Parenting and Cyberbullying Across Adolescence

Abstract

Cyberbullying perpetration continues to be a prevalent and harmful phenomenon. Despite the recent wealth of studies that examine cyberbullying frequency, further research is needed to investigate protective factors or variables that decrease the likelihood of engaging in cyberbullying perpetration. Past work has identified certain types of parenting as a potential protective factor against adolescent cyberbullying perpetration; however, there is a paucity of research testing these relations over time. This study explores parenting during early adolescence as predicting attitudes and behaviors associated with cyberbullying in late adolescence. Data were derived from the Flourishing Families Project (FFP) at Wave 2 (M age = 12) and Wave 9 (M age = 19). Results suggest that the authoritative parenting style—specifically the warmth and support dimension—was associated with less supportive attitudes toward cyberbullying and lower levels of cyberbullying in emerging adulthood. Moreover, particularly for boys, authoritarian parenting behaviors served as a risk factor for cyberbullying engagement. Suggestions are offered to advocate for greater positive parenting education during early adolescence as a potential protective factor against cyberbullying.

Introduction

Increases in adolescent technological use and online communication have allowed for instances of face-to-face bullying to transition beyond the schoolyard into the digital world.¹ Results from a recent nationally representative technology survey revealed that ∼92 percent of adolescents in the United States (ages 13–17) visit online websites daily, with 24 percent stating that they are online “almost constantly.”² Such transitions suggest the plausibility of using technology to repeatedly harm others (termed as cyberbullying) as an ever-increasing social issue.

Online settings provide space for bullying that is visible to mass audiences, not physically bound, and encourages anonymity.³ Although prevalence rates for cyberbullying perpetration vary greatly (likely due to various questionnaires, geographic regions, and age of participants),⁴ findings from a myriad of studies show negative psychological and behavioral outcomes for cybervictims.⁵ We feel that continued study into the variables that alter the likelihood that an individual will cyberbully another is paramount, and this study aims at exploring the influence of various parenting strategies as a factor that may be associated with later cyberbullying perpetration. In particular, we examine a variety of authoritative parenting behaviors (warmth and support, autonomy, and regulation), authoritarian parenting behaviors (physical coercion and verbal hostility), and permissive parenting in early adolescence as predicting cyberbullying behaviors and attitudes in emerging adulthood. Covariates include the child's level of aggression, aggression victimization, parental education level, and parental income.

Parenting as a Protective Factor Against Cyberbullying

Parenting styles and behavior

Lereya et al.⁶ associated the characteristics of parental warmth, support, involvement, and open parent–child communication to positive parenting behaviors. Positive parenting holds several benefits for adolescent development and socialization; qualities such as higher adolescent self-esteem, greater well-being, personal development, and increased coping strategies are associated with positive parenting.^7,8 Conversely, a lack in positive parenting can be detrimental to adolescents. A review of the literature linked negative parenting (or parenting that involves maladaptive behaviors, overprotection, and abuse/neglect) to increased levels of adolescent self-harm,⁹ substance abuse,^10,11 and overall adolescent delinquency.¹²

Related to parenting behaviors are parenting styles, or approaches that highlight parental “…attempt[s] to influence the behaviors of their children through the expression of control.”¹³ Three central parenting styles include the permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative approaches.^14–16 Permissive parents are often responsive to children, but more lenient in terms of rules and discipline to avoid parent–child confrontation. Contrastingly, authoritarian parents mandate high obedience from children without providing explanations to their regimens. Permissive parents can act more impulsively and illustrate aggressive behavior, whereas adolescents who observe authoritarian parenting are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors.^17–20

Authoritative parents straddle between the permissive and authoritarian style, providing adolescents with firm expectations balanced by assisting children to understand why certain expectations are enforced. Adolescents who perceive authoritative parenting illustrate increased psychosocial competence and are less likely to engage in problematic behaviors and dysfunction.¹⁷

Measures of parenting styles often encompass parental reporting of the nature and socialization of children and/or adolescent reporting of parenting behaviors. Robinson et al.²¹ assessed specific behavioral qualities that illuminated global dimensions of Baumrind's¹⁷ parenting typologies. The constructs of warmth and involvement, reasoning/induction, democratic participation, and good nature/easy going were used to evaluate the authoritative dimension. For the authoritarian dimension, the constructs of directiveness, nonreasoning/punitive strategies, corporal punishment, and verbal hostility were identified. Furthermore, the constructs of lack of follow through, ignoring misbehavior, and self-confidence highlighted the permissive dimension.

Parenting, bullying, and cyberbullying

Parenting styles and behaviors can influence adolescent engagement with bullying and cyberbullying. Research has shown that traditional bullying is associated with authoritarian and neglectful parenting,^22–24 whereas bullying victimization is connected to the permissive parenting style.²⁵ Negative parenting behaviors, such as physical coercion,²⁶ the absence of warmth and affection,²⁷ and maternal overprotectiveness,²⁵ have also been linked to children's participation in aggressive behaviors. Regarding cyberbullying and parenting behaviors, cyberbullying has been associated with negative parenting qualities such as weak emotional bonds between parents and adolescents,²⁸ harsh parental discipline behaviors,²⁹ and/or limited parental monitoring.³⁰ Furthermore, the research of Brighi et al. (Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Scheitauer, H., Smith, P.K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V., Del Rey, R., et al. (2012). European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ). University of Bologna. Unpublished Manuscript) revealed that family self-esteem and adolescent perceived loneliness within parent–child relationships served as predictors to cybervictimizations. Brighi et al. (Brighi A, et al. ECIPQ. Unpublished Manuscript) attributed these findings to an absence of positive parenting qualities and parental use of the authoritative style. The use of the authoritative parenting style has been associated with decreased adolescent involvement with bullying^23,31 and cyberbullying.^6,29,32 Parenting that demonstrates affection, parent–child disclosure, pleasant communication, humor, and promotion of children's autonomy can foster children's rejection of traditional bullying behaviors.³³

A few investigations specifically explore relationships between adolescent cyberbullying participation and parenting style dimensions. For instance, Dehue et al.³⁴ assessed the parenting dimensions of responsiveness (e.g., parental warmth, support, acceptance, and affection) and demandingness (e.g., parental monitoring, supervision, and control) to examine relationships between parenting styles, cyberbullies, and cyberbully victims. Dehue et al.³⁴ asserted that the dimension of parental responsiveness is important for cyberbully victims, whereas the parental demandingness was influential for cyberbully victims.

The research of Dehue et al.³⁴ calls for greater exploration of adolescent cyberbullying perpetration as it relates to parenting style dimensions. In addition, there is also a paucity of research testing the relationships between parenting styles, behaviors, and cyberbullying over time. Fanti et al.³² surveyed a sample of adolescent middle schoolers (n = 1,416) from Cyprus for a 1-year-period and their results showed that Wave 1 family support (a positive parenting trait) was negatively related to both cybervictimization and cyberbullying perpetration at Wave 2. Although the Fanti et al.³² study is important, no study that we are aware of has directly examined parenting behaviors in association with adolescent cyberbullying attitudes and behavior in the long term. Indeed, Fanti et al.³² focused on family support at a more global level and did not provide insight into the role of parenting styles as a protective factor against cyberbullying over time. This is the purpose of this study. Based on past research, we derived the following hypotheses:

H1: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the authoritative parenting style (e.g., autonomy, regulation, and warmth) will be less likely to endorse positive attitudes and behavior toward cyberbullying in emerging adulthood

H2: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the authoritative parenting style (e.g., autonomy, regulation, and warmth) will report lower levels of cyberbullying behaviors in emerging adulthood

H3: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the authoritarian parenting style (e.g., physical coercion and verbal hostility) will be more likely to endorse positive attitudes toward cyberbullying in emerging adulthood

H4: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the authoritarian parenting style (e.g., physical coercion and verbal hostility) will report higher levels of cyberbullying behaviors in emerging adulthood

H5: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the permissive parenting style will be more likely to endorse positive attitudes toward cyberbullying in emerging adulthood

H6: Early adolescents who perceive parenting behaviors associated with the permissive parenting style will report higher levels of cyberbullying behaviors in emerging adulthood

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were derived from Wave 2 (collected in 2007) and Wave 9 (collected in 2015) of the Flourishing Families Project (FFP), which is an ongoing, longitudinal study of family life. Participant families were selected from a large northwestern city based on whether they had a child between the ages of 11 and 14 years at Wave 1 (2006) and were primarily recruited using a purchased national telephone survey database (Polk Directories/InfoUSA). At Wave 2, participants were visited in-home, where they completed both surveys and in-person interviews. At Wave 9, participants were contacted electronically and completed an online survey.

This study included 448 adolescents. Child report of parenting styles and aggression was measured at Wave 2 (M age of child at Time 2 = 12.36 years, standard deviation [SD] = 1.07 years; M age of mothers at Time 2 = 43.87 years, SD = 6.47 years; M age of fathers at Time 2 = 45.63 years, SD = 5.99 years). Child report of cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors was measured at Wave 9 of the data collection when participants were between 17 and 22 years old. Nearly 70 percent of participants were European American ethnicity, 13 percent were African American, 4 percent were Asian American, and 13 percent were other ethnicities or multiethnic. There was a 90 percent retention rate for the 7-year period between the two waves. Missing data were very minimal and a dropout analysis revealed that data were missing at random.

Measures

Parenting styles

Parenting styles and behaviors were measured using the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Version.²¹ Based on child report, this measure assesses parents' tendencies toward authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles. Subtypes of the authoritative parenting style include the connection dimension (warmth and support), regulation (reasoning/induction), and autonomy granting (democratic participation). Authoritarian parenting dimensions include physical coercion and verbal hostility. Overall measures of permissive parenting (no subtypes or dimensions) were included.

Children responded to 32 questions about how often their parents did certain behaviors relating to the different parenting styles. Responses ranged on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating higher levels of the respective parenting styles and/or specific dimensions of parenting behavior. Factor loadings are included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Standardized Median Factor Loadings of the Parenting Constructs of Mothers and Fathers [95 Percent Credibility Interval]

		Girls		Boys
Constructs	Content	Mother	Father	Mother	Father
Authoritative
Warmth	Is responsive to my feelings and needs	0.75 [0.68, 0.81]	0.78 [0.70, 0.84]	0.79 [0.71, 0.84]	0.78 [0.70, 0.84]
	Encourages me to talk about my troubles	0.74 [0.66, 0.81]	0.76 [0.69, 0.82]	0.68 [0.59, 0.75]	0.69 [0.60, 0.76]
	Gives comfort and understanding when I am upset	0.83 [0.77, 0.88]	0.84 [0.77, 0.89]	0.85 [0.79, 0.89]	0.83 [0.77, 0.88]
	Gives praise when I am good	0.72 [0.63, 0.79]	0.78 [0.70, 0.84]	0.74 [0.66, 0.81]	0.72 [0.63, 0.80]
	Has warm and loving times together with me	0.75 [0.67, 0.81]	0.79 [0.71, 0.84]	0.82 [0.76, 0.87]	0.83 [0.77, 0.88]
Regulation	Explains how they feel about my good and bad behavior	0.66 [0.57, 0.72]	0.71 [0.64, 0.78]	0.68 [0.58, 0.75]	0.75 [0.67, 0.81]
	Emphasizes the reasons for rules	0.69 [0.60, 0.76]	0.68 [0.58, 0.75]	0.65 [0.55, 0.73]	0.67 [0.58, 0.75]
	Gives me reasons why rules should be obeyed	0.76 [0.69, 0.82]	0.79 [0.71, 0.84]	0.70 [0.61, 0.78]	0.75 [0.66, 0.81]
	Helps understand the impact of behavior by encouraging me to talk about the consequences of my actions	0.83 [0.77, 0.87]	0.84 [0.78, 0.88]	0.73 [0.65, 0.80]	0.76 [0.68, 0.82]
	Explains the consequences of my behavior to me	0.76 [0.68, 0.82]	0.74 [0.66, 0.80]	0.71 [0.63, 0.78]	0.73 [0.64, 0.80]
Autonomy	Takes my desires into account before asking me to do something	0.65 [0.58, 0.71]	0.67 [0.60, 0.73]	0.65 [0.56, 0.72]	0.66 [0.56, 0.74]
	Encourages me to freely express myself even when I disagree with them	0.76 [0.69, 0.82]	0.76 [0.68, 0.82]	0.72 [0.64, 0.78]	0.74 [0.66, 0.81]
	Takes into account my preferences in making plans for the family	0.72 [0.64, 0.78]	0.75 [0.68, 0.82]	0.64 [0.55, 0.72]	0.70 [0.61, 0.77]
	Shows respect for my opinions by encouraging me to express them	0.91 [0.88, 0.94]	0.91 [0.87, 0.94]	0.91 [0.87, 0.94]	0.91 [0.88, 0.94]
	Allows me to give input into family rules	0.78 [0.71, 0.83]	0.80 [0.74, 0.86]	0.68 [0.59, 0.75]	0.73 [0.65, 0.80]
Authoritarian
Physical	Uses physical punishment as a way of disciplining me	0.83 [0.76, 0.89]	0.88 [0.81, 0.92]	0.87 [0.80, 0.92]	0.87 [0.80, 0.92]
	Spanks me when I am disobedient.	0.79 [0.69, 0.86]	0.83 [0.73, 0.89]	0.77 [0.65, 0.84]	0.82 [0.72, 0.89]
	Grabs me when I am being disobedient	0.69 [0.57, 0.78]	0.65 [0.51, 0.75]	0.72 [0.61, 0.80]	0.74 [0.63, 0.82]
	Slaps me when I misbehave	0.85 [0.76, 0.91]	0.85 [0.75, 0.91]	0.85 [0.76, 0.91]	0.88 [0.81, 0.93]
Verbal	Yells or shouts when I misbehave	0.64 [0.56, 0.71]	0.66 [0.59, 0.74]	0.71 [0.62, 0.78]	0.68 [0.58, 0.76]
	Explodes in anger toward me	0.79 [0.71, 0.86]	0.83 [0.75, 0.89]	0.74 [0.64, 0.82]	0.74 [0.62, 0.82]
	Scolds and criticizes to make me improve	0.79 [0.72, 0.86]	0.83 [0.75, 0.88]	0.83 [0.76, 0.88]	0.81 [0.73, 0.87]
	Scolds or criticizes me when my behavior does not meet their expectations	0.80 [0.73, 0.86]	0.86 [0.79, 0.90]	0.79 [0.71, 0.85]	0.81 [0.73, 0.87]
Permissive	My parent threatens me with punishment more often than actually punishing me	0.92 [0.88, 0.95]	0.93 [0.89, 0.96]	0.93 [0.89, 0.95]	0.93 [0.88, 0.95]
	My parent tells me my punishment but does not actually do them	0.56 [0.44, 0.67]	0.58 [0.45, 0.69]	0.60 [0.49, 0.68]	0.58 [0.46, 0.68]

Note: Group differences in the factor loadings are underlined.

Cyberbullying behaviors and attitudes

Adolescent cyberbullying behaviors were assessed using a modified version of the cyberbullying questionnaire.³⁵ Participants rated agreements with 3 items on a 1 (less than a few times in the past year) to 5 (everyday/almost everyday). One sample item includes “I spread rumors about someone online whether they are true or not.” Cyberbullying attitudes³⁶ were measured to assess adolescent's positive appraisals of harming others online. Participants rated their level of agreement with two items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. Items include “It is acceptable to be mean to others online” and “Attacking others online is an easy way to get even with people who have wronged me.” Higher scores indicated higher endorsement of cyberbullying attitudes and perpetration.

Aggression victimization

The child's perception of being bullied was assessed using three items from Moore and Lippman and was analyzed as a covariate in the model.³⁷ Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (very often) and were averaged to create a mean score for aggression victimization (a = 0.57). Higher scores indicate the child's experience of being bullied more often.

Aggression

Children's aggressive behavior was assessed using items derived from Weinberger et al., and was used as a covariate in the model.³⁸ Participants rated the degree to which four items described them using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me) to 5 (describes me very well). Items were averaged to create a mean score for aggression, (a = 0.87).

Results

Main analyses

The hypotheses of this study were examined in the following steps. First, two-group (female and male) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with the parenting constructs of both primary and secondary caretakers. Measurement invariance (factor loadings) was tested across child gender and caretakers. Second, two-group CFA was conducted with aggression, aggressive victimization, and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors. Measurement invariance was also tested between child genders. Measurement invariance was tested by creating new parameters defined as the difference between child gender and caretakers. Group and caretaker difference in the parameter is indicated by the significance of the corresponding new parameter (p < 0.05). Factor loadings of parenting constructs and covariates are included in Tables 1 and 2. Third, a series of structural equation models were run to estimate the effects of parenting constructs on cyber attitude and cyberbullying, while controlling for earlier aggression and aggressive victimization.

Table 2.

Median Factor Loadings with 95 Percent [Credibility Intervals] of the Constructs [95 Percent Credibility Interval]

Constructs	Content	Girls	Boys
Aggression	People who get me angry better watch out	0.82 [0.75, 0.88]	0.83 [0.76, 0.88]
	If someone tries to hurt me, I make sure that I get even with them	0.89 [0.83, 0.93]	0.88 [0.82, 0.92]
	I lose my temper and “let people have it” when I am angry	0.84 [0.76, 0.89]	0.80 [0.72, 0.86]
	I use physical force when angry	0.68 [0.57, 0.78]	0.71 [0.60, 0.79]
Bully	How often are you bullied by classmates or neighborhood kids?	0.65 [0.51, 0.79]	0.80 [0.67, 0.89]
	How often do you get picked on or made fun of for reasons like your race or religion?	0.71 [0.54, 0.83]	0.66 [0.48, 0.81]
	How often do you get picked on for reasons like how you look or the clothes you wear?	0.86 [0.74, 0.93]	0.77 [0.62, 0.87]
Cyberbullying	Make rude comments or mean comments to anyone online	0.75 [0.62, 0.86]	0.85 [0.72, 0.92]
	Spread rumors about someone online, whether or not they are true	0.74 [0.43, 0.90]	0.77 [0.51, 0.91]
	Make aggressive or threatening comments to anyone online	0.83 [0.65, 0.92]	0.90 [0.78, 0.95]
Cyber attitude	It is acceptable to be mean to others online	0.83 [0.68, 0.93]	0.88 [0.76, 0.94]
	Attacking others online is an easy way to get even with people who have wronged me	0.79 [0.63, 0.89]	0.84 [0.71, 0.92]

Two models had exogenous latent variables that, respectively, used authoritative and authoritarian parenting constructs reflected by subconstructs that are further measured with individual scale items. The rest of the models had either a subconstruct of authoritative and authoritarian or permissive parenting as the exogenous variable. The models were specified this way to eliminate the multicollinearity of the parenting constructs. All these analyses and modeling were carried out with Mplus (v8.0) and Bayesian estimation. Each parameter is estimated to have a distribution, as opposed to a single value (constant) in maximum likelihood estimation. Thus, the medians of the parameter distributions are reported in this study, together with their 95 percent probability (credibility) intervals. Other advantages of Bayesian estimation include alleviations of overhigh intercorrelations factors (e.g., >1.0) and missing data estimated as parameters. The Bayesian model fit indices (posterior predictive values) ranged from acceptable to very well (>0.05) for these models, and thus were omitted for simplicity.

A structural model was estimated using structural equation modeling in MPlus version 8.³⁹ The model included child report of six subtypes of parenting styles at Time 2 for each parent separately, predicting both cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors at Time 9 among males and females separately. Covariates included mean scores for parental income, aggression victimization, aggression, and parental education level.

Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations for each study variable are reported in Table 3. Most children reported frequent authoritative parenting (warmth and support) from their mother (boys: M = 4.11, SD = 0.75; girls: M = 4.00, SD = 0.73) and slightly lower levels from their father (boys: M = 3.90, SD = 0.80; girls: M = 3.82, SD = 0.84). Children also reported low levels of authoritarian (physical coercion dimension) and permissive parenting from both their mother (boys authoritarian: M = 1.46, SD = 0.59; girls authoritarian: M = 1.41, SD = 0.60; boys permissive: M = 2.34, SD = 0.63; girls permissive: M = 2.32, SD = 0.67) and father (boys authoritarian: M = 1.48, SD = 0.68; girls authoritarian: M = 1.43, SD = 0.67; boys permissive: M = 1.29, SD = 0.58; girls permissive: M = 1.26, SD = 0.59), respectively. In addition, most children reported low levels of cyberbullying attitudes (boys: M = 1.27, SD = 0.56; girls: M = 1.27, SD = 0.52) and behaviors (boys: M = 1.13, SD = 0.42; girls: M = 1.13, SD = 0.38).

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for All Study Variables

	M Boys	M Girls	SD Boys	SD Girls	Range
Cyberbullying attitudes	1.27	1.27	0.56	0.52	1–5
Cyberbullying behaviors	1.13	1.13	0.42	0.38	1–5
Mother permissive parenting	2.34	2.32	0.63	0.67	1–5
Father permissive parenting	1.29	1.26	0.58	0.59	1–5
Mother regulation	3.64	3.58	0.75	0.82	1–5
Father regulation	3.51	3.05	0.81	0.85	1–5
Mother warmth	4.11	4.00	0.75	0.73	1–5
Father warmth	3.90	3.82	0.80	0.84	1–5
Mother autonomy granting	3.57	3.47	0.83	0.89	1–5
Father autonomy granting	3.49	3.41	0.87	0.93	1–5
Mother physical coercion	1.46	1.41	0.59	0.60	1–5
Father physical coercion	1.48	1.43	0.68	0.67	1–5
Mother verbal hostility	2.09	2.11	0.83	0.77	1–5
Father verbal hostility	2.18	2.05	0.84	0.88	1–5
Aggression victimization	1.23	1.28	0.38	0.47	1–4
Aggression	1.91	2.00	0.77	0.89	1–5
Income	2.43	2.45	0.81	0.82	1–4
Mother education	4.58	4.43	1.31	1.40	1–7
Father education	4.72	4.78	1.37	1.42	1–7

Bivariate correlations were conducted on all study variables and are reported in Table 4. For dimensions of authoritative parenting, child's report of mother warmth was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying among both boys and girls (boys: r = −0.19, p < 0.05; girls: r = −0.22, p < 0.05), and father warmth was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying among girls (r = −0.24, p < 0.01). In addition, mother and father regulation were negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying only among girls (mothers: r = −0.17, p < 0.05; fathers: r = −0.22, p < 0.05). Father autonomy granting was negatively associated with cyberbullying behaviors among girls (r = −0.29, p < 0.05). Finally, child report of mother permissive parenting was positively associated with increased cyberbullying behaviors among girls (r = 0.22, p < 0.01). No dimensions of authoritarian parenting were significantly correlated with cyberbullying attitudes or behaviors at the bivariate level.

Table 4.

Correlations Between All Study Variables for Boys (Below the Diagonal) and Girls (Above the Diagonal)

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14.	15.	16.	17.	18.	19.
1.	—	0.34^***	0.13	0.07	−0.17^*	−0.22^*	−0.22^**	−0.24^**	−0.14	−0.19	0.05	−0.02	0.07	−0.01	−0.07	0.33^**	0.16	−0.06	−0.02
2.	0.47^***	—	0.22^**	0.03	0.04	−0.14	−0.02	−0.15	−0.10	−0.19^*	0.06	−0.05	−0.04	−0.11	0.07	0.16	−0.06	0.11	0.12
3.	0.01	0.06	—	0.48^***	−0.02	−0.14^*	0.01	−0.09	−0.01	−0.10	0.26^**	0.24^**	0.33^***	0.28^**	0.07	0.19^**	−0.01	0.13^*	0.18^**
4.	0.07	0.05	0.60^***	—	−0.10	−0.10	0.05	0.19^**	0.15^*	0.29^***	0.13	0.11	0.11	0.03	−0.04	0.11	−0.00	0.12	0.10
5.	−0.13	−0.01	−0.15^*	−0.28^***	—	0.84^***	0.67^***	0.59^***	0.62^***	0.53^***	−0.02	−0.02	−0.04	−0.01	0.02	−0.10	0.16^*	−0.04	−0.11
6.	−0.02	0.06	−0.13	−0.18^**	0.81^***	—	0.53^***	0.66^***	0.51^***	0.59^***	−0.03	−0.00	−0.04	0.03	0.02	−0.07	0.13	0.01	−0.03
7.	−0.19^*	−0.08	−0.08	−0.21^**	0.65^***	0.54^***	—	0.76^***	0.72^***	0.61^***	−0.13^*	−0.14	−0.22^**	−0.12	−0.13	−0.33^***	0.14	−0.00	−0.07
8.	−0.14	−0.05	−0.11	0.01	0.58^***	0.72^***	0.72^***	—	0.57^***	0.72^***	−0.14^*	−0.16^*	−0.21^*	−0.22^*	−0.13	−0.24^**	0.13	0.00	−0.05
9.	−0.04	0.04	−0.08	−0.05	0.61^***	0.58^***	0.76^***	0.69^***	—	.085^***	−0.12	−0.08	−0.14^*	−0.12	−0.15^*	−0.22^**	0.15^*	−0.02	−0.09
10.	−0.02	0.06	−0.10	0.07	0.51^***	0.66^***	0.58^***	0.81^***	0.84^***	—	−0.16^*	−0.16^*	−0.18^*	−0.19^**	−0.14^*	−0.17^*	0.16^*	0.02	−0.05
11.	−0.03	−0.02	0.20^**	0.12	−0.17^**	−0.19^**	−0.27^***	−0.25^**	−0.27^***	−0.24^**	—	0.87^***	0.44^***	0.39^***	0.46^***	0.33^***	−0.07	0.10	−0.01
12.	0.07	0.02	0.16^*	0.06	−0.10	−0.12	−0.10	−0.18^*	−0.11	−0.19^**	0.84^***	—	0.42^***	0.53^***	0.46^***	0.27^**	−0.10	0.12	0.01
13.	0.01	0.11	0.23^**	0.26^**	−0.17^**	−0.19^**	−0.37^***	−0.28^***	−0.39^***	−0.27^**	0.55^***	0.35^***	—	0.77^***	0.17^**	0.37^***	−0.03	0.08	0.09
14.	0.11	−0.02	0.25^**	0.16^*	−0.15^*	−0.14^*	−0.25^**	−0.30^***	−0.30^***	−0.33^***	0.45^***	0.49^***	0.80^***	—	0.23^**	0.27^**	−0.09	0.06	0.03
15.	0.07	0.07	0.18^**	0.12	−0.15^*	−0.07	−0.18^**	−0.09	−0.13^*	−0.08	0.14^*	0.09	0.22^**	0.20^*	—	0.27^**	−0.09	0.00	−0.04
16.	0.23^**	0.16^*	0.17^**	0.02	−0.15^*	−0.03	−0.24^**	−0.16^*	−0.21^**	−0.17^*	0.21^**	0.17^*	0.29^***	0.27^**	0.14^*	—	0.02	0.02	0.02
17.	0.12	0.09	−0.07	−0.12	−0.06	0.09	0.10	0.19^**	0.13	0.15^*	−0.14^*	−0.04	0.07	0.12	−0.12	−0.06	—	0.10	0.01
18.	0.04	0.08	−0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.02	0.07	0.08	0.06	0.08	−0.14^*	−0.15^*	−0.09	−0.05	−0.06	−0.06	0.02	—	0.42^***
19.	−0.05	0.16^*	0.02	−0.02	−0.03	−0.04	−0.08	−0.01	0.00	0.02	−0.04	−0.09	−0.06	−0.02	−0.15^*	−0.13^*	0.12	0.50^***	—

Note: 1. Cyber attitudes; 2. Cyber behaviors; 3. Mother permissive; 4. Father permissive; 5. Mother regulation; 6. Father regulation; 7. Mother warmth; 8. Father warmth; 9. Mother autonomy; 10. Father autonomy; 11. Mother physical coercion; 12. Father physical coercion; 13. Mother verbal hostility; 14. Father verbal hostility; 15. Aggression victimization; 16. Aggression; 17. Income; 18. Mother education; 19. Father education.

p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

Authoritative parenting and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors

Table 5 shows relationships between mother and father parenting dimensions and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors, separated boys and girls. Table 6 illustrates associations between covariates and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors.

Table 5.

Relationship Between Parenting and Cyber Attitude and Cyberbullying [95 Percent Credibility Interval]

Effects		Mother effects on		Father effects on
Group		Cyber attitude	Cyberbullying	Cyber attitude	Cyberbullying
Girls	Authoritative	−0.26^** [−0.46, −0.02]	−0.19^* [−0.43, 0.03]	−0.28^** [−0.48, −0.04]	−0.30^** [−0.52, −0.02]
	Warmth	−0.33^** [−0.54, −0.10]	−0.25^* [−0.58, 0.03]	−0.27^** [−0.49, −0.02]	−0.27^* [−0.54, 0.00]
	Regulation	−0.21^* [−0.42, 0.01]	−0.09 [−0.32, 0.16]	−0.20 [−0.43, 0.05]	−0.19 [−0.43, 0.08]
	Autonomy	−0.16 [−0.40, 0.07]	−0.18 [−0.44, 0.10]	−0.25^* [−0.47, 0.03]	−0.24 [−0.55, 0.29]
	Authoritarian	0.15 [−0.11, 0.43]	0.08 [−0.20, 0.36]	−0.03 [−0.29, 0.25]	−0.17 [−0.44, 0.12]
	Physical	0.18 [−0.12, 0.46]	0.23 [−0.07, 0.52]	0.03 [−0.26, 0.36]	−0.07 [−0.37, 0.29]
	Verbal	0.08 [−0.19, 0.35]	−0.02 [−0.29, 0.27]	−0.06 [−0.33, 0.23]	−0.18 [−0.44, 0.08]
	Permissive	0.36^** [0.08, 0.57]	0.15 [−0.14, 0.50]	0.21 [−0.05, 0.47]	0.12 [−0.19, 0.39]
Boys	Authoritative	−0.20^* [−0.41, 0.03]	−0.14 [−0.36, 0.10]	−0.07 [−0.31, 0.15]	−0.09 [−0.36, 0.22]
	Warmth	−0.25^** [−0.44, −0.03]	−0.19 [−0.40, 0.05]	−0.12 [−0.36, 0.18]	−0.19 [−0.47, 0.13]
	Regulation	−0.22^* [−0.44, 0.04]	−0.05 [−0.34, 0.23]	0.12 [−0.16, 0.39]	0.08 [−0.23, 0.39]
	Autonomy	−0.08 [−0.32, 0.15]	−0.07 [−0.33, 0.19]	0.03 [−0.24, 0.27]	−0.00 [−0.30, 0.33]
	Authoritarian	−0.02 [−0.28, 0.23]	0.17 [−0.07, 0.41]	0.39^** [0.08, 0.64]	0.24 [−0.11, 0.56]
	Physical	−0.09 [−0.34, 0.17]	0.02 [−0.25, 0.29]	0.29^* [−0.02, 0.60]	0.18 [−0.19, 0.55]
	Verbal	0.07 [−0.16, 0.28]	0.21^* [−0.03, 0.44]	0.31^** [0.03, 0.57]	0.15 [−0.17, 0.48]
	Permissive	0.03 [−0.25, 0.30]	0.17 [−0.12, 0.46]	0.08 [−0.21, 0.36]	−0.06 [−0.41, 0.26]

Note: ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01.

Table 6.

Covariates Effects on Cyberbullying Attitudes and Behaviors [95 Percent Credibility Interval] from Modeling of General Parenting Constructs

			Mother effects on		Father effects on
Group	Covariates		Cyber attitude	Cyberbullying	Cyber attitude	Cyberbullying
Girls	Authoritative	Aggression	0.05 [−0.23, 0.36]	−0.12 [−0.50, 0.26]	0.07 [−0.19, 0.33]	−0.12 [−0.44, 0.20]
		Bully	−0.12 [−0.50, 0.26]	−0.14 [−0.47, 0.17]	−0.09 [−0.44, 0.29]	−0.14 [−0.51, 0.27]
		Income	0.22^* [−0.01, 0.43]	0.02 [−0.28, 0.33]	0.23^* [0.00, 0.43]	−0.02 [−0.30, 0.26]
		Education	−0.09 [−0.31, 0.11]	−0.01 [−0.25, 22]	−0.01 [−0.23, 0.19]	−0.01 [−0.24, 0.21]
	Authoritarian	Aggression	0.04 [−0.24, 0.38]	−0.11 [−0.41, 0.21]	0.07 [−0.21, 0.35]	−0.11 [−0.41, 0.21]
		Bully	−0.09 [−0.46, 0.34]	−0.16 [−0.53, 0.26]	−0.13 [−0.47, 0.25]	−0.24 [−0.59, 0.15]
		Income	0.22^* [0.00, 0.43]	−0.04 [−0.30, 0.23]	0.21^* [−0.03, 0.43]	−0.05 [−0.33, 0.23]
		Education	−0.10 [−0.31, 0.12]	−0.02 [−0.25, 0.21]	−0.00 [−0.21, 0.20]	0.01 [−0.21, 0.20]
	Permissive	Aggression	0.08 [−0.20, 0.35]	−0.10 [−0.41, 0.23]	0.05 [−0.23, 0.34]	−0.13 [−0.41, 0.20]
		Bully	−0.13 [−−0.47, 0.25]	−0.18 [−0.55, 0.23]	−0.11 [−0.43, 0.21]	−0.15 [−0.50, 0.21]
		Income	0.27^** [0.04, 0.47]	−0.01 [−0.29, 0.26]	0.25^** [0.01, 0.45]	0.01 [−0.28, 0.27]
		Education	−0.15 [−0.34, 0.05]	−0.04 [−0.27, 0.21]	−0.04 [−0.26, 0.17]	−0.02 [−0.24, 0.23]
Boys	Authoritative	Aggression	0.34 [−0.10, 0.44]	−0.48^** [−0.79, −0.17]	−0.26^* [−0.55, 0.03]	0.08 [−0.22, 0.40]
		Bully	−0.27^* [−0.55, 0.03]	0.16 [−0.11, 0.44]	0.29^** [0.00, 0.54]	−0.41^** [−0.80, −0.07]
		Income	−0.15^* [−0.31, 0.01]	−0.22^** [−0.39, −0.03]	−0.13 [−0.31, 0.03]	−0.21^** [−0.42, −0.00]
		Education	−0.21^** [−0.35, −0.09]	−0.24^** [−0.41, −0.09]	−0.27^** [−0.40, −0.10]	−0.18^** [−0.36, −0.00]
	Authoritarian	Aggression	0.34^** [0.08, 0.58]	0.10 [−0.20, 0.37]	0.34^** [0.07, 0.56]	0.16 [−0.14, 0.45]
		Bully	−0.32^* [−0.59, 0.02]	−0.44^** [−0.77, −0.03]	−0.28^* [−0.54, 0.03]	−0.45^** [−0.76, −0.09]
		Income	−0.19^** [−0.33, −0.03]	−0.20^** [−0.36, −0.02]	−0.18^** [−0.33, −0.02]	−0.26^** [−0.43, −0.08]
		Education	−0.20^** [−0.37, −0.07]	−0.22^** [−0.37, −0.08]	−0.20^** [−0.34, −0.05]	−0.20^* [−0.31, 0.01]
	Permissive	Aggression	0.34^** [0.07, 0.60]	0.07 [−0.21, 0.37]	0.31^** [0.05, 0.55]	0.14 [−0.15, 0.41]
		Bully	−0.29 [−0.59, 0.05]	−0.36^* [−0.69, 0.01]	−0.27^* [−0.57, 0.04]	−0.49^** [−0.80, −0.12]
		Income	−0.16^* [−0.34, 0.00]	−0.16^* [−0.35, 0.02]	−0.15^* [−0.32, 0.01]	−0.27^** [−0.45, −0.08]
		Education	−0.20^** [−0.34, −0.06]	−0.24^** [−0.39, −0.08]	−0.25^** [−0.39, −0.09]	−0.18^** [−0.35, −0.01]

Note: Underlined numbers in this table indicate multicollinearity between aggression and bullying in boys.

p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01.

In answer to H1 and H2, we found that authoritative mothering was negatively associated with both cyberbullying attitudes (β = −0.26, p < 0.01) and behaviors (β = −0.19, p < 0.05) among girls. Specifically, the warmth and support dimension of authoritative mothering was negatively associated with both cyberbullying attitudes (β = −0.33, p < 0.01) and behaviors (β = −0.25, p < 0.05). In addition, maternal regulation was negatively associated with cyberbullying attitudes (β = −0.21, p < 0.05) among girls. Similarly, authoritative fathering was negatively associated with both cyberbullying attitudes (β = −0.28, p < 0.01) and behaviors (β = −0.30, p < 0.01) among girls. The warmth and support dimension of authoritative fathering was negatively associated with cyberbullying attitudes (β = −0.27, p < 0.01) and behaviors (β = −0.27, p < 0.05), and father autonomy granting was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying (β = −0.25, p < 0.05) among girls.

For boys, authoritative mothering was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying (β = −0.20, p < 0.05); more specifically, maternal warmth (β = −0.25, p < 0.01) and regulation (β = −0.22, p < 0.05) were negatively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying. No dimensions of authoritative fathering were associated with cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors among boys.

Authoritarian parenting and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors

To answer H3 and H4, we found that among boys, father authoritarian parenting was positively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying (β = 0.39, p < 0.01), and that the dimensions of physical coercion (β = 0.29, p < 0.05) and verbal hostility (β = 0.31, p < 0.01) were positively associated with cyberbullying attitudes. No dimensions of authoritative mothering to adolescent boys or girls or authoritative fathering on girls were significantly associated with cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors.

Permissive parenting and cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors

Finally, H5 and H6 hypothesized that permissive parenting would be positively associated with both cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors. This study found that among girls, permissive mothering was positively associated with positive attitudes toward cyberbullying (β = 0.36, p < 0.01). Permissive mothering toward boys and permissive fathering toward both boys and girls were not significantly associated with cyberbullying attitudes or behaviors.

Discussion

Previous scholarship conveys negative associations between qualities of positive parenting (e.g., parental warmth, support, clear distinction of expectations, and so forth) and the authoritative parenting style to cyberbullying attitudes and behavior.^6,29,32,33 This study sought to explore this claim over time: in particular, this research investigated whether parenting experienced during early adolescence held impact toward cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors in emerging adulthood.

A number of insights surfaced. First, our results supported both H1 and H2. Specifically, this investigation observed an association between the warmth and support dimension of authoritative parenting during early adolescence to negative attitudes and behavior toward cyberbullying into emerging adulthood. In other words, parental warmth and support perceived by both boys and girls during their earlier formative years can serve as a protective factor to beliefs and behaviors about cyberbullying over time. Interventions seeking to promote anticyberbullying messaging may wish to include education that bolsters knowledge of positive parenting with a specific concentration on parental warmth and support as a protective approach. Such education may not only influence adolescent attitudes and behaviors toward cyberbullying in later years but also perpetuate residual benefits associated with the authoritative parenting style to other problematic areas that adolescents may encounter.

The qualities of parental warmth and support emphasize the importance of parent–child relationships as a protective cyberbullying tool, perhaps even more so than other dimensions of the authoritative parenting typology. Indeed, the research of Brighi et al. (Brighi A, et al. ECIPQ. Unpublished Manuscript) revealed that adolescent perceived loneliness within parent–child relationships served as a predictor to cybervictimizations. Moreover, Subrahmanyam and Greenfield⁴⁰ asserted that many adolescents openly select to exclude parents from their online interactions, with some adolescents fearful that parents will remove computer privileges should he/she disclose cyberbullying involvement.^41–43 Encouraging parental warmth and support may be helpful in cultivating warm open parent–child relationships that greatly facilitate positive cyberbullying communication.

Our results only partially supported H3 and H4. The authoritarian parenting style was not linked to positive attitudes toward cyberbullying or cyberbullying perpetration among girls. However, for boys, authoritarian parenting behaviors served as a risk factor for cyberbullying engagement; specifically, the authoritarian subtype of verbal hostility from mothers was associated with boys' participation in cyberbullying behaviors, whereas the subtypes of verbal hostility and physical coercion from fathers correlated with increased cyberbullying attitudes. These findings resonate with other bullying studies, particularly the research of Pontzer⁴⁴ that correlates hostile parent–child interactions to adolescent bullying behaviors. Nonetheless, insight related to parenting styles in conjunction with children's gender may be helpful in disseminating protective cyberbullying messaging to both fathers and mothers and sons and daughters. Future research should examine these subtypes in greater detail as results from this analysis assert that the authoritarian parenting style can serve as a cyberbullying risk factor, particularly among boys.

Results for H5 and H6 were also partially supported. Concerning boys, permissive parenting was not a predictor for cyberbullying behavior or attitudes—only mother permissive parenting was positively associated with cyberbullying behaviors at the bivariate level among girls. These findings were surprising, particularly considering that traditional victimization is often associated with permissive parenting and poor conflict management styles.^23,45 Future research should also further interrogate the role of parenting styles longitudinally to observe whether similar findings are present within other population samples.

Parenting behaviors can affect adolescent cyberbullying attitudes and behavior. The findings from this study are important for understanding the variables that predict cyberbullying behaviors and attitudes. Despite the relative novelty of studying cyberbullying perpetration (relative to traditional bullying perpetration), there has been a burgeoning of research that has shown myriad person (e.g., narcissism, empathy, anonymity perceptions, and trait verbal aggression) and school-wide (e.g., school climate, school safety perceptions, and intervention implementation) variables that predict cyberbullying perpetration; however, research that explores parental roles in children's online aggression is limited. We believe that to reduce cyberbullying perpetration in youth, parents/guardians, schools, and individuals must all contribute, and this study adds to our knowledge regarding the role that parents can have—an understudied source of influence to youth that needs continued exploration. Careful attention should be granted to not only promoting anticyberbullying messaging, but also to educating parents about how to positively interact with adolescents in a manner that promotes open and warm parent–child relationships. In turn, such interactions may hold greater protective implications regarding adolescent cyberbullying engagement.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Juvonen

, Gross

. Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 2008; 78:496–505.

Lenhart

. (2015) Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015 (accessed Mar. 24, 2017).

Patchin

, Hinduja

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

Brochado

, Soares

, Fraga

. A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 2017; 18:523–531.

Kowalski

, Giumetti

, Schroeder

, et al. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 2014; 140:1073–1137.

Lereya

, Samara

, Wolke

. Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: a meta-analysis study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2013; 37:1091–1108.

Henry

. Family system characteristics, parental behaviors, and adolescent family life satisfaction. Family Relations, 1994; 43:447–455.

Jackson

, Bijstra

, Oostra

, et al. Adolescents' perceptions of communication with parents relative to specific aspects of relationships with parents and personal development. Journal of Adolescence, 1998; 21:305–322.

Tulloch

, Blizzard

, Pinkus

. Adolescent–parent communication in self- harm. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1997; 21:267–275.

10.

Barnes

, Reifman

, Farrell

, et al. The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: a six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2000; 62:175–186.

11.

Kilpatrick

, Acierno

, Saunders

, et al. Risk factors for adolescent substance abuse and dependence: data from a national sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2000; 68:19–30.

12.

Coughlin

, Vuchinich

. Family experience in preadolescent and the development of male delinquency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1996; 58:491–501.

13.

Byrne

, Lee

. Toward predicting youth resistance to internet risk prevention strategies. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 2011; 55:90–113.

14.

Baumrind

. Childcare practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967; 75:43–88.

15.

Baumrind

. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 1991; 11:56–95.

16.

Maccoby

, Martin

. (1983) Socialization in the context of the family: parent–child interaction. In Mussen

, ed. Handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley, Vol. 4, pp. 1–101.

17.

Baumrind

. Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005; 108:61–69.

18.

Duriez

, Soenens

. Personality, identity styles and authoritarianism: an integrative study among late adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 2006; 20:397–417.

19.

den Exter Blockland

EAW

, Engels

CME

, Finkenauer

. (2001) Parenting styles, self-control and male juvenile delinquency: the mediating role of self-control. In Martinez

, ed. Prevention and control of aggression and the impacts on its victims. Dordrecht, NY: Kluwer/Plenum Press, pp. 201–207.

20.

Xiuqin

, Huimin

, Mengchen

, et al. Mental health, personality, and parental rearing styles of adolescents with Internet addiction disorder. CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2010; 13:401–406.

21.

Robinson

, Mandleco

, Olsen

, et al. Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 1995; 77:819–830.

22.

Ahmed

, Braithwaite

. Bullying and victimization: cause for concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 2004; 7:35–54.

23.

Baldry

, Farrington

. Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 2005; 8:263–284.

24.

Casas

, Weigel

, Crick

, et al. Early parenting and children's relational and physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. Applied Developmental Psychology, 2006; 27:209–227.

25.

Georgiou

. Bullying and victimization at school: the role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2008; 78:109–125.

26.

Espelage

, Bosworth

, Simon

. Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 2000; 78:326–333.

27.

Bowes

, Arseneault

, Maughan

, et al. School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children's bullying involvement: a nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2009; 48:545–553.

28.

Wong

. Cyber-parenting: internet benefits, risks and parenting issues. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 2010; 28:252–273.

29.

Wang

, Iannotti

, Nansel

. School-bullying among adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2009; 45:368–375.

30.

Ybarra

, Mitchell

. Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 2004; 27:319–336.

31.

, Aslan

. The school bullying and perceived parental style in adolescents. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010; 5:536–540.

32.

Fanti

, Demetriou

, Hawa

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

33.

Gómez-Ortiz

, Del Rey

, Casas

, et al. Parenting styles and bullying involvement. Cultura and Educación, 2014; 26:132–158.

34.

Dehue

, Bolman

, Vollink

, et al. Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents' perception of parenting. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation, 2012; 5:25–34.

35.

Ybarra

, Diener-West

, Leaf

. Examining the overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2007; 41:S42–S50.

36.

Barlett

, Gentile

. Attacking others online: the formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2012; 1:123–135.

37.

Moore

, Lippman

. (eds.). (2005) What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. New York: Springer Press.

38.

Weinberger

, Schwartz

, Davidson

. Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive coping styles: psychometric patterns and behavioral and physiological responses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979; 88:369–380.

39.

Asparouhov

, Muthén

. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2009; 3:397–438.

40.

Subrahmanyam

, Greenfield

. Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 2008; 18:119–146.

41.

Bath

. Cyber bullying: overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance officers, and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 2008; 18:53–66.

42.

Kraft

, Wang

. Effectiveness of cyber bullying prevention strategies: a study on students' perspectives. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2009; 3:513–535.

43.

Mishna

, Saini

, Solomon

. Ongoing and online: children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 2009; 31:1222–1228.

44.

Pontzer

. A theoretical test of bullying behavior: parenting, personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 2010; 25:259–273.

45.

Kokkinos

. Bullying and victimization in early adolescence: associations with attachment style and perceived parenting. Journal of School Violence, 2013; 12:174–192.