With the current results, we know that the various steps of the Cyclic Process Model are linked and that exposure to antisocial media has a profound impact on cyberbullying behavior. Following previous research, we suggested that victimized adolescents use media with antisocial content to cope with their anger. Future research is warranted to study the beliefs of adolescents in how to cope with their anger and frustration after victimization; for example, to study the extent to which they believe exposure to violent and antisocial media would relieve them of such unpleasant feelings. This is often referred to as the belief in catharsis (Aristotle, 335 BC). However, empirical evidence supporting catharsis is lacking. Findings thus far suggest that venting anger does not help to overcome the anger; rather it increases anger.⁴⁸ Nevertheless, it seems a firm belief in adolescents playing violent video games.³⁷ Future research should investigate the role of such beliefs in adolescents' media use.

A deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the process through which bullying behavior develops and may further increase in a cyclic process plays an important role in interventions and prevention of cyberbullying behavior and adverse media use; for example, in confronting the bullies with the consequences of their behavior and training the victims how to cope with victimization and resulting anger and frustration. Furthermore, media literacy programming should be further developed in schools and include new and interactive media, as well as educate on how media may impact behavior.

Limitations

As with most studies, our study also has some limitations. The measurement of cyberbullying behavior was based on self-report, which can lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of cyberbullying behavior. However, even when the occurrence of cyberbullying behavior is underestimated, a strength of the current research is that significant relationships have been found between antisocial media exposure and cyberbullying behavior. This not only indicates the relevance but also the need for further research into this relationship.

Another limitation is that from the cross-sectional design of the current study, no firm causal inferences can be made. The overall good fit of the double mediation model, however, provides a solid indicator for the validity of such a cyclic process. Firmly testing the Cyclic Process Model in its development over time demands a longitudinal research design. We investigated the various stages in this process in a cross-sectional design, in anticipation of a more costly longitudinal design. Testing the Cyclic Process Model in longitudinal research would further increase our understanding of how exposure to media with antisocial content and cyberbullying behavior instigate and amplify each other.

The use of a newly developed scale (i.e., the Content-based Media Exposure scale, C-ME) can be seen as a limitation. However, in addition to its promising psychometric qualities, a strength is that this scale asks for specific content and covers a broad range of antisocial media content, including risk behavior, substance abuse, and more “girly” antisocial behavior such as gossiping. Compared to previous research in which merely general indicators of frequency of exposure were used, we believe this more specific and tailored measurement device is a strength and advances the field of media research.

Conclusion

This study provided empirical support for a Cyclic Process Model of cyberbullying behavior and media use, in which exposure to antisocial media content mediates between victimization-related anger/frustration and cyberbullying behavior in adolescents. Likely, such bullying behavior results in being even further bullied, thus being caught in a cyclic process. Expanding our knowledge on the underlying processes of cyberbullying and the role of media use among adolescents is highly relevant given current prevalence of cyberbullying and its consequences for the victims—even more so with the increasing prevalence and importance youngsters place on social media and the Internet. In all, our results indicate that exposure to antisocial media content amplifies cyberbullying behavior.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Pornari

, Wood

. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 2010; 36:81–94.

Ortega

, Elipe

, Mora-Merchán

, et al. The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. A study of Spanish adolescents. Journal of Psychology, 2009; 217:197–204.

Olweus

. Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon?. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2012; 9:520–538.

Tokunaga

. Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:277–287.

. A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents' experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 2008; 50:223–234.

. New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 2007; 23:1777–1791.

Hinduja

, Patchin

. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 2010; 14:206–221.

Dehue

, Bolman

, Völlink

. Cyberbulling: youngsters' experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008; 11:217–223.

Calvete

, Orue

, Estévez

, et al. Cyberbullying in adolescents: modalities and aggressors' profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:1128–1135.

10.

Vandebosch

, Van Cleemput

. Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media Society, 2009; 11:1349–1371.

11.

Ybarra

, Mitchell

. Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 2004; 45:1308–1316.

12.

Smith

, Mahdavi

, Carvalho

, et al. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Child Psychology, 2008; 49:376–385.

13.

Patchin

, Hinduja

. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 2006; 4:148–169.

14.

Beran

, Li

. The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 2007; 1:15–33.

15.

Didden

, Scholte

RHJ

, Korzilius

, et al. Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 2009; 12:146–151.

16.

Fanti

, Demetriou

, Hawa

. A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2012; 9:168–181.

17.

Strasburger

. Why do adolescent health researchers ignore the impact of the media?. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2009; 44:203–205.

18.

Strasburger

, Jordan

, Donnerstein

. Health effects of media on children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 2010; 125:756–767.

19.

Konijn

, Veldhuis

, Plaister

. YouTube as a research tool—three approaches. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2013; 16:695–701.

20.

. Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 2006; 27:157–170.

21.

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; 12:109–125.

22.

Kowalski

, Limber

. Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2007; 41:S22–S30.

23.

Holfeld

, Grabe

. Middle school students' perspectives of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2012; 46:395–413.

24.

Hinduja

, Patchin

. Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 2008; 29:129–156.

25.

Estévez

, Villardon

, Calvete

, et al. Adolescent victims of cyberbullying: prevalence and characteristics. Psicología Conductal, 2010; 18:73–89.

26.

Raskauskas

, Stolz

. Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 2007; 43:564–575.

27.

Wright

, Li

. Kicking the digital dog: a longitudinal investigation of young adults' victimization and cyber-displaced aggression. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 2012; 15:448–454.

28.

Varjas

, Talley

, Meyers

, et al. High school students' perceptions of motivations for cyberbullying: an exploratory study. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2010; 11:269–273.

29.

Grigg

. Cyber-aggression: definition and concept of cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 2010; 20:143–156.

30.

König

, Gollwitzer

, Steffgen

. Cyberbullying as an act of revenge?. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 2010; 20:210–224.

31.

Patchin

, Hinduja

. Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: a test of General Strain Theory. Youth Society, 2010; 43:727–751.

32.

Agnew

. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 1992; 30:47–87.

33.

Moffit

. Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 1993; 100:674–701.

34.

Arnett

. (1996) Metalheads: heavy metal music and adolescent alienation. Boulder, CO: Westview.

35.

Flammer

, Schaffner

. Adolescent leisure across European nations. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 2003; 99:65–78.

36.

Olson

, Kutner

, Warner

, et al.. Factors correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Adolescents Health, 2007; 41:77–83.

37.

Olson

, Kutner

, Warner

. The role of violent video game content in adolescent development: boys' perspectives. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2008; 23:55–76.

38.

Konijn

, Nije Bijvank

, Bushman

. I wish I were a warrior: the role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 2007; 43:1038–1044.

39.

Rideout

, Foehr

, Roberts

. (2010) Generation M2: media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

40.

Arnett

. Reckless behavior in adolescence: a developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 1992; 12:339–373.

41.

Zimmerman

, Glew

, Christakis

, et al. Early cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and television watching as predictors of subsequent bullying among grade-school children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2005; 159:384–388.

42.

Lee

, Kim

. Exposure to media violence and bullying at school: mediating influences of anger and contact with delinquent friends. Psychological Reports, 2004; 95:659–672.

43.

Knutsche

. Hostility among adolescents in Switzerland? Multivariate relations between excessive media use and forms of violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2004; 34:230–236.

44.

Anderson

, Shibuya

, Ihori

, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 2010; 136:151–173.

45.

Anderson

, Bushman

. Human aggression. Annual Reviews Psychology, 2002; 53:27–51.

46.

Bandura

, Ross

. Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1963; 67:601–607.

47.

Bandura

. Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 2001; 3:265–299.

48.

Bushman

, Withaker

. Like a magnet: catharsis beliefs attract angry people to violent video games. Psychological Science, 2010; 21:790–792.

49.

Hopf

, Huber

, Weiss

. Media violence and youth violence: a 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Media Psychology, 2008; 20:79–96.

50.

Slater

, Henry

, Swaim

, et al. Violent media content and aggressiveness in adolescents: a downward spiral model. Communication Research, 2003; 30:713–736.

51.

Brown

, Witherspoon

. The mass media and American adolescents' health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2002; 31:153–170.

52.

Roe

. Adolescents' use of socially disvalued media: towards a theory of media delinquency. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 1995; 24:617–631.

53.

Funk

, Buchmann

. Playing violent video and computer games and adolescent self-concept. Journal of Communication, 1996; 46:19–32.

54.

Walrave

, Heirman

. Cyberbullying: predicting victimization and perpetration. Children & Society, 2011; 25:59–72.

55.

Livingston

, Haddon

, Görzig

, et al. (2011) Risks and safety on the Internet: the perspective of European children. Full findings. London: LSE, EU Kids Online.

56.

Schwartz

, Farver

, Change

, et al. Victimization in South Korean children's peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2002; 30:113–125.

57.

Brezina

. Adapting to strain: an examination of delinquent coping responses. Criminology, 1996; 34:39–60.

58.

, Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999; 6:1–55.

59.

Mallinckrodt

, Abraham

, Meifen

, et al. Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2006; 53:372–378.

60.

Konijn

, Veldhuis

, Plaister

. Rejected by peers—attracted to antisocial media content: rejection-based anger impairs moral judgment among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 2013; 49:1165–1173.

61.

Steinberg

. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 2008; 28:78–106.