The Effects of Cyberbullying Victimization and Personality Characteristics on Adolescent Mental Health: An Application of the Stress Process Model

Abstract

Although a considerable body of research has documented the association between victimization experience and adolescent mental health, previous studies have not investigated the mediating effects of personality characteristics such as social competence and self-mastery on the associations between cyberbullying victimization and mental health. This study aims to fill in this research gap. Random group sampling based on grade was employed, and a total of 607 adolescents (51.07% females, M_age = 15.04) were recruited to participate in the study. The findings of the present study partially supported the hypotheses. Specifically, the results showed that cyberbullying victimization was positively associated with social anxiety and depression. Self-mastery was found to mediate the relationship between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Social competence was found to be negatively related to social anxiety, but no mediating effect was found between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of mental health. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

Keywords

cyberbullying victimization self-mastery social competence depression social anxiety

Introduction

Online communication, although bringing people together who are geographically apart, can also produce negative effects such as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has been considered a severe public health issue among adolescents since 2014 (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014) and it has become a worldwide and cross-cultural problem. Though the estimated prevalence rates of cyberbullying victimization vary depending on the samples and measurement instruments applied (Zhu et al., 2019), a meta-analysis of 80 international studies revealed that about 15% of children have been victims of cyberbullying (Modecki et al., 2014). Sorrentino et al. (2019) conducted a study across Europe employing the same measures and procedures and found a prevalence rate of cyberbullying victimization ranging from 8.3% to 46.2%. Cyberbullying victimization is also a common phenomenon in China. Rao et al. (2019) conducted a study using a representative sample and found that 44.5% of adolescents reported being victims of cyberbullying within the past 6 months in China. Besides, studies have found that victims of cyberbullying are at risk for physical, psychological, and behavioral problems (Kowalski et al., 2014). Given the high prevalence and serious consequences of cyberbullying victimization, it is imperative for researchers to investigate the mechanisms of this issue on adolescent mental health.

Among common psychosocial problems that one may develop, depression and social anxiety are two that adolescents suffer (Polanczyk et al., 2015). Social anxiety symptoms are “excessive anxiety-related emotional and behavioral responses and related cognitive patterns” (Schäfer et al., 2017, p. 262). Symptoms of depression include “sad, empty or irritable mood along with cognitive and somatic alterations which impact the individual’s functioning” (Schäfer et al., 2017, p. 261). Studies have demonstrated that depression and social anxiety may cause substantial functional impairment and future mental health disorders (Kendall et al., 2010). To date, a tremendous body of research has demonstrated the positive association between cyberbullying victimization and the symptoms of depression (e.g., Chu et al., 2018; Landoll et al., 2015) and social anxiety (e.g., Fredstrom et al., 2011; Wright, 2015); however, an obvious limitation in the previous literature is a lack of attention to exploring the potential mediating effects of personality characteristics (social competence and self-mastery) on the association between cyberbullying victimization and mental health. As such, exploring the mechanisms between cyberbullying victimization and mental health has significant implications for developing interventions aimed at reducing the negative impacts of victimization experience. To fill in the research gap, based on the stress process model (SPM), this study used a sample of Chinese adolescents to investigate whether self-mastery and social competence mediate the association between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety.

Literature Review

According to SPM, the stress process is viewed as a combination of the sources of stress, the mediators of stress, and the manifestations of stress. In this connection, when confronting the stressors, individuals’ stress-provoking conditions (capable of mediating their impact or of altering the difficult conditions) are activated. These conditions are referred to as mediators (Pearlin et al., 1981). Based on SPM, the sources of stress influence the mediators of stress, which in turn contribute to the manifestations of stress (Pearlin, 1999). Previous studies have demonstrated that personal characteristics mediated the association between stress exposure and mental health (e.g., Aneshensel et al., 2013; Avison et al., 2009; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). In this sense, this study shows below that how SPM can be implemented to explore the mediating mechanisms of self-mastery and social competence between the association of cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety.

The Sources of Stress

Stressors are “the broad array of problematic conditions and experiences that can challenge the adaptive capacities of people. Stressors appear either in the form of disruptive events or the more persistent hardships and problems built into the fabric of social life” (Pearlin, 2010, p. 208). One of these is the victimization experience. Cyberbullying victimization as a kind of stressor consists of repeated and intentional harm by one person or a group of people through the utilization of the Internet or mobile phones (Brown et al., 2014). Victims of cyberbullying may feel worried or threatened (Ybarra et al., 2007) and suffer psychological and health problems after being bullied online (Tokunaga, 2010).

The Mediators of Stress

Coping is one of the mediating resources in the stress process (Pearlin et al., 1981). The coping strategies are “behaviors, cognitions, and perceptions in which people engage when contending with their life problems” (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978, p. 5). People usually do two things when facing stressful events: solve the problem and regulate their emotions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Stanisławski, 2019). One of the most commonly used coping strategies is self-mastery (White, 1974). As a coping mechanism, self-mastery is “the extent to which one regards one’s life-chances as being under one’s control in contrast to being fatalistically ruled” (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978, p. 5). This definition is then broadened (Rutenfrans-Stupar et al., 2020). Currently, self-mastery shares conceptual ground with other constructs and is considered as a combination of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), self-efficacy (Luszczynska et al., 2005), internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966), and personal of control (Avison et al., 2009). It is largely shaped by social conditions (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003).

Another coping strategy is social competence. According to previous studies, the conceptualization of social competence includes two approaches (Dirks et al., 2007). First, social competence is considered a “trait model” in which social skillfulness is a property of a person’s underlying disposition. The other approach, called the “social skills model,” views social competence as a characteristic of the behavior being enacted. It assumes that some behaviors are inherently prosocial, whereas others are always inappropriate (Dodge, 1985; Rose-Krasnor, 1997). Considering the purpose of the present study, the “trait model” of social competence is employed, regarding adolescents’ social competence as the ability to engage in social interactions in which the social goals of the individuals involved are met. Specifically, social competence encompasses the ability to express, recognize, and communicate feelings during social interactions, and to demonstrate learning from previous interactions (Semrud-Clikeman, 2007). This skill set may help children to successfully engage with peers, and it is beneficial to further socioemotional development, friendship formation, and behavioral socialization.

The Manifestations of Stress

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1999) presents that stressful situations or experiences may arouse coping strategies, and these strategies have been demonstrated to be associated with mental health problems and distress (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000). Studies have found that stressors and traumatic experience may be harmful to one’s sense of mastery (e.g., Cook et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2010). In this connection, victimization experience as a stressor may work as a stimulus to arouse coping strategies such as self-mastery (White, 1974), which in turn associated with adolescent mental health (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). However, the mediating effect of self-mastery between cyberbullying victimization and mental health has not yet been investigated. One aim of this study is to narrow this research gap.

Additionally, studies have found that victims become more vulnerable to maladaptive behaviors and outcomes (Cillessen, 2011). In other words, the experience of victimization during adolescence is related to many negative effects (Hawker & Boulton, 2000) including poorer social skills in school (Navarro et al., 2012) and impeded psychological adjustment (Van Geel et al., 2018). Resnik and Bellmore (2019) conducted an empirical study among high school students and found that adolescents who experience victimization demonstrate deficits in both their offline and online social competence. In another study, Morrow et al. (2019) has demonstrated that peer victimization predicted decreased daily perceived social competence. Besides, Cole’s (1991) competency-based model of depression proposed that feedback from others related to social competence would affect subsequent depressive symptoms. In this context, a low level of social competence is related to mental health problems such as depression and social anxiety. Considering the relationship between victimization experience and social competence and the association between social competence and mental health, it is reasonable to expect that social competence may mediate the association between cyberbullying victimization and mental health.

The Present Study

Despite an increasing number of studies documenting the adverse effects of cyberbullying victimization on mental health, few have examined the mechanisms through which cyberbullying victimization affects adolescent mental health in China. Research on coping strategies should be implemented under the Chinese cultural context because the culture is considered as a strong factor impacting bullying behavior (Chu et al., 2018). For example, researchers have found that Asian values may influence coping strategies in collectivist cultures (Hu et al., 2018). In this sense, examining the effects of personality characteristics of Chinese adolescents between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of mental health is essential and of great significance. Based on the SPM, the present study aims to examine a potential mediation model in which self-mastery and social competence work as mediators between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety. The following research hypotheses are developed from the framework:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Adolescents who experience higher levels of cyberbullying victimization are more likely to show symptoms of social anxiety and depression.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Adolescents who experience higher levels of cyberbullying victimization are more likely to experience lower level of self-mastery, which in turn positively correlates with symptoms of social anxiety and depression.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Adolescents who experience higher levels of cyberbullying victimization are more likely to experience lower level of social competence, which in turn positively correlates with symptoms of social anxiety and depression.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Random group sampling based on grade was conducted in this study. To keep a balance of the sample in each grade, three classes (approximately 100 students) were randomly selected out of each grade from the selected middle and high schools in Ningbo city, Zhejiang Province. All the students in the selected classes were included in the sample. A self-administered survey was conducted. Participants completed the questionnaire in class sessions under the supervision of class teachers and research assistant. All participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answers. The Ningbo city, Zhejiang Province is selected because Zhejiang is a relatively wealthy eastern coastal province (Li et al., 2019). By the end of 2019, the number of Internet users in Zhejiang Province reached 47.298 million, and the Internet penetration rate was 80.9%, and Ningbo is one of the Internet boom cities in Zhejiang (Cyberspace Administration of China, 2019). A total of 607 adolescents were recruited. There were 297 male and 310 female students in the sample with an average age of 15.04 years (range = 13–18 years). The percentage of children under each grade was 20.3% (grade 7), 21.6% (grade 8), 17.8% (grade 9), 19.4% (grade 10), 15.8% (grade 11), 5.0% (grade 12), respectively. As most of the respondents were from the age of 13 to18, informed consent was obtained from school administrators, students, and their parents before the investigation. The survey was anonymous, and the participants’ personal information was kept confidential.

Measures

The measures used in this study are based on validated scales used in previous research with a demonstrate high internal consistency with these values.

Cyberbullying victimization in this study was measured on four dimensions of cyberbullying behaviors (verbal perpetration, pictorial perpetration, relational perpetration, and extortion) adapted from Wong and McBride’s (2018) Cyberbullying Victimization Scale. The scale included 12 items. Participants were invited to indicate their cyberbullying victimization experience on a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (a few times a week) for the past 12 months. Sample item includes “Someone makes and posts unflattering screen captures of you to make fun of you.” The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.81.

Depression in this study was measured using ten items from the short version of the Children’s Depression Inventory (Völlink et al., 2013). Participants were invited to indicate their agreement on the statements of depressive symptoms on a four-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Sample items include “I felt that I had nothing to look forward to” and “I felt down and unhappy.” The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.92.

Social anxiety in this study was measured using 16 items adapted from the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (La Greca & Lopez, 1998). Participants were invited to indicate their agreement on the statements of anxiety symptoms on a four-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Sample items include “I get nervous when I meet new people” and “I’m afraid to invite others to do things with me because they might say no.” The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.91.

Self-mastery in this study was measured by five items adapted from Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) Mastery Scale. Participants were invited to indicate their perception of mastery on a four-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Sample response includes, “I have little control over the things that happen to me.” The items were reverse coded, in which a higher score indicates a higher level of self-mastery. The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.89.

Social competence in this study was measured by 12 items adapted from Valkenburg and Peter’s (2008) Social Competence Scale. The scale consists of four dimensions: initiation, supportiveness, self-disclosure, and assertiveness. Participants were invited to indicate their agreement on the statements of social competence on a four-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (very easy) to 4 (very difficult) for the past 6 months. Sample items include “Start a conversation with someone I did not know very well” and “Start a new friendship.” The items were reverse coded, in which a higher score indicates a higher level of social competence. The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.88.

According to the previous studies, gender, age, own a mobile phone, access to the Internet and the time spent online are all demonstrated to be related to self-mastery, social competence, depression, and social anxiety (Kowalski et al., 2014; Zych et al., 2015). All covariates are controlled when testing the hypotheses of this study.

Analytic Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using Mplus 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) to test the hypothesized model. Specifically, first, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted. Measurement models were evaluated using the model fit indices: chi-square divided by the degree of freedom, CFI, RMSEA, SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Second, the structural model of the present study was tested to examine the direct and indirect effects of variables proposed in the present study.

Results

Test of Measurement Model

The measurement model of the latent constructs (cyberbullying victimization, self-mastery, social competence, social anxiety, and depression) was examined before conducting further analysis to test the hypothesized structural model. The CFA was conducted in Mplus 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Measurement models were evaluated using the model fit indices: chi-square divided by the degree of freedom (<3 optimum, 3–6 acceptable), CFI (>0.90 acceptable), RMSEA (<0.08 acceptable), SRMR (<0.05 optimum, <0.08 acceptable) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Additionally, composite reliability (CR; >0.06 acceptable), the average of variance extracted (AVE; >0.36 acceptable) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) were also calculated by Mplus 8.3 with results shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Reliability and Convergent Validity.

Scale	Parameters of significant test					Item reliability	Composite validity	Convergence validity
Scale	Items	Estimate	S.E.	Est./S.E.	p-Value	SMC	CR	AVE
Cyberbullying victimization (CVIC)	CVIC1	0.80	0.03	32.08	***	0.64	0.90	0.69
	CVIC2	0.88	0.02	44.45	***	0.77
	CVIC3	0.90	0.02	60.35	***	0.81
	CVIC4	0.74	0.03	27.73	***	0.55
Social anxiety (SANX)	SANX1	0.70	0.04	17.28	***	0.49	0.78	0.43
	SANX2	0.86	0.03	26.72	***	0.75
	SANX3	0.63	0.05	12.47	***	0.40
	SANX4	0.55	0.06	9.59	***	0.31
	SANX5	0.47	0.05	8.70	***	0.22
Depression (DEP)	DEP1	0.77	0.02	32.92	***	0.59	0.92	0.55
	DEP2	0.83	0.02	45.60	***	0.69
	DEP3	0.81	0.02	41.50	***	0.66
	DEP4	0.82	0.02	41.31	***	0.67
	DEP5	0.65	0.03	20.53	***	0.42
	DEP6	0.73	0.02	31.48	***	0.53
	DEP7	0.71	0.03	26.37	***	0.50
	DEP8	0.73	0.03	26.68	***	0.53
	DEP9	0.64	0.04	18.08	***	0.41
	DEP10	0.71	0.03	24.62	***	0.51
Social competence (SCOM)	SCOM1	0.69	0.04	16.11	***	0.47	0.73	0.40
	SCOM2	0.65	0.05	13.92	***	0.42
	SCOM3	0.60	0.05	13.19	***	0.36
	SCOM4	0.61	0.05	13.36	***	0.37
Self-mastery (MAS)	MAS1	0.75	0.03	27.72	***	0.57	0.90	0.65
	MAS2	0.83	0.02	39.44	***	0.69
	MAS3	0.88	0.02	49.03	***	0.78
	MAS4	0.86	0.02	53.47	***	0.73
	MAS5	0.70	0.03	20.99	***	0.50

***

p < .001.

The results of CFA illustrated that the measurement model showed an excellent data fit (χ² = 818.90, df = 335, p < .0001, χ²/df = 2.44, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.94, and SRMR = 0.05). Table 1 indicates that all observed variables were significantly loaded on the corresponding latent constructs, signifying that the selected indicators represented the underlying constructs in a statistically reliable manner. The CR and AVE presented in Table 1 were above the acceptable values, indicating that the internal consistency of the scale items was acceptable and that discriminant validity existed between the scales.

Descriptive and Correlations

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables of interest were presented in Table 2. Depression was positively associated with cyberbullying victimization and social anxiety while it was negatively associated with self-mastery and social competence. Social anxiety was negatively associated with self-mastery and social competence. Social competence was positively associated with cyberbullying victimization and self-mastery.

Table 2.

Correlations among Main Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
1.Cyberbullying victimization	–
2. Self-mastery	−0.05	–
3. Social competence	0.13**	0.20***	–
4. Social anxiety	0.06	−0.46***	−0.29***	–
5. Depression	0.36***	−0.53***	−0.09*	0.46***	–
Mean	0.52	2.64	2.92	2.47	1.64
SD	0.54	0.78	0.56	0.57	0.96

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

Test of Structural Model

The test of the hypothesized structural model has been demonstrated to fit the data very well (χ² = 1134.29, df = 460, p < .0001, χ²/df = 2.47, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.92, and SRMR = 0.06). Totally 34.2% of the variance in adolescents’ social anxiety was explained by the model and totally 44.8% of the variance in adolescents’ depression was explained by the model.

The unstandardized, standardized, direct, indirect, and total effects of the present study are shown in Table 3. The standardized solution for the structural model is presented in Figure 1. As hypothesized, the total effect of cyberbullying victimization on social anxiety is significant (0.28, p < .001), and it consists of two specific effects: (1) cyberbullying victimization positively affects social anxiety, with a higher level of cyberbullying victimization predicting a greater possibility of social anxiety (β = .18, p < .01); (2) regarding indirect effects, the study found that cyberbullying victimization was negatively associated with self-mastery (β = −.23, p < .001), which predicted a higher probability of social anxiety (β = −.49, p < .001). However, the mediating effect of social competence between cyberbullying victimization and social anxiety is not significant (−0.02, p > .05).

Table 3.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effect.

Major predictor variables	MAS		SCOM		Social Anxiety								Depression
	Direct		Direct		Direct		Indirect 1		Indirect 2		Total		Direct		Indirect 1		Indirect 2		Total
	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE	B/β	SE
CBV	−0.31*/−0.23*	0.08	0.12/0.12	0.10	0.20/0.18	0.06	0.12/0.11	0.04	−0.02/−0.02	0.01	0.30*/0.28*	0.08	0.62*/0.38*	0.11	0.19*/0.12*	0.05	−0.01/0.00	0.01	0.80* /0.50*	0.11
MAS					−0.40*/−0.49*	0.05							−0.62*/−0.52*	0.06
SCOM					−0.16/−0.15	0.07							−0.04/−0.02	0.07
Gender	−0.31*/−0.22*	0.06	−0.04/−0.03	0.05	0.07/0.06	0.05	0.12*/0.11*	0.03	0.01/0.01	0.01	0.20*/0.17*	0.05	0.13/0.08	0.06	0.19*/0.11*	0.04	0.00/0.00	0.00	0.33*/0.19*	0.07
Age	−0.05/−0.11	0.02	0.01/0.01	0.02	0.01/0.03	0.02	0.02/0.05	0.01	−0.00/−0.00	0.00	0.03/0.08	0.02	0.00/0.01	0.02	0.03/0.06	0.01	0.00 /0.00	0.00	0.03/0.06	0.03
OM	−0.05/−0.03	0.06	−0.01/−0.01	0.06	0.05/0.04	0.06	0.02/0.01	0.02	0.00/0.00	0.01	0.07/0.05	0.06	−0.01/−0.01	0.06	0.03/0.01	0.04	0.00/0.00	0.00	0.02/0.01	0.07
ATI	−0.06/−0.03	0.07	0.08/0.07	0.06	−0.04/−0.03	0.05	0.02/0.02	0.03	−0.01/−0.01	0.01	−0.03/−0.02	0.06	0.03/0.02	0.07	0.04/0.02	0.04	−0.00/−0.00	0.01	0.06/0.03	0.08
TSO	−0.13*/−0.25*	0.03	−0.03/−0.08	0.03	0.06/0.13	0.02	0.05*/0.12*	0.01	0.01/0.01	0.01	0.11*/0.27*	0.03	0.03/0.05	0.03	0.08*/0.13*	0.02	0.00/0.00	0.00	0.12*/0.18*	0.03

Note. CBV = cyberbullying victimization; SCOM = social competence; MAS = self-mastery; OM = own a mobile; ATI = access to the Internet; TSO = time spent online; B represents the unstandardized regression coefficients; β represents the standardized regression coefficients. Indirect 1 represents the mediating effect of self-mastery; indirect 2 represents the mediating effect of social competence.

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

Figure 1.

Standardized solutions for the structural model of cyberbullying victimization, self-mastery, social competence on social anxiety and depression.

Second, the total effect of cyberbullying victimization on depression is significant (0.50, p < .001), consisting of two specific effects: (1) cyberbullying victimization was positively associated with depression, with a higher level of cyberbullying victimization predicting a greater possibility of depression (β = .38, p < .001); (2) with regard to the mediating effect of self-mastery, the indirect effect was significant (0.12, p < .001). Specifically, the study found that cyberbullying victimization was significantly and negatively associated with self-mastery (β = −.23, p < .001), which in turn predicted a higher probability of depression (β = −.52, p < .001). However, the mediating effect of social competence between cyberbullying victimization and depression was not significant (0.00, p > .05). Also, the study found that social competence had no mediating effect between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of social anxiety and depression. However, the study found that social competence was negatively associated with social anxiety (β = −.15, p < .05).

Discussion

Cyberbullying victimization experience during adolescence has been associated with symptoms of social anxiety and depression (Perren et al., 2010). When considering the distal outcomes of cyberbullying victimization, most previous studies focused only on the effects of cyberbullying on adolescent mental health. These studies neglected the importance of the mechanisms of personality characteristics in mediating the association between cyberbullying victimization and mental health. The framework developed in the present study aims to fill in the research gap. The proposed model was partially supported.

In line with previous studies, the present study found a positive relation between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Also, consistent with Hypothesis 2, the present study found a mediating effect of self-mastery between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety, which is consistent with the tenets of SPM. This finding is also aligned with the posits of coping strategy which state that stressful events may arouse coping strategies including problem solving, problem avoidance, positive emotional coping, and negative emotional coping (Stanisławski, 2019). Moreover, these coping strategies have been demonstrated to work with mental health problems and distress (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000). In this study, the victimization experience aroused adolescents’ negative emotional response. This negative emotional response leads to depression and social anxiety. The findings of the mediating role of self-mastery in the present study are also consistent with the tenets of the crisis theory (Turner & Avison, 1992). A key tenet of crisis theory is that some events are so serious that they challenge a person’s ontological security (Reynolds & Turner, 2008). To be specific, major events trigger an emotional upheaval that represents both an opportunity and a hazard. If the person struggles to cope effectively with the transition, the outcome may well be compromised mental health. However, the successful resolution of a crisis has psychological benefits. This is an important consideration because the role of human agency has often been overlooked sociological depictions of stress processes. That is, stressful events are typically regarded as agents that compromise mental health, while personal resources can improve the negative effects of these experiences (Mirowsky & Ross, 1990). That is how self-mastery acts as a mediator between cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and social anxiety.

Contrary to the hypothesis, the present study found that social competence had no mediating effect between cyberbullying victimization and social anxiety. However, the study found that social competence was negatively associated with social anxiety, which is consistent with the findings of a longitudinal study conducted by Pickard et al. (2018). The study found that social competence difficulties at age 7 were positively associated with social anxiety at ages 10 and 13. Social competence and successful peer relationships have long been considered hallmarks of adaptive functioning in early childhood (Blandon et al., 2010). However, peer victimization are associated with many maladaptive outcomes, including social anxiety (Hodges et al., 1999).

Similarly, the present study found that social competence had no mediating effect between cyberbullying victimization and depression. One possible explanation for this phenomenon derives from the effects of the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS). PNS is found to work as an emotion-regulatory process that underlies individual differences. Its role is to support adaptive functioning in the internal state (Beauchaine, 2001). Theoretical models posit that PNS regulation is critical in supporting social affiliation in that it helps regulate internal states in response to situational challenges (Porges, 2001). The PNS index is based on an individual’s physiological capacity for increasing and decreasing arousal as needed to meet changing external demands (Porges, 2007). Therefore, children’s ability to manage their response to stressful situations is largely affected by their level of PNS (Beauchaine, 2001, El-Sheikh & Hinnant, 2011), which may reduce or replace the effects of social competence for children who encounter stressful experiences. Another possible explanation for the results derives from the cultural difference. Heppner et al. (2006) found that consistent with the collectivist orientation, the coping behaviors including two strategies: detachment coping strategy and avoidant coping strategy. In this connection, not talking about the traumatic experience in order not to worry others is popular in traditional Chinese culture (Qi, 2015). In this sense, culture may influence the choice of coping strategy. However, it is premature to discount the importance of social competence as more research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Limitations and Implications

Several limitations exist in this study. First, it is difficult to establish definite causal relations among the predictors (cyberbullying victimization, self-mastery, social competence) and outcome variables (depression and social anxiety) because of the cross-sectional design in this study. Therefore, longitudinal research designs are needed in future studies. Second, the data in this study was collected from one city in mainland China, which makes it impossible to generalize the findings. Future studies may be conducted in other regions to obtain more generally applicable results. Third, only the mediating effects of self-efficacy and social competence in the association between cyberbullying victimization and adolescent mental health were examined in this study. There might exist other mechanisms wherein self-mastery or social competence functions as a moderator. Future studies may test alternative models to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the role of these personality characteristics.

Despite the mentioned limitations, the results of the present study offer significant contributions to the research literature and important implications for practice in reducing adolescents’ mental health problems. On the theoretical level, the present study advances our understanding of the effects of cyberbullying victimization, self-mastery, and social competence on depression and social anxiety. The framework established in the present study was first tested, and the findings have provided empirical support for the applicability of coping strategies and stress process model in the Chinese context. Further, the results of this study partly supported the proposed hypotheses, which extends our understanding of the implications of theories in different cultural contexts. On a practical level, the effects of social competence on social anxiety imply that adolescents can be taught social skills and given opportunities to practice these skills in situations with unfamiliar peers; this way, they can improve their effectiveness in social situations. It is imperative to improve a children’s social skills as well as to modify negative cognitions in intervention programs because, without improvement in skills that helps to elicit positive feedback from others, the negative cognitions will simply be reinforced (Miers et al., 2011). Also, the finding that self-mastery mediates the association between cyberbullying victimization and mental health suggests that intervention programs should target coping self-efficacy and emotion-regulation skills, both to prevent cyberbullying victimization and to attenuate its impact once it has occurred.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Lin Wang

Author Biography

Lin Wang, PhD, is Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Social Work at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her current research interests focus on child welfare, child development and bullying and cyberbullying. She is interested in using quantitative methods as tools to investigate the mechanisms to aggressive behavior.

References

Aneshensel

C. S.

Bierman

Phelan

J. C.

(2013). Handbook of the sociology of mental health (2. Aufl. ed., Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research). Springer Netherlands.

Avison

W. R.

Aneshensel

C. S.

Schieman

Wheaton

(Eds.). (2009). Advances in the conceptualization of the stress process: Essays in honor of Leonard I. Pearlin. Springer Science & Business Media.

Beauchaine

(2001). Vagal tone, development, and Gray’s motivational theory: Toward an integrated model of autonomic nervous system functioning in psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 183–214. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002012

Blandon

Calkins

Grimm

Keane

O’Brien

(2010). Testing a developmental cascade model of emotional and social competence and early peer acceptance. Development and Psychopathology, 22(4), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000428

Brown

C. F.

Demaray

M. K.

Secord

S. M.

(2014). Cyber victimization in middle school and relations to social emotional outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 12–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.014

Chu

X. W.

Fan

C. Y.

Liu

Q. Q.

Zhou

Z. K.

(2018). Cyberbullying victimization and symptoms of depression and anxiety among Chinese adolescents: Examining hopelessness as a mediator and self-compassion as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 377–386. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.039

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2011). Toward a theory of popularity. In Cillessen

A. H. N.

Schwartz

Mayeux

(Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 273–299). Guilford Press.

Cole

D. A.

(1991). Preliminary support for a competency-based model of depression in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(2), 181–190. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.2.181

Cook

Spinazzola

Ford

Lanktree

Blaustein

Cloitre

DeRosa

Hubbard

Kagan

Liautaud

Mallah

Olafson

van der Kolk

(2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-05

10.

Cyberspace Administration of China. (2021, February 18). Report on the development of Internet in Zhejiang Province. http://www.cac.gov.cn/2020-05/14/c_1591019269867594.htm

11.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-determination. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–39). Plenum Press.

12.

Dirks

M. A.

Treat

T. A.

Weersing

V. R.

(2007). Integrating theoretical, measurement, and intervention models of youth social competence. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 327–347. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.002

13.

Dodge

K. A.

(1985). Facets of social interaction and the assessment of social competence in children. In B. A. Schneider, K. H. Rubin, & J. E. Ledingham (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: Issues in assessment and intervention (pp. 3–22). Springer.

14.

Dunkley

D. M.

Blankstein

K. R.

(2000). Self-critical perfectionism, coping, hassles, and current distress: A structural equation modeling approach. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(6), 713–730. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005543529245

15.

El-Sheikh

Hinnant

J. B.

(2011). Marital conflict, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and allostatic load: Interrelations and associations with the development of children’s externalizing behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 23(3), 815–829. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579411000320

16.

Endler

N. S.

Parker

J. D. A.

(1999). Coping inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. MultiHealth Systems.

17.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800312

18.

Fredstrom

B. K.

Adams

R. E.

Gilman

(2011). Electronic and school-based victimization: Unique contexts for adjustment difficulties during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 405–415. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9569-7

19.

Hawker

D. S.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455. http://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00629

20.

Heppner

P. P.

Heppner

M. J.

Lee

D. G.

Wang

Y. W.

Park

H. J.

Wang

L. F.

(2006). Development and validation of a collectivist coping styles inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.107

21.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2014). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Corwin Press.

22.

Hodges

E. V.

Boivin

Vitaro

Bukowski

W. M.

(1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94–101. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94

23.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

24.

Bernardo

A. B.

Lam

S. W.

Cheang

P. K.

(2018). Individualism-collectivism orientations and coping styles of cyberbullying victims in Chinese culture. Current Psychology, 37(1), 65–72. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9490-7

25.

Kendall

P. C.

Compton

S. N.

Walkup

J. T.

Birmaher

Albano

A. M.

Sherrill

Piacentini

(2010). Clinical characteristics of anxiety disordered youth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(3), 360–365. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.01.009

26.

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/a0036634

27.

La Greca

A. M.

Lopez

. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(2), 83–94.

28.

Landoll

R. R.

La Greca

A. M.

Lai

B. S.

Chan

S. F.

Herge

W. M.

(2015). Cyber victimization by peers: Prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 77–86. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.002

29.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

30.

Sidibe

A. M.

Shen

Hesketh

(2019). Incidence, risk factors and psychosomatic symptoms for traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 107, 104511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104511

31.

Luszczynska

Scholz

Schwarzer

(2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457. http://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457

32.

Miers

A. C.

Blöte

A. W.

Westenberg

P. M.

(2011). Negative social cognitions in socially anxious youth: Distorted reality or a kernel of truth?. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(2), 214–223.

33.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(1990). Control or defense? Depression and the sense of control over good and bad outcomes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(1), 71–86. http://doi.org/10.2307/2137046

34.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(2003). Social causes of psychological distress. Transaction Publishers.

35.

Modecki

K. L.

Minchin

Harbaugh

A. G.

Guerra

N. G.

Runions

K. C.

(2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

36.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Sharp

M. K.

(2019). Preadolescents’ daily peer victimization and perceived social competence: Moderating effects of classroom aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(5), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1416618

37.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

38.

Navarro

Yubero

Larrañaga

Martínez

(2012). Children’s cyberbullying victimization: Associations with social anxiety and social competence in a Spanish sample. Child Indicators Research, 5(2), 281–295. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9132-4

39.

Pearlin

L. I.

(1999). The stress process revisited. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 395–415). Springer.

40.

Pearlin

L. I.

(2010). The life course and the stress process: Some conceptual comparisons. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65(2), 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp106

41.

Pearlin

L. I.

Menaghan

E. G.

Lieberman

M. A.

Mullan

J. T.

(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(4), 337–356. http://doi.org/10.2307/2136676

42.

Pearlin

L. I.

Schooler

(1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21. http://doi.org/10.2307/2136319

43.

Perren

Dooley

Shaw

Cross

(2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(1), 28. http://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-4-28

44.

Pickard

Happé

Mandy

(2018). Navigating the social world: The role of social competence, peer victimisation and friendship quality in the development of social anxiety in childhood. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 60, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.09.002

45.

Polanczyk

G. V.

Salum

G. A.

Sugaya

L. S.

Caye

Rohde

L. A.

(2015). Annual research review: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(3), 345–365. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12381.

46.

Porges

S. W.

(2001). The polyvagal theory: Phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42(2), 123–146. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00162-3

47.

Porges

S. W.

(2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116–143. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009

48.

(2015). Filial obligation in contemporary China: Evolution of the culture-system. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12052

49.

Rao

Wang

Pang

Yang

Zhang

Chen

Wang

Dong

(2019). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou, China. Injury Prevention, 25(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210

50.

Resnik

Bellmore

(2019). Connecting online and offline social skills to adolescents’ peer victimization and psychological adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 386–398. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0953-z

51.

Reynolds

J. R.

Turner

R. J.

(2008). Major life events: Their personal meaning, resolution, and mental health significance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(2), 223–237. http://doi.org/10.1177/002214650804900208

52.

Rose-Krasnor

(1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development, 6(1), 111–135. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00097.x

53.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

54.

Rutenfrans-Stupar

Hanique

Van Regenmortel

Schalk

(2020). The importance of self-mastery in enhancing quality of life and social participation of individuals experiencing homelessness: Results of a mixed-method study. Social Indicators Research, 148(2), 491–515. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02211-y

55.

Schäfer

J. Ö.

Naumann

Holmes

E. A.

Tuschen-Caffier

Samson

A. C.

(2017). Emotion regulation strategies in depressive and anxiety symptoms in youth: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 261–276. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0585-0

56.

Semrud-Clikeman

(2007). Social competence in children (pp. 1–10). Springer.

57.

Sorrentino

Baldry

A. C.

Farrington

D. P.

Blaya

(2019). Epidemiology of cyberbullying across Europe: Differences between countries and genders. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(2), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.2.005

58.

Stanisławski

(2019). The coping circumplex model: An integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00694

59.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014

60.

Turner

R. J.

Avison

W. R.

(1992). Innovations in the measurement of life stress: Crisis theory and the significance of event resolution. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(1), 36–50. http://doi.org/10.2307/2136856

61.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

(2010). The effects of adolescent victimization on self-concept and depressive symptoms. Child Maltreatment, 15(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559509349444

62.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet: Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 35(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313164

63.

Van Geel

Goemans

Zwaanswijk

Gini

Vedder

. (2018). Does peer victimization predict low self-esteem, or does low self-esteem predict peer victimization? Meta-analyses on longitudinal studies. Developmental Review, 49, 31–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.07.001

64.

Völlink

Bolman

C. A.

Dehue

Jacobs

N. C.

(2013). Coping with cyberbullying: Differences between victims, bully-victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2142

65.

White

(1974). Strategies of adaptation an attempt at systematic description. In Coelho

Hamburg

Adams

(Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 47–68). Basic Books.

66.

Wong

McBride

(2018). Fun over conscience: Fun-seeking tendencies in cyberbullying perpetration. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.009

67.

Wright

M. F.

(2015). Cyber victimization and perceived stress: Linkages to late adolescents’ cyber aggression and psychological functioning. Youth & Society, 47(6), 789–810. http://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14537088

68.

Ybarra

M. L.

Diener-West

Leaf

P. J.

(2007). Examining the overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42–S50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004

69.

Zhu

O’Brien

J. E.

Liu

(2019). Parent-child attachment moderates the associations between cyberbullying victimization and adolescents’ health/mental health problems: An exploration of cyberbullying victimization among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519854559

70.

Zych

Ortega-Ruiz

Del Rey

(2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001