Traditional School Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration: Examining the Psychosocial Characteristics of Hong Kong Male and Female Adolescents

Abstract

Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying are growing concerns worldwide. Research has been devoted to understanding the etiology of bullying behaviors. Using a large sample of secondary school adolescents in Hong Kong (N = 1,893), this study explores gender differences in mean levels of traditional school bullying (i.e., physical and verbal forms of bullying, and extortion and exclusion) and cyberbullying (i.e., overt and relational aggression) behaviors, and psychosocial characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, empathy, prosocial behavior, family bonding, perception of a harmonious school, sense of belonging in school, and positive school experiences and involvement). The differential role of psychosocial characteristics in types of bullying perpetration is also examined. Findings indicate that the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors are positively correlated, and male adolescents reported higher levels of bullying perpetration than female adolescents. Multivariate findings reveal that, to some extent, male and female adolescents shared a similar set of psychosocial risk factors of bullying perpetration, especially in the perpetration of traditional school bullying. The findings of this study may have important implications for practice in regard to minimizing, if not entirely preventing, through the joint efforts of the family, school, and social service systems, the propensity of adolescents to engage in the perpetration of bullying behaviors.

Keywords

traditional school bullying cyberbullying bullying perpetration adolescent psychosocial characteristic Hong Kong Chinese

Introduction

Traditional school bullying is a severe and complex problem that is a growing concern worldwide. School bullying is the exposure of a student “repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more students” (Olweus, 1997, p. 496). A negative action is the injury or discomfort that is inflicted (or is attempted to be inflicted) on another individual. However, in addition to physical forms of bullying (e.g., hitting), the perpetration of bullying can also be in the forms of verbal (e.g., name calling) and nonverbal relational (e.g., social exclusion and extortion) actions. Adolescents who are victimized and those who perpetrate bullying behaviors are often associated with various short- and long-term effects, such as in regard to subsequent psychosocial adjustment (e.g., resilience) and life outcomes (e.g., delinquency; Chan & Wong, 2015b). Recent studies on the perpetration of bullying found support for the notion that bullying at school is a predictor of delinquency, violence, and other antisocial behavior in adulthood (e.g., Bender & Lösel, 2011; Farrington & Ttofi, 2011). The propensity and severity of peer victimization at school has also been argued to increase as the adolescents involved age (e.g., Chan & Chui, 2013; Wynne & Joo, 2011), particularly during middle school years, during which adolescents work to establish their positions in the social hierarchy (Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009).

Although traditional school bullying has long been studied, especially in the West (e.g., Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada), studies conducted in Chinese societies (e.g., mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau) are comparatively limited, and this field is still in its infancy. The prevalence rate of the perpetration of traditional school bullying in Chinese societies varies accordingly in samples of adolescents aged 10 to 18 years; the rate was reported as 8% in a study conducted in mainland China (S. P. Chen & Yue, 2002), 40% to 71% in studies conducted in Taiwan (J.-K. Chen & Astor, 2009, 2010; Wei, Williams, Chen, & Chang, 2010), and 19% to 52% in studies conducted in Hong Kong (Chan & Wong, 2015a; Ng & Tsang, 2008; Wong, Lok, Lo, & Ma, 2008). In Chinese societies, school bullying is often perceived as a collective action (Chui & Chan, 2015; H. Huang, Hong, & Espelage, 2013). Social exclusion, as a form of peer victimization, is a common bullying behavior observed in Chinese schools (e.g., X. Chen, Rubin, & Li, 1995; Schwartz, Chang, & Farver, 2001). However, direct physical bullying is more prevalent in regard to those who victimized younger males.

To date, the perpetration of bullying is no longer limited to traditional bullying methods through physical contact. The use of information and communication technology (ICT), such as instant messaging, e-mail, text messaging, blogs, and social media, by adolescents in the victimization or bullying of their peers is a new form of bullying—cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is generally referred to as a deliberate and repeated aggressive act intentionally performed by an individual or a group, using electronic forms of contact (e.g., computers and smartphones) against an individual who cannot easily defend himself or herself (Y. Huang & Chou, 2010; Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012). Simply put, cyberbullying is a form of antisocial behavior on the Internet, which may involve the use of various types of computing devices (e.g., desktop computers and laptops) and telephones. The anonymity of the Internet makes it easy for adolescents to engage in the perpetration of cyberbullying without much concern.

Cyberbullying behaviors, in general, can be classified as either overt or relational forms of aggression (Vandebosch & van Cleemput, 2009; Willard, 2007). Overt harassment is normally perpetrated through electronic texts, such as by sending abusive or threatening messages to the victim. In contrast to this, relational aggressive behaviors may consist of impersonation (i.e., manipulating the victim’s social relationships by sending messages to others through the victim’s hacked electronic account), exclusion (i.e., deliberately barring the victim from participating in an online social activity), denigration (i.e., posting embarrassing photos, rumors, or personal information on the Internet), and outing or trickery (i.e., disclosing personal, sensitive, or embarrassing information that will be shared through an electronic format to unintended recipients). Similarly, the perpetration of cyberbullying poses the threat of escalation. Cyberbullying, at its most extreme, could lead to sexual harassment, stalking episodes, and death threats (Shariff, 2005).

Although cyberbullying has been extensively researched in the West (see Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014), studies conducted in Chinese societies are comparatively limited. The prevalence rate of cyberbullying perpetration in Chinese societies, based on limited studies, varies accordingly, with 3% to 35% reported in studies conducted in mainland China with adolescents aged 15 to 17 years (Zhou et al., 2013), 8% to 24% reported in recent studies conducted in Taiwan with adolescents aged 11 to 18 years (Chang et al., 2015; Y. Huang & Chou, 2010; Yen et al., 2014), and 13% reported in a study conducted in Hong Kong with adolescents aged 12 to 15 years (Wong, Chan, & Cheng, 2014).

Although psychosocial risk factors related to the perpetration of traditional school bullying have long been studied (see Hong & Espelage, 2012), research efforts to explore the psychosocial characteristics associated with the perpetration of cyberbullying are still lacking (see Kowalski et al., 2014). Thus, more research is needed to examine the psychosocial effects of the perpetration of cyberbullying behaviors. In addition to this, findings on the differences between male and female adolescents in traditional school bullying are mixed. Although many studies in the past have demonstrated the way in which male adolescents are more likely to engage in bullying than female adolescents (e.g., Varjas et al., 2009; Wynne & Joo, 2011), especially direct forms of bullying (Olweus, 1993a), recent findings indicate that gender is not a significant predictor of the perpetration of traditional school bullying (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008). Mixed findings were also yielded in studies that explored gender differences in the perpetration of cyberbullying behaviors. Although several studies have found support for the likeliness of either male (e.g., Li, 2006) or female (e.g., Kowalski & Limber, 2007) adolescents engaging in more cyberbullying perpetration behaviors than their opposite counterparts, most studies generally reported no statistically significant gender differences in the rate of cyberbullying perpetration (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Questions remain as to whether or not Chinese male and female adolescents would yield different sets of findings to those reported in previous studies, which primarily sampled Western adolescents. In addition, this study aims to explore whether both male and female adolescents who engage in traditional school bullying and cyberbullying share similar psychosocial risk factors.

Psychosocial Risk Factors of Traditional School Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration

A significant body of research examining bullying behaviors has consistently identified different psychosocial characteristics as being correlated with the perpetration of bullying. Adolescents’ psychological functioning, specifically, is a factor that plays a major role in the perpetration of their bullying behaviors. The adolescents’ levels of self-efficacy or self-esteem¹ and empathy are among other psychological attributes that are widely tested risk or protective factors in bullying research. Nonetheless, inconsistent patterns with mixed findings are reported in the literature. This could partly be attributed to the use of different measures in these different studies. For instance, some studies on traditional school bullying have demonstrated that increased levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy are associated with an increased risk of the perpetration of bullying behaviors (e.g., Natvig, Albrektsen, & Qvarnstrom, 2001; Olweus, 1997), while others have found the opposite relationship to be true (e.g., Erath, Flanagan, Bierman, & Tu, 2010; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012). Yet, some scholars have found no significant relationship between self-esteem and the perpetration of traditional bullying, although a slight tendency toward the perpetrators having levels of self-esteem above average was observed (Rigby & Slee, 1993). However, recent studies on the perpetration of cyberbullying reported that adolescents who cyberbullied others are likely to have low levels of self-esteem themselves (e.g., Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Kowalski et al., 2012).

Consistent with the overall research on delinquency (see Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004), studies examining adolescents’ empathic responsiveness to peer victimization generally support the notion that those who have low levels of empathy are more likely to engage in the perpetration of bullying. This is largely true for some studies on traditional school bullying (e.g., Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2007; Kaukiainen et al., 1999) and cyberbullying (e.g., Ang & Goh, 2010; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, & Melzer, 2011). However, findings from studies examining the empathy-bullying perpetration relationship also yielded inconsistent patterns. Several studies found a weak-to-moderate negative relationship between empathy and the perpetration of traditional school bullying (Correia & Dalbert, 2008; Endresen & Olweus, 2001; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams, 2004; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008), while other studies failed to confirm this relationship either after controlling for the perpetrators’ gender (Warden & Mackinnon, 2003) or the significant finding was only observed in one gender (Gini et al., 2007; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). There is even a study that observed no significant differences in empathy level among perpetrators, victims, bully-victims, and uninvolved individuals in cyberbullying (Almeida, Marinho, Esteves, Gomes, & Correia, 2008). Relative to nonperpetrators, a lack of empathy was not found in perpetrators of cyberbullying in Almeida et al.’s (2008) study.

Adolescents’ social relationships, particularly with their parents, are found to have a significant influence on their propensity to engage in the perpetration of bullying behaviors. Studies demonstrate that negative family interactions and parental influence, and lack of parental involvement and support are key determining factors for adolescents engaging in the perpetration of bullying at school (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Chan & Chui, 2013). Similarly, an inverse relationship between levels of parental bonding and the perpetration of cyberbullying have also been observed. Relative to those who are not involved in the perpetrating of cyberbullying behavior, adolescents who engaged in the perpetration of cyberbullying reported weaker emotional bonds with their parents and less frequent parental monitoring of their online activities (e.g., Aoyama, Utsumi, & Hasegawa, 2012; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009).

Influences on adolescents’ propensity to perpetrate bullying behaviors do not just lie within their relationships with their parents. The relationship between various school-related factors and the perpetration of bullying behaviors has also been considered as an important element in studying school bullying. Many scholars have conducted research to examine the influence of school connectedness or a sense of belonging in school on traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors (e.g., Wong et al., 2014; You et al., 2008). It is argued that adolescents’ strong sense of belonging in school could reduce the risk of negative behavioral outcomes, such as peer aggression, while those with a weak sense of school connectedness are more likely to engage in peer victimization. Adolescents who are less involved in school activities are also found to have an increased tendency to victimize their peers (Chan & Chui, 2013). Furthermore, adolescents who perceived the school environment as being harmonious, trusting, and fair are likely to report fewer bullying behaviors at school (e.g., Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Wienke Totura et al., 2008), as well as in the cyber world (e.g., Williams & Guerra, 2007; Wong et al., 2014). An inhospitable school environment could create frustration and discomfort, which in turn lead to the potential perpetration of bullying behaviors.

The Present Study

It is noteworthy that the phenomena of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Hong Kong are still understudied. Specifically, the study of the prevalence and nature of cyberbullying in Hong Kong is important, as Hong Kong is a leading digital economy with sophisticated and advanced telecommunication infrastructures. To illustrate this point, for example, the region’s household broadband penetration rate is 83.4%; the mobile penetration rate is 226.6%, among the highest in the world; the number of mobile users capable of gaining access to mobile data services (2.5G/3G/4G) has reached 14.1 million; and the average peak Internet connection speed is 101.1 Mbps, the second fastest in the world (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer of Hong Kong, 2015). Using a number of psychosocial correlates (i.e., self-efficacy, empathy, prosocial behavior, family bonding, perception of a harmonious school, sense of belonging in school, and positive school experiences and involvement), this study aims to explore the effects of these factors on the propensity of male and female adolescents engaging in the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors. Drawing from the extant literature, the following research hypotheses were proposed. First, different subtypes of traditional school bullying perpetration behaviors (i.e., physical and verbal forms of bullying, and extortion and exclusion) are expected to be positively correlated among themselves, and also with different subtypes of cyberbullying perpetration behaviors (i.e., overt and relational aggression). This study also postulated that there are gender differences in the mean levels of self-reported traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors and psychosocial characteristics. Finally, psychosocial characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, empathy, prosocial behavior, family bonding, perception of a harmonious school, sense of belonging in school, and positive school experiences and involvement) are hypothesized to be negatively associated with traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors for both male and female adolescents, even after controlling for their demographics (i.e., age and current family type, for example, single- or dual-parent family).

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants recruited for this study were Chinese secondary one (sixth to seventh grade in the United States) and two (seventh to eighth grade in the United States) students in Hong Kong. This age group was selected because Slonje and Smith (2008) asserted that traditional school bullying and cyberbullying rates were much higher for adolescents aged 12 to 15 years. The sampling frame for this study was based on the standardized school list generated by the Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau. To minimize potential confounding effects of academic achievement on the adolescents’ behavior, only secondary schools in the middle band of the school system (i.e., schools with an academic rating in the middle 33% of the system) were considered. Using a computerized random sampling method, seven schools across Hong Kong (i.e., Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsula, and the New Territories) were contacted and all agreed to participate in this study. Upon obtaining ethical approval from the university and different school administrators, adolescents and their parents were contacted to obtain their informed consent. Their participation in this study was completely voluntary, with no monetary reward provided. The anonymous paper-pencil questionnaires were administered by three trained research assistants to all the adolescents, who gathered in assigned classrooms during classroom time. Participants were assured that their responses would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes. Peer-to-peer discussion of the questionnaire content during the survey administration was prohibited. Participants, on average, took about 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The response rate for the survey was about 98%.

This study sampled 1,893 adolescents: 54.6% of them were male (n = 1,033) and the remaining 45.4% were female (n = 860). On average, adolescents in this study were aged 13.49 years (SD = 1.20). Male adolescents, on average, were aged 13.47 years (SD = 1.20), while the average age of female adolescents was 13.52 years (SD = 1.21; t = −1.03, p > .05). Approximately 21% of the adolescents (n = 404) reported their current family type as a single-parent household (i.e., they lived with only one biological parent); 22% of these were male [n = 224] and 21% were female [n = 180]). The remaining 79% of the adolescents reported that they resided with both their biological parents (78% of these were male and 79% were female).

Measures

Self-reported measures of bullying perpetration were adopted to assess adolescents’ involvement in the perpetration of different subtypes of traditional school bullying (i.e., physical and verbal forms of bullying, and extortion and exclusion) and cyberbullying (i.e., overt and relational aggression). Additionally, a collection of psychometric measures were used to examine constructs related to the psychological (i.e., the adolescents’ perceived self-efficacy, empathy levels, and prosocial behavior), the familial (i.e., family bonding), and school (i.e., perception of a harmonious school, sense of belonging in school, and positive school experiences and involvement).

Self-reported behaviors related to traditional school bullying perpetration

The My Life in School Checklist (MLSC; Thompson, Arora, & Sharp, 2002) was adopted with slight modifications to accommodate the local context. Using a 4-point Likert-type scale (0 = never; 3 = five or more times), this 12-item checklist was used to assess adolescents’ traditional school bullying perpetration behavior in the past 30 days, in terms of physical and verbal bullying, and extortion and exclusion. A higher score denotes a higher level of bullying perpetration behavior. Sample items include “kick or trip others” (i.e., physical bullying), “verbally threaten or intimidate others” (i.e., verbal bullying), “take away or hide someone else’s belongings” (i.e., extortion), and “stop others from playing with a particular person” (i.e., exclusion). The Cronbach’s alpha of the overall measure was .90 (males = .91; females = .86). The alpha values for the bullying subtypes were .78 for physical bullying (males = .79; female = .74), .69 for verbal bullying (males = .71; females = .67), .71 for extortion (males = .74; females = .62), and .81 for exclusion (males = .83; females = .74).

Self-reported behavior in regard to cyberbullying perpetration

Nine items were used to assess the adolescents’ involvement in cyberbullying perpetration in the forms of overt and relational aggression in the past 30 days. A 4-point Likert-type response format (0 = never; 3 = five or more times) was adopted, with a higher score indicating a higher level of involvement in the perpetration of cyberbullying. Sample items include “maliciously spread fictitious rumors about another person on the internet” (i.e., overt aggression) and “edit and post another person’s photographs on the internet for the purpose of humiliating them” (i.e., relational aggression). The Cronbach’s alpha of this measure yielded a value of .90 (males = .91; females = .87), while the alpha values for cyberbullying subtypes were .86 for overt aggressive behavior (males = .87; females = .82) and .80 for relational aggressive behavior (males = .82; females = .73).

Self-efficacy

The General Self subscale of the Chinese Adolescent Self-Esteem Scale (CASES; Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau, 2003) was used to measure the adolescents’ self-efficacy. On a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree), a higher score denotes higher perceived self-efficacy. Sample items include “I have full confidence in myself” and “I have discovered good aspects in myself.” The internal consistency of this measure was .80 (males = .79; females = .82).

Empathy

To assess the adolescents’ emotional responses to the affective state of another individual, three modified items from the Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau’s Assessment Program for Affective and Social Outcomes (second version; APASO-II; Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau, 2010) were used. This measure was scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree). A higher score denotes a higher tendency to react strongly to another individual’s experience. Sample items include “I would be considerate and not laugh at others” and “I would be concerned and would not intentionally upset others.” The alpha coefficient of this measure was .72 (males = .71; females = .71).

Prosocial behavior

On a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 4 = five or more times), eight items from the MLSC were extracted to measure the adolescents’ overall prosocial behavior at school. A higher score indicates more manifestations of prosocial behavior at school. Sample items include “I am popular among my schoolmates” and “I proactively greet and communicate with other schoolmates.” In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value of this measure was .80 (males = .81; females = .80).

Family bonding

A four-item scale (Wong et al., 2014) in a 6-point Likert-type response format (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree) was used to measure the adolescents’ perceived family harmony and bonding. A higher score denotes a more positive perception of the family dynamic as harmonious and positively bonded. Sample items include “I am happy at home” and “I get along well with my family.” The internal consistency of this measure was .77 (males = .74; females = .81).

Perception of a harmonious school

A seven-item measure was used to assess the adolescents’ feelings and attachment toward an overall harmonious school condition. Using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree), a higher score indicates an overall positive image of attachment to the school. Sample items include “teachers and students get along harmoniously” and “the learning mood in classes is joyful and relaxing.” The alpha coefficient of this measure was .78 (males = .77; females = .79).

Sense of belonging in school

The Teacher-Student Relationship (TSR) subscale of the Quality of School Life Scale (QSLS; William & Batten, 1981) was adopted to measure the adolescents’ perceived sense of belonging to the school and the attachment quality of teacher–student and peer-to-peer relationships. This five-item measure was scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree). A higher score denotes a higher sense of belonging in school. Sample items include “teachers treat students fairly” and “my campus life is joyful.” The Cronbach’s alpha value of this measure was .71 (males = .69; females = .74).

Positive school experiences and involvement

To measure the adolescents’ positive school experiences and involvement (i.e., overall positive feelings about and relationships with teachers and peers, and time spent with them in school through different activities), three items were utilized. On a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely strongly disagree; 6 = definitely strongly agree), a high score denotes that the adolescents had overall positive experiences and involvement at school. Sample items include “I have a good relationship with most of the teachers in my school” and “I am satisfied with my school grades.” The Cronbach’s alpha value of this measure was .63 (males = .66; females = .59).

Analytic Strategy

In this study, Pearson correlations, independent sample t tests, and ordinary least squares (OLS) analyses were performed to (a) explore the inter-relationships between different subtypes of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors, (b) compare gender mean differences in traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration subtypes and psychosocial characteristics, and (c) examine the gender differences in these demographic and psychosocial effects on the perpetration of different bullying behaviors.

Results

Correlations of Traditional School Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration Types by Gender

Overall, traditional school bullying and cyberbullying were positively correlated with each other (r = .52, p < .01). As shown in Table 1, all traditional school bullying and cyberbullying subtypes were significantly and positively correlated, as an overall sample and also by gender groups.

Table 1.

Pearson Correlations of Different Types of Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration Behaviors.

Type of bullying	PSB	VBB	ET	EC	OAC	RAC
Full sample (N = 1,893)
PSB	1.00
VBB	0.64**	1.00
ET	0.65**	0.58**	1.00
EC	0.61**	0.59**	0.62**	1.00
OAC	0.43**	0.40**	0.44**	0.47**	1.00
RAC	0.38**	0.33**	0.41**	0.42**	0.78**	1.00
Males (n = 1,033)
PSB	1.00
VBB	0.67**	1.00
ET	0.68**	0.58**	1.00
EC	0.65**	0.61**	0.68**	1.00
OAC	0.44**	0.39**	0.45**	0.47**	1.00
RAC	0.38**	0.33**	0.42**	0.43**	0.80**	1.00
Females (n = 860)
PSB	1.00
VBB	0.57**	1.00
ET	0.55**	0.56**	1.00
EC	0.52**	0.56**	0.48**	1.00
OAC	0.38**	0.40**	0.40**	0.45**	1.00
RAC	0.37**	0.30**	0.37**	0.36**	0.70**	1.00

Note. PSB = physical bullying; VBB = verbal bullying; ET = extortion; EC = exclusion; OAC = overt aggressive cyberbullying; RAC = relational aggressive cyberbullying.

p < .01.

Mean Differences Between Traditional School Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration Types and Psychosocial Characteristics by Gender

Mean scores for different subtypes of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors, and psychosocial characteristics of male and female adolescents, as measured by different bullying perpetration and psychometric scales, are presented in Table 2. Males reported significantly higher levels of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors. Pertaining to psychosocial characteristics, males scored significantly higher in self-efficacy, perception of a harmonious school, a sense of belonging in school, and positive school experiences and involvement than their female counterparts. However, females were found to report higher levels of empathy and prosocial behavior than males.

Table 2.

Gender Differences in Means and Standard Deviations for the Observed Types of Traditional and Cyberbullying Perpetration Behaviors, and Psychosocial Characteristics.

Type of traditional and cyberbullying perpetration behavior, and psychosocial characteristic	Full sample(N = 1,893)		Male(n = 1,033)		Female(n = 860)		t value (Cohen’s d)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	t value (Cohen’s d)
Traditional bullying behaviors	5.35	5.89	6.21	6.57	4.32	4.75	7.24 (0.33)***
Physical bullying	1.17	1.71	1.43	1.90	0.86	1.39	7.48 (0.34)***
Verbal bullying	2.04	1.96	2.26	2.07	1.78	1.78	5.50 (0.25)***
Extortion	1.07	1.59	1.28	1.79	0.81	1.28	6.65 (0.30)***
Exclusion	1.07	1.59	1.24	1.93	0.87	1.41	4.79 (0.22)***
Cyberbullying behaviors	1.32	3.22	1.65	3.78	0.93	2.33	5.11 (0.23)***
Overt aggressive cyberbullying	0.83	2.00	0.99	2.29	0.64	1.56	3.94 (0.18)***
Relational aggressive cyberbullying	0.49	1.42	0.66	1.69	0.29	0.95	6.07 (0.27)***
Psychosocial characteristics
Self-efficacy	29.73	4.99	30.26	5.41	29.10	4.36	5.20 (0.24)***
Empathy	13.04	3.11	12.59	3.26	13.58	2.81	−7.09 (0.33)***
Prosocial behavior	18.53	4.94	17.92	5.08	19.27	4.67	−6.01 (−0.28)***
Family bonding	17.20	4.43	17.14	4.25	17.28	4.65	−0.65 (−0.03)
Perception of a harmonious school	26.59	4.99	27.04	5.27	26.06	4.57	4.31 (0.20)***
Sense of belonging in school	18.63	3.34	18.98	3.56	18.22	3.01	5.06 (0.23)***
Positive school experiences and involvement	14.34	3.91	14.61	4.13	14.02	3.61	3.30 (0.15)***

***

p < .001.

Effects of Demographic and Psychosocial Characteristics on Types of Bullying Perpetration Behaviors by Gender

OLS regressions were used to explore the overall and gendered effects of demographic (i.e., age and single-parent family) and psychosocial characteristics on traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors. As shown in Table 3, male adolescents’ levels of empathy (B = 0.52, SE = 0.05, p < .001) and prosocial behavior (B = 0.47, SE = 0.03, p < .001) were positively correlated with traditional school bullying, while their levels of family bonding (B = −0.19, SE = 0.04, p < .001), perceptions of a harmonious school (B = −0.15, SE = 0.04, p < .001), and positive school experiences and involvement (B = −0.11, SE = 0.04, p < .01) were negatively associated with their propensity to engage in traditional school bullying. A similar trend was also observed among female adolescents. Female adolescents’ likelihood to perpetrate traditional school bullying was positively associated with their levels of empathy (B = 0.52, SE = 0.05, p < .001) and prosocial behavior (B = 0.25, SE = 0.03, p < .001), but was negatively associated with their levels of family bonding (B = −0.10, SE = 0.03, p < .001) and perceptions of a harmonious school (B = −0.08, SE = 0.04, p < .05). Both male (B = 0.63, SE = 0.04, p < .001) and female (B = 0.87, SE = 0.06, p < .001) adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration behaviors were found to have positive associations with their traditional bullying behaviors.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models of Demographics and Psychosocial Characteristics in Regard to Traditional School Bullying Perpetration Behaviors by Gender.

Variable	Traditional school bullying
	Full sample(N = 1,893)				Male(n = 1,033)				Female(n = 860)
	Model I		Model II		Model I		Model II		Model I		Model II
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Demographic characteristics
Age	0.10	0.10	0.07	0.09	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.13	0.04	0.12	0.02	0.11
Single-parent family	−0.17	0.28	−0.08	0.25	−0.22	0.42	−0.03	0.37	0.18	0.35	−0.22	0.31
Psychosocial characteristics
Individual and familial factors
Self-efficacy	−0.01	0.03	0.02	0.03	−0.04	0.03	−0.01	0.04	−0.01	0.03	0.02	0.03
Empathy	0.72***	0.04	0.54***	0.04	0.69***	0.06	0.52***	0.05	0.67***	0.05	0.52***	0.05
Prosocial behavior	0.38***	0.02	0.35***	0.02	0.51***	0.04	0.47***	0.03	0.26***	0.03	0.25***	0.03
Family bonding	−0.24***	0.03	−0.15***	0.03	−0.44***	0.04	−0.19***	0.04	−0.17***	0.03	−0.10**	0.03
School factors
Perception of a harmonious school			−0.11***	0.03			−0.15***	0.04			−0.08*	0.04
Sense of belonging in school			0.09*	0.04			0.11	0.06			0.04	0.05
Positive school experiences and involvement			−0.04	0.03			−0.11**	0.04			0.05	0.04
Bullying perpetration type
Cyberbullying			0.72***	0.03			0.63***	0.04			0.87***	0.06
Constant	11.08***	1.75	8.09***	1.61	10.89***	2.56	8.12***	2.24	11.10***	2.20	7.50***	2.05
Adjusted R²	.27		.42		.31		.44		.25		.41
F	118.40***		135.65***		75.13***		79.73***		48.32***		59.22***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

However, limited significant predictors of both male and female adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration behaviors were evident (see Table 4). For males, only their empathy levels (B = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p < .01) and positive school experiences and involvement (B = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p < .05) were found to be significantly correlated with their propensity to engage in the perpetration of cyberbullying. Females’ prosocial behavior (B = −0.05, SE = 0.02, p < .01), family bonding (B = −0.04, SE = 0.02, p < .05), and sense of belonging in school (B = −0.06, SE = 0.03, p < .05) were negatively associated with their cyberbullying perpetration behaviors. Again, significant positive correlations between male (B = 0.27, SE = 0.02, p < .001) and female (B = 0.24, SE = 0.02, p < .001) adolescents’ traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors were observed.

Table 4.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Models of Demographics and Psychosocial Characteristics in Regard to Cyberbullying Perpetration Behaviors by Gender.

Variable	Cyberbullying
	Full sample(N = 1,893)				Male(n = 1,033)				Female(n = 860)
	Model I		Model II		Model I		Model II		Model I		Model II
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Demographic characteristics
Age	0.02	0.06	−0.01	0.05	0.02	0.09	−0.02	0.09	0.01	0.06	0.01	0.06
Single-parent family	−0.12	0.17	−0.07	0.15	−0.33	0.27	−0.29	0.25	0.09	0.18	0.12	0.16
Psychosocial characteristics
Individual and familial factors
Self-efficacy	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02	−0.02	0.02	−0.01	0.02
Empathy	0.27***	0.02	0.07**	0.02	0.30***	0.04	0.11**	0.04	0.18***	0.03	−0.02	0.03
Prosocial behavior	0.07***	0.02	−0.04**	0.02	0.13***	0.02	−0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	−0.05**	0.02
Family bonding	−0.10***	0.02	−0.04*	0.02	−0.12***	0.03	−0.04	0.03	−0.08***	0.02	−0.04*	0.02
School factors
Perception of a harmonious school			−0.01	0.02			−0.02	0.03			0.03	0.02
Sense of belonging in school			−0.04	0.03			−0.03	0.04			−0.06*	0.03
Positive school experiences and involvement			−0.04*	0.01			−0.06*	0.03			−0.01	0.02
Bullying perpetration type
Traditional bullying			0.27***	0.01			0.27***	0.02			0.24***	0.02
Constant	5.28***	1.07	2.44**	0.99	5.76**	1.68	2.96*	1.56	4.80***	1.15	2.31*	1.07
Adjusted R²	.10		.27		.11		.26		.08		.27
F	34.35***		70.51***		21.71***		37.42***		13.20***		32.61***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

School bullying has always been considered to be a serious societal problem. Following the advancement of ICT, this problematic issue has not remained limited to the physical world, but has also extended to cyberspace. The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to explore the gender differences in adolescents’ self-reported perpetration behaviors in regard to traditional school bullying and cyberbullying, as well as their psychosocial characteristics; and (b) to examine the effects of male and female adolescents’ psychosocial characteristics on their self-reported traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors, controlled for their demographics. In general, the perpetration of traditional school bullying was found to be positively associated with the perpetration of cyberbullying; the co-occurrence of the perpetration of these two types of bullying has also been previously reported (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2013). Consistent with past studies (e.g., Li, 2006; Varjas et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2014; Wynne & Joo, 2011), this study’s findings indicate that male adolescents reported significantly higher levels of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors than their female counterparts. These gender differences were also observed in all bullying perpetration subtypes. Pertaining to the gender disparities in their psychosocial characteristics, male adolescents were found to report higher levels of perceived self-efficacy, empathy, perception of a harmonious school, and a sense of belonging in school, while levels of prosocial behavior were found to be higher among female adolescents.

In addition to this, several noteworthy findings in relation to the effects of male and female adolescents’ psychosocial characteristics on their propensity to engage in the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors have emerged, which deserve further discussion. To a certain extent, the male and female adolescents in this study shared a similar set of psychosocial risk factors in regard to the perpetration of bullying. Adolescents who reported higher levels of family bonding (males and females), perceptions of a harmonious school (males and females), and positive school experiences and involvement (males only) were less likely to engage in the perpetration of bullying behaviors at school. Female adolescents who reported higher levels of prosocial behavior, family bonding, and a sense of belonging in school, and male adolescents who reported higher levels of positive school experiences and involvement were less likely to cyber-victimize others. These findings are not new. Secure and healthy family relationships are found to be effective in preventing, or at least in reducing, the tendency of adolescents to engage in delinquent activities, such as the perpetration of bullying behaviors (Wright, Cullen, & Miller, 2001). Studies found that poor prosocial familial attachments, especially in parent–child relationships, are associated with higher levels of bullying perpetration (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Unnever, 2005). Similarly, research consistently demonstrates that adolescents who victimize their peers are rarely involved in school activities, as they perceive school as an unpleasant and unjust place (Meyer-Adams & Conner, 2008; Wong et al., 2014). Feelings of frustration and discomfort may lead them to bully others, to compensate for their negative emotions.

The perpetration of traditional school bullying was positively associated with both male and female adolescents’ levels of empathy. Simply put, adolescents who have increased levels of empathy are likely to engage in the perpetration of school bullying. However, this positive relationship was only observed among male adolescents in relation to the perpetration of cyberbullying. The direction of these findings is largely inconsistent with studies regarding delinquency, in which high empathy levels are commonly found to be a protective factor for individuals in relation to engaging in antisocial or delinquent activities (see Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004 for a review). Nonetheless, this positive empathy-offending relationship is not unusual. The literature indicates that different types of offenders or delinquents are likely to have different levels of empathy. For example, Marshall (1999) argued that some sexual offense types (e.g., perceived consensual sexual intercourse with a minor) may reflect a high level of empathy, while other offense types (e.g., sexual assault and rape) may demonstrate a much lower level of empathy. In addition, comparative studies of violent and nonviolent offenders largely found that violent offenders tend to have lower levels of empathy than their nonviolent counterparts. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that adolescents who bullied their peers, especially those who did so in the cyber world, are arguably not being violent, compared with serious violent offenders (e.g., school shooters, rapists, murderers), have higher levels of empathy. It is also plausible that school-age adolescents, with experience of responding to survey questionnaires, may have learned to respond in a way to “fake good.” Nevertheless, this empathy-antisocial/offending behavior relationship appears to be more complicated than was once thought, as the influence of other factors (e.g., intelligence and socioeconomic status) is likely to play a part in this relationship (see Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004).

In line with the general literature, an inverse relationship between prosocial behavior and the perpetration of bullying was found in female adolescents who cyber-victimized others. Prosocial behavior has been consistently reported in prior studies to be a protective factor for children and adolescents in regard to peer victimization (e.g., Griese & Buhs, 2014). However, male and female adolescents who reported higher levels of prosocial behavior were associated with higher levels of self-reported bullying perpetration behaviors at school. The direction of this finding is neither novel nor unusual. Although bullying perpetrators have previously been described as more socially inadequate, unintelligent, anxious, and insecure than their peers (Olweus, 1993b; Roland, 1989), Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham (1999) argued that many bullying perpetrators may in fact be skilled manipulators. Smith and Sharp (1994) defined bullying as “the systematic abuse of power,” in which the inequality of power implies dominance, and dominance is often associated with social skills and manipulation. The use of social cognition skills in the perpetration of bullying may relate to indirect or relational forms of bullying, such as social exclusion (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Prosocial behavior toward others (i.e., the targeted group) is often required, especially in the initial stage, to eventually manipulate the mental states of others, to make them believe the gossips, rumors, or lies created. This type of bullying perpetrator is typically a socially skilled individual, who often uses a Machiavellian strategy (i.e., an attitudinal personality predisposition to perceive others as able to be manipulated in interpersonal relations), in their (indirect or relational) bullying perpetration (Sutton & Keogh, 2000). Similarly, the relationship between prosocial behavior and the perpetration of bullying may be more complex than anticipated, as the types of bullying behavior (i.e., direct or relational) may play a key role in this relationship.

Limitations of the Study

Several methodological limitations in this study require attention. One limitation of this study is its correlational nature. As this study did not adopt a longitudinal design, it is impossible to conclude that the adolescents’ psychosocial characteristics caused their traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration behaviors, or vice versa. At most, the findings could be interpreted in terms of the correlational nature. Second, this study was limited to the use of self-reported data. Biases, such as social desirability and retrospective recall issues, may have occurred, which may have influenced the adolescents’ truthfulness in reporting their bullying perpetration behaviors. The tendency to underreport their bullying perpetration behaviors was also possible.

The sampling method used in this study is also another limitation. The sampling of adolescents from middle-band secondary schools, which did minimize any potential confounding influences of academic achievement on the adolescents’ behavior, may have nonetheless led to the difficulty of reliably generalizing the findings to the entire adolescent population (i.e., secondary school educated and nonsecondary school educated youths, for example, school dropouts). Finally, the lack of demographic controls is yet another caveat to this study. Taking these limitations into account, future research may consider adopting a longitudinal research design to explore possible causal inferences, recruiting adolescents from all education backgrounds to strengthen the generalization potential of the findings, using a multidimensional assessment of bullying perpetration behaviors to strengthen the validity of the findings, and incorporating more demographic variables for more sophisticated modeling approaches, to explore other potential contributing factors. In addition to self-reported measures, peer and teacher nominations are commonly reported methods used as supplementary measures to validate self-reported responses in studying the perpetration of both traditional school bullying and cyberbullying behaviors (e.g., Espelage & Holt, 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Implications of the Findings

The findings of this study have important implications for practice. As consistently emphasized in prior research on the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying, healthy family functioning and dynamics are key to adolescents’ healthy development in regard to psychosocial functioning. Family bonding, particularly secure parent–child attachments, is important to nurture adolescents’ prosocial attitudes and behaviors (e.g., self-efficacy and victim empathy). Effective communication among family members, a positive family atmosphere, and adequate parental monitoring and supervision are also crucial. Research has consistently demonstrated that the propensity to engage in antisocial and delinquent activities (in this case, the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying) is likely to be reduced if the adolescents in question are healthy in terms of their psychosocial well-being (Chan & Chui, 2012, 2015a, 2015b). The failure to securely bond with their families is likely to expose adolescents to various forms of delinquency, including bullying perpetration behaviors (Chan & Chui, 2013).

Key stakeholders in the education system, such as teachers and school administrators, also have crucial roles to play in tackling both traditional school bullying and cyberbullying. Creating a secure and pleasant school climate could foster an atmosphere conducive to a constructive learning environment for adolescents. Adolescents should be taught to use negotiation, rather than violence, to resolve interpersonal conflicts. Training regarding skills related to perception, understanding, and the regulation of emotions (e.g., victim empathy and anger management) may prevent the negative transactions that perpetuate the bullying process. Through this training, and with teachers’ support, adolescents can be expected to develop a sense of mutual respect among peers, a stronger sense of belonging to their school, perceptions of a harmonious school environment, and an overall pleasant school experience. This welcoming learning atmosphere may, in turn, encourage adolescents to foster a commitment to education. A strong commitment to education has been proven to be a protective factor in relation to adolescent misconduct and delinquency (Chui & Chan, 2013). Needless to say, a holistic approach, with emphasis on adolescents’ social (e.g., the encouragement of prosocial peer interactions and constructive problem-solving skills) and emotional (e.g., the fostering of feelings of social belonging in mainstream peer interactions and school connectedness) competence, as reinforced by their academic competence, should be adopted by the school system and involve various parties. For instance, the whole-school intervention approach has been found to be one of the most popular and widely used strategies in tackling school bullying; it has been proven to be effective. Unlike some single-level strategies or programs, this anti-bullying approach must be conducted at the whole-school level to achieve positive outcomes (see Chan & Wong, 2015a for details).

For parents and caregivers who have difficulty communicating effectively with their children, youth or school social workers may prove to be useful agents in effectively bridging the differences between parents and adolescents. Social service agents could provide relevant information and training to parents and caregivers, such as information on the potential warning signs of bullying and victimization, and effective management skills in handling the perpetration of bullying behaviors, to prevent further escalation to more serious offending. For adolescents who are at risk or are already involved in the perpetration of bullying, family-oriented interventions could be used by social service agents for those families in need of facilitating the redevelopment of healthy family functioning and strong familial support for the adolescents involved. If timely interventions are not used, the risk of reoffending is increased (Chan, Lo, Zhong, & Chui, 2015). Most importantly, these suggested implications for practice can only be made effective if all involved parties—parents, caregivers, teachers, school administrators, and social service agents—work closely together in a collective manner. Individual efforts (e.g., school interventions without family support or vice versa) may not only lead to diminished effectiveness in intervening in adolescents’ bullying perpetration but also jeopardize the entire intervention strategy in regard to effectively tackling the perpetration of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan is an assistant professor of Criminology at City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR. His research focuses on criminological issues related to the Asian population; and violent and sexual offending topics such as sexual homicide, offender profiling, sex offending, homicide, and stalking behavior. Some of his most recent work on bullying studies appeared in Aggression and Violent Behavior, Child Abuse & Neglect, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Children and Youth Services Review, and Child & Youth Care Forum.

Dennis S. W. Wong is a professor of Social Work and Criminology at City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR. He is also currently an associate dean of College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. His research interests include juvenile delinquency, bullying studies, offender rehabilitation, and restorative justice.

References

Almeida

Marinho

Esteves

Gomes

Correia

(July, 2008). Virtual but not less real: A study of cyber bullying and its relations with moral disengagement and empathy. Paper presented at the 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting, Wurzburg, Germany.

Ang

R. P.

Goh

D. H.

(2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41, 387-397. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3

Aoyama

Utsumi

Hasegawa

(2012). Cyberbullying in Japan: Cases, government reports, adolescent relational aggression, and parental monitoring roles. In Li

Cross

Smith

P. K.

(Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives (pp. 183-201). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Barboza

G. E.

Schiamberg

L. B.

Oehmke

Korzeniewski

S. J.

Post

L. A.

Heraux

C. G.

(2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 101-121. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1

Bender

Lösel

(2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence, and other anti-social behavior in adulthood. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 21, 99-106. doi:10.1002/cbm.799

Bjorkqvist

Lagerspetz

K. M. J.

Kaukiainen

(1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.

Chan

H. C. O.

Chui

W. H.

(2012). Psychological correlates of violent and nonviolent Hong Kong juvenile probationers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 103-120. doi:10.1002/bsl.2003

Chan

H. C. O.

Chui

W. H.

(2013). Social bonds and school bullying: A study of Macanese male adolescents on bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42, 599-616. doi:10.1007/s10566-013-9221-2

10.

Chan

H. C. O.

Chui

W. H.

(2015a). The influence of low self-control on violent and nonviolent delinquencies: A study of male adolescents from two Chinese societies. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14789949.2015.1012534

11.

Chan

H. C. O.

Chui

W. H.

(2015b). Social bonds and self-reported nonviolent and violent delinquency: A study of traditional low risk, at-risk and adjudicated male Chinese adolescents. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44, 711-730. doi:10.1007/s10566-015-9303-4

12.

Chan

H. C. O.

T. W.

Zhong

L. Y.

Chui

W. H.

(2015). Criminal recidivism of incarcerated male nonviolent offenders in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 121-142. doi:10.1177/0306624X13502965

13.

Chan

H. C. O.

Wong

D. S. W.

(2015a). The overlap between school bullying perpetration and victimization: Assessing the psychological, familial, and school factors of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3224-3234. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0125-7

14.

Chan

H. C. O.

Wong

D. S. W.

(2015b). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese societies: Prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 98-108. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.010

15.

Chang

F.-C.

Chiu

C.-H.

Miao

N.-F.

Chen

P.-H.

Lee

C.-M.

Chiang

J.-T.

. . .Pan

Y.-C.

(2015). The relationship between parental mediation and Internet addiction among adolescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depression. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57, 21-28. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.11.013

16.

Chen

J.-K.

Astor

R. A.

(2009). The perpetration of school violence in Taiwan: An analysis of gender, grade level, and school type. School Psychology International, 30, 568-584. doi:10.1177/0143034309107076

17.

Chen

J.-K.

Astor

R. A.

(2010). School violence in Taiwan: Examining how Western risk factors predict school violence in an Asian culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1388-1410. doi:10.1177/0886260509354576

18.

Chen

S. P.

Yue

G. A.

(2002). Survey on bullying behavior of primary school and middle school students [in Chinese]. Science and Mental Health, 25, 355-356.

19.

Chen

Rubin

K. H.

(1995). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 31, 531-539.

20.

Chui

W. H.

Chan

H. C. O.

(2013). Association between self-control and school bullying behaviors among Macanese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 237-242. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.012.003

21.

Chui

W. H.

Chan

H. C. O.

(2015). Self-control, school bullying perpetration, and victimization among Macanese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 1751-1761. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-9979-3

22.

Correia

Dalbert

(2008). School bullying: Belief in a personal just world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psychologist, 13, 246-248. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.248

23.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

24.

Endresen

J. M.

Olweus

(2001). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. In Bohart

Stipek

(Eds.), Constructive and destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and society (pp. 147-165). New York, NY: American Psychological Association.

25.

Erath

S. A.

Flanagan

K. S.

Bierman

K. L.

K. M.

(2010). Friendships moderate psychosocial maladjustment in socially anxious early adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 15-26. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.005

26.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123-142. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_08

27.

Espelage

D. L.

Mebane

S. E.

Adams

R. S.

(2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward an understanding of complex associations. In Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365-383.

29.

Farrington

D. P.

Ttofi

M. M.

(2011). Bullying as a predictor of offending, violence, and later life outcomes. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 21, 90-98. doi:10.1002/cbm.801

30.

Gini

Albiero

Benelli

Altoe

(2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467-476. doi:10.1002/ab.20204

31.

Goldstein

S. E.

Young

Boyd

(2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 641-654. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9192-4

32.

Griese

E. R.

Buhs

E. S.

(2014). Prosocial behavior as a protective factor for children’s peer victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1052-1065. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0046-y

33.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816

34.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

(2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311-322. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003

35.

Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). Users’ and training manual for measuring secondary students’ performance in affective and social domains. Hong Kong: The Education and Manpower Bureau.

36.

Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau. (2010). Assessment program for affective and social outcomes (2nd version). Hong Kong: The Education and Manpower Bureau.

37.

Huang

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

(2013). Understanding factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 881-892. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9647-4

38.

Huang

Chou

(2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1581-1590. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005

39.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001

40.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Examining the role between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540-550. doi:10.1002/ab.20154

41.

Kaukiainen

Bjorkqvist

Lagerspetz

K. M. J.

Osterman

Salmivalli

Rothberg

. . . Ahlbom

(1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:2<81::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-M

42.

Kokkinos

C. M.

Kipritsi

(2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41-58. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9

43.

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, 1073-1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618

44.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. E.

(2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22-S30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017

45.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. E.

(2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1 Suppl.), S13-S20. doi:10.1016.j.jadohealth.2012.09.018

46.

Kowalski

R. M.

Limber

S. E.

Agatston

P. W.

(2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

47.

(2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157-170. doi:10.1177/0143034306064547

48.

Marshall

W. L.

(1999). Current status of North American assessment and treatment programs for sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(3), 221-239.

49.

Meyer-Adams

Conner

B. T.

(2008). School violence: Bullying behaviors and the psychosocial school environment in middle schools. Children & Schools, 30, 211-221. doi:10.1093/cs/30.4.211

50.

Natvig

G. K.

Albrektsen

Qvarnstrom

(2001). School-related stress experience as a risk factor for bullying behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 561-575. doi:10.1023/A:1010448604838

51.

J. W. Y.

Tsang

S. K. M.

(2008). School bullying and the mental health of junior secondary school students in Hong Kong. Journal of School Violence, 7(2), 3-20. doi:10.1300/J202v07n02_02

52.

Nickerson

A. B.

Mele

Princiotta

(2008). Attachment and empathy as predictors or roles as defenders or outsiders in bullying interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 687-703. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.002

53.

Office of the Government Chief Information Officer of Hong Kong. (2015, December). Fact sheet: Hong Kong—An ICT hub. Retrieved from http://www.ogcio.gov.hk/en/facts/doc/Fact_Sheet-HK_as_ICT_Hub-EN.pdf

54.

Olweus

(1993a). Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

55.

Olweus

(1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long term outcomes. In Rubin

K. H.

Asendorf

J. B.

(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

56.

Olweus

(1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495-510.

57.

Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 13-36). New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Rigby

Slee

(1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological wellbeing. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33-42. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116

59.

Roland

(1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian research tradition. In Tattum

D. P.

Lane

D. A.

(Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 21-32). Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

60.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

61.

Schwartz

Chang

Farver

J. M.

(2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese children’s peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 37, 520-532. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.37.4.520

62.

Shariff

(2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education, 40, 457-477.

63.

Slonje

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x

64.

Smith

P. K.

Sharp

(1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London, England: Routledge.

65.

Steffgen

König

Pfetsch

Melzer

(2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 643-648. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0445

66.

Sutton

Keogh

(2000). Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellianism and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 443-456. doi:10.1348/000709900158227

67.

Sutton

Smith

P. K.

Swettenham

(1999). Bullying and “theory of mind”: A critique of the “social skills deficits” view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development, 8, 117-127. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00083

68.

Thompson

Arora

Sharp

(2002). Bullying: Effective strategies for long-term improvement. New York, NY: Routledge.

69.

Unnever

J. D.

(2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153-171. doi:10.1002/ab.20083

70.

Vandebosch

van Cleemput

(2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11, 1349-1371. doi:10.1177/1461444809341263

71.

Varjas

Henrich

C. C.

Meyers

(2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8, 159-176. doi:10.1080/15388220802074165

72.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

73.

Warden

Mackinnon

(2003). Prosocial children, bullies, and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy, and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 367-418. doi:10.1348/026151003322277757

74.

Wei

H.-S.

Williams

J. H.

Chen

J.-K.

Chang

H.-Y.

(2010). The effects of individual characteristics, teacher practice, and school organizational factors on students’ bullying: A multilevel analysis of public middle schools in Taiwan. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 137-143. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.004

75.

Wienke Totura

C. M.

MacKinnon-Lewis

Gesten

E. L.

Gadd

Divine

K. P.

Dunham

Kamboukos

(2008). Bullying and victimization among boys and girls in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 571-609. doi:10.1177/0272431608324190

76.

Willard

N. E.

(2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenges of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

77.

William

Batten

(1981). The quality of school life. Hawthorn, Victoria: ACER.

78.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6, Suppl.), S14-S21.

79.

Wong

D. S. W.

Chan

H. C. O.

Cheng

C. H. K.

(2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 36, 133-140. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006

80.

Wong

D. S. W.

Lok

P. P.

T. W.

S. K.

(2008). School bullying among Hong Kong Chinese primary schoolchildren. Youth & Society, 40, 35-54. doi:10.1177/0044118X07310134

81.

Wright

J. P.

Cullen

F. T.

Miller

J. T.

(2001). Family social capital and delinquent involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 1-9. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00071-4

82.

Wynne

S. L.

Joo

(2011). Predictors of school victimization: Individual, familial, and school factors. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 458-488. doi:10.1177/0011128710389586

83.

Yen

C.-F.

Chou

W.-J.

Liu

T.-L.

C.-H.

Yang

H.-F.

(2014). Cyberbullying among male adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Prevalence, correlates, and association with poor mental health status. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3543-3553. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.035

84.

You

Furlong

M. J.

Felix

Sharkey

J. D.

Tanigawa

Green

J. G.

(2008). Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 446-460. doi:10.1002/pits.20308

85.

Zhou

Tang

Tian

Wei

Zhang

Morrison

C. M.

(2013). Cyberbullying and its risk factors among Chinese high school students. School Psychology International, 34, 630-647. doi:10.1177/0143034313479692