Cyberbullying Victimization and Perpetration in South Korean Youth: Structural Equation Modeling and Latent Means Analysis

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between cyberbullying perception, social support, internet use time, cybercrime victimization, and cybercrime perpetration for adolescents by using a nationally representative sample—the 2020 Cyber Violence Survey (N = 4,958, Grades 4–12) in South Korea. Findings include: (1) higher perceptions of cybercrime correspond to a lower likelihood of cyberbullying victimization, (2) greater support from parents and friends decreases the likelihood of cyberbullying victimization and perceptions, (3) Internet usage time is linked to increased chances of experiencing cyberbullying, (4) a significant positive relationship exists between cyber victimization and perpetration, and (5) levels of school management are associated with student cyber safety. Mitigating victimization via early intervention/prevention programs at school were discussed.

Keywords

cyberbullying victimization perpetration youth South Korea

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Academy of Medicine of Korea. (2020). Research on students’ media use after switching to online classes. National Academy of Medicine of Korea.

Aiken

Davidson

Amann

(2016). Youth pathways into cybercrime. Paladin Capital Group.

Akers

R. L.

(1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.

Arslan

Savaser

Hallett

Balci

(2012). Cyberbullying among primary school students in Turkey: Self-reported prevalence and associations with home and school life. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 527–533.

Bae

S. M.

(2017). The influence of strain factors, social control factors, self-control and computer use on adolescent cyber delinquency: Korean national panel study. Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.008

Bae

S. M.

(2021a). The moderating effect of the perception of cyber violence on the influence of exposure to violent online media on cyber offending in Korean adolescents. School Psychology International, 42(4), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211006766

Bae

S. M.

(2021b). The relationship between exposure to risky online content, cyber victimization, perception of cyberbullying, and cyberbullying offending in Korean adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 123, 105946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105946

Bandura

(1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. The American Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.33.4.344

Bossler

Holt

T. J.

(2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420.

10.

Chan

H. C.

(2019). Exploring the overlap between victimization and offending among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 61, 72–80.

11.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

12.

Chen

C. W. Y.

(2018). “Think before you type”: the effectiveness of implementing an anti-cyberbullying project in an EFL classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1363046

13.

Cheng

Chan

Chau

C. L.

(2020). Individual differences in susceptibility to cybercrime victimization and its psychological aftermath. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106311

14.

Cheong

J. S.

Lee

(2020). Relationships between juvenile delinquency and delinquent peers: Comparisons on gender and severity of delinquency. Journal of Police Science, 20(2), 181–210.

15.

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

16.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.

17.

Cole

D. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

Arvey

Salas

(1994). How the power of MANOVA can both increase and decrease as a function of the intercorrelations among the dependent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 465–474.

18.

Dearden

T. E.

Parti

(2021). Cybercrime, differential association, and self-control: Knowledge transmission through online social learning. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(6), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09655-4

19.

Eraslan-çapan

Bakioğlu

(2020). Submissive behavior and cyber bullying: A study on the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Psychologica Belgica, 60(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.509

20.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education

21.

Hancock

G. R.

(1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1997.12068926

22.

Hanewald

(2008). Confronting the pedagogical challenge of cyber safety. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2008v33n3.1

23.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Cyberbullying Research Center.

24.

Holt

T. J.

Fitzgerald

Bossler

A. M.

Chee

(2016). Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of Singapore youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(5), 598–615.

25.

Hong

Malik

M. L.

Lee

M.-K.

(2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-western sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 636–654.

26.

Kim

J. E.

Kim

(2015a). International note: Teen users' problematic online behavior: Using panel data from South Korea. Journal of Adolescence, 40, 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.01.001

27.

Kim

J. E.

Kim

(2015b). Software piracy among Korean adolescents: Lessons from panel data. Deviant Behavior, 36(9), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.977111

28.

Kim

Hong

(2009). Writing a thesis with a structural equation model. Communication Books.

29.

Kim

Lee

Jennings

W. G.

(2022). A path from traditional bullying to cyberbullying in South Korea: Examining the roles of self-control and deviant peer association in the different forms of bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9-10), 5937–5957. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211067022

30.

Kim

Song

Jennings

W. G.

(2017). A distinct form of deviance or a variation of bullying? Examining the developmental pathways and motives of cyberbullying compared with traditional bullying in South Korea. Crime and Delinquency, 63(12), 1600–1625.

31.

Kishton

J. M.

Widaman

K. F.

(1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003022

32.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

33.

Korea Communications Commission & National Information Society Agency. (2022). Analysis of the survey of cyberviolence 2022. Korea Communications Commission & National Information Society Agency.

34.

Kowalski

R. M.

Giumetti

G. W.

Schroeder

A. N.

Lattanner

M. R.

(2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618

35.

Lapidot-Lefler

Barak

(2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014

36.

Lee

C. S.

Kim

(2023). Pathways to cybersecurity awareness and protection behaviors in South Korea. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(1), 94–106.

37.

Lee

C. S.

Wang

(2022). Typology of cybercrime victimization in Europe: A multilevel latent class analysis. Crime and Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221118880

38.

Lee

S. H.

Kang

J. H.

Lee

S. W.

(2015). A study on the types and countermeasures of youth cyber violence. Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice.

39.

Leukfeldt

E. R.

Yar

(2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280.

40.

C. K. W.

Holt

T. J.

Bossler

A. M.

May

D. C.

(2016). Examining the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control—Cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior, 37(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023

41.

Macaulay

P. J. R.

Betts

L. R.

Stiller

Kellezi

(2022). Bystander responses to cyberbullying: The role of perceived severity, publicity, anonymity, type of cyberbullying, and victim response. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107238

42.

Marcum

C. D.

Higgins

G. E.

Ricketts

M. L.

Wolfe

S. E.

(2014). Hacking in high school: Cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.867721

43.

Martín-Criado

J. M.

Casas

J. A.

Ortega-Ruiz

(2021). Parental Supervision: Predictive variables of positive involvement in Cyberbullying Prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041562

44.

Miller

Morris

R. G.

(2016). Virtual peer effects in social learning theory. Crime and Delinquency, 62(12), 1543–1569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714526499

45.

Ministry of Education. (2021). 2020 Survey on School Violence. https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=294&boardSeq=83315&lev=0&searchType=null&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=020402&opType=N (2022.02.07)

46.

Moon

S. B.

(2009). Understanding and Application of Structural Equation Modeling. Hakjisa.

47.

Moon

McCluskey

J. D.

McCluskey

C. P.

(2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.003

48.

Nevitt

Hancock

(2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2.

49.

Ngo

F. T.

Paternoster

(2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793.

50.

OECD. (2020). Individuals using the internet. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?locations=OE

51.

Park

S. H.

Kim

(2018). Ways of coping with excessive academic stress among Korean adolescents during leisure time. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1), 1505397. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2018.1505397

52.

Reyns

B. W.

(2010). A situational crime prevention approach to cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet users and online place managers. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 12(2), 99–118.

53.

Sass

D. A.

Smith

P. L.

(2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(4), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1304_4

54.

Shadmanfaat

S. M.

Howell

C. J.

Muniz

C. N.

Cochran

J. K.

Kabiri

Fontaine

E. M.

(2020). Cyberbullying perpetration: An empirical test of social learning theory in Iran. Deviant Behavior, 41(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1565513

55.

Shin

Ahn

(2015). Factors affecting adolescents’ involvement in cyberbullying: What divides the 20% from the 80%? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 393–399.

56.

Song

Han

Kim

Song

T. M.

(2020). Social big data analysis of future signals for bullying in South Korea: Application of general strain theory. Telematics and Informatics, 54, 101472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101472

57.

Stalans

L. J.

Donner

C. M.

(2018). Explaining why cybercrime occurs: Criminological and psychological theories. In Jahankhani

(Ed.), Cyber criminology (pp. 25–45). Springer.

58.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon.

59.

Talwar

Gomez-Garibello

Shariff

(2014). Adolescents’ moral evaluations and ratings of cyberbullying: The effect of veracity and intentionality behind the event. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.046

60.

Walters

G. D.

(2021). School-age bullying victimization and perpetration: A meta-analysis of prospective studies and research. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(5), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020906513

61.

Weulen Kranenbarg

Holt

T. J.

van Gelder

J. L.

(2019). Offending and victimization in the digital age: Comparing correlates of cybercrime and traditional offending-only, victimization-only and the victimization-offending overlap. Deviant Behavior, 40(1), 40–55.

62.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319–336.

63.

Yoo

(2021). What are the characteristics of cyberbullying victims and perpetrators among South Korean students and how do their experiences change? Child Abuse & Neglect, 113,104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104923

64.

Yoon

C. H.

Park

S. G.

Shin

I. S.

(2014). A meta-analysis of the effects of school violence prevention programs in Korea. Asian Journal of Education, 15(1), 189–215.

65.

You

Lim

S. A.

(2016). Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: Evidence from Korean middle school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 172–176.

66.

(2014). Fear of cyber crime among college students in the United States: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8(1), 34–36.