Exploring University Students’ Coping Strategy Intentions for Cyberbullying

Abstract

Most of the published research on cyberbullying has been conducted with children and adolescents, so little is known about cyberbullying in other populations. This study examined cyberbullying within an emerging adult population in a university setting (N = 282), and explored what coping strategies these individuals intended to use in response to future cyberbullying incidents. Blocking of the sender of the bullying message was found to be the most frequent intention to cope with cyberbullying among these emerging adults. It was also found that both gender and victimisation status (i.e., whether the emerging adult had, in the preceding twelve months, been a victim of cyberbullying) influenced coping strategy intentions. The implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords

emerging adults university students coping strategies cyberbullying

Throughout an individual’s life, a variety of stressful events will be encountered, and cyberbullying is one such stressful event. Defined as a form of traditional bullying, it is an aggressive, intentional behavior carried out by a more powerful group or individual using electronic forms of contact repeatedly against a less powerful victim who cannot easily defend him or herself (Smith et al., 2008). The way an individual copes with cyberbullying has important implications for their psychosocial functioning (Bauman, Toomey, & Walker, 2013). Coping is theorized to be a response mechanism whereby stressful situations can either be amplified or abated (Aldwin, 2007). Cyberbullying victimization can result in deleterious consequences for the individual’s well-being, which can include low self-esteem, low academic performance, depression, and suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007, 2013; Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007). Importantly, the consequences of cyberbullying have been shown to be even more deleterious than traditional bullying (Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012).

Although most cyberbullying research has been conducted with school students, studies also show that cyberbullying impacts up to 22% of university students (Macdonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Walker, Rajan Sockman, & Koehn, 2011; Wensley & Campbell, 2012). Despite these findings, no research has specifically investigated how university students intend to cope with cyberbullying. Exploring intentions is important as this information can be used to make speculations about how all university students—not just cybervictims—are likely to cope in the event of future victimization. As the coping response impacts psychosocial functioning (Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alasker, 2012), the way a university student copes with cybervictimization therefore may be a key factor that either helps bolster optimal well-being or leads to adverse outcomes. Given that cybervictimization typically impairs psychosocial functioning, more studies are required to investigate how university students cope with this stressful situation.

Coping Frameworks

Coping models indicate that in response to stressful events, individuals can use a variety of coping strategies. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) seminal work proposed that coping is an appraisal-based transactional process that results in the use of either problem-focused (e.g., problem solving and help-seeking) or emotion-focused (e.g., avoiding and ignoring) coping. This model has been widely used within the stress and coping literature to examine how children, adolescents, and adults respond to a range of events (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). Using this model as a theoretical framework, Frydenberg and colleagues (Frydenberg 2008; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993, 2000) proposed that adolescent coping could be classified as productive (e.g., problem solving and investing in friends), reference to others (e.g., seeking social support and professional help), and non-productive (e.g., ignoring the problem and wishful thinking; Frydenberg, 2008; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993, 2000). Other models have focused on understanding how coping manifests differently over the life span. Drawing upon developmental studies some researchers have conceptualized coping as regulation in response to stress (e.g., Connor-Smith et al., 2001; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). These theorists suggest that coping changes throughout the life span and is heavily influenced by developmental characteristics of the individual (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Collectively, these coping models reinforce that coping is a transactional process that is influenced by internal (individual) and external (environmental) characteristics.

Cyberbullying Trends

Successfully coping with cyberbullying involves using strategies that are associated with more positive outcomes, ones that aim to reduce the current bullying and prevent future victimization (Perren et al., 2012; Vollink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013). On the other hand, unsuccessful coping is associated with strategies that inadequately address the bullying and result in negative outcomes. Investigating how university students cope is important for two reasons. First, there is scant research in this area and second, school-based cyberbullying literature highlights a link between victimization and unsuccessful coping (Sticca & Perren, 2013). Studies from traditional bullying literature have found that the coping strategy of help-seeking of adolescents (e.g., from friends and adults) may be able to help reduce the impact of bullying on psychosocial outcomes. For example, Davidson and Demaray’s (2007) study found evidence to indicate that social support can help protect against internalizing (e.g., anxious-depressive) symptomology for victims of bullying. In the cyberbullying literature, however, it appears that many victims do not always use strategies such as help-seeking (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013). Some studies have found between 50% and 90% of school students do not use any help-seeking strategies for cyberbullying, instead they cope by doing nothing, ignoring, avoiding, or retaliating (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010). These findings reinforce Smith and Shu’s (2000) assertion that many victims of bullying behaviors are suffering in silence.

When school students do use productive type strategies, they are more likely to seek help from friends before family members and teachers. For example, Cassidy, Jackson, and Brown (2009) reported that adolescent students preferred, in the event of cybervictimization, to cope by firstly telling a friend, followed by a parent, and then school personnel. There is one study that has examined the types of coping strategies used by cybervictims from a university setting. Schenk and Fremouw (2012) found that American cybervictims aged 18- to 24 years old typically coped by telling someone, avoiding friends, and seeking revenge. These findings indicate that while university cybervictims do use help-seeking strategies, they seem to use more strategies that are likely to be less effective for ameliorating the cyberbullying (e.g., seeking revenge and avoiding social situations).

Victimization Status (i.e., Victim or Non-Victim), Gender, and Coping Strategies

Help-seeking is one coping strategy that is promoted by schools as a tool to combat bullying behaviors (Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2012). However, it appears that factors such as victimization status and gender can influence an individual’s use of this strategy. For example, Smith et al. (2008) identified that secondary school students who had not been cyberbullied recommended telling someone as one of the best strategies for cyberbullying. Closer analysis, however, showed that many cybervictims did not tell anyone. Other research has shown that adolescent cybervictims are considerably less likely to cope by seeking help from teachers and friends when compared with traditional victims (Vollink et al., 2013). Cybervictims may be less inclined to use these types of coping strategies, due to concerns regarding strategy effectiveness and concerns about a non-supportive school climate (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012). No evidence is available to indicate whether university students would seek help from university personnel, or if victimization status influences coping strategy intentions for future cyberbullying.

University-based research on gender and coping strategies for cyberbullying is also scant. However, school-based literature has shown that boys and girls differ in their use of certain coping strategies. For example, boys are less likely to use help-seeking strategies as a way of coping with cyberbullying compared with girls (e.g., Dooley, Gradinger, Strohmeier, Cross, & Spiel, 2010; Li, 2006). Retaliation, however, appears to be more widely used among boys compared with girls (Machmutow et al., 2012). Examining how male and female university students intend to cope is likely to be beneficial for increasing our understanding of gender-specific coping strategies for cyberbullying.

Coping With Bullying in a Digital Landscape: Technological Coping

A growing trend suggests that in response to cyberbullying, individuals are also using online strategies as primary forms of coping (e.g., block and delete functions). Cybervictims aged 10- to 25 years old reported that the most helpful offline strategy involves telling a friend and the most helpful online strategy is blocking (e.g., Price & Dalgleish, 2010). Other findings showed cybervictims cope by deleting, ignoring cyberbullying messages, or staying away from where the cyberbullying has occurred (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010). There is some contention within the literature regarding whether or not these online strategies are effective for the amelioration of cyberbullying (Cassidy et al., 2013). The combined results, however, demonstrate online strategies are popular and that cybervictims perceive that “blocking” is a helpful coping strategy.

The cyberbullying coping field is an emerging one. Despite research showing that cyberbullying occurs within university settings, no research has examined how university students intend to cope with this behavior, and whether victimization status and gender influences coping strategy use. Such knowledge will not only be beneficial for expanding the cyberbullying coping field but also will be useful for students and universities, especially regarding support options and anti-bullying policies.

This study is an exploratory examination of the types of coping strategies university students intend to use for future events of cyberbullying. The study also explored the influences of gender and victimization status on coping strategy intentions.

Method

Participants

A total of 282 students from a south eastern Queensland university, 204 females (72.3 %) and 78 males (27.7 %), with a mean age of 19 (M = 19.73, SD = 2.14) participated in this study. The criteria for participation required the individual to be a current university student aged between 18- and 25 years old. Participants were recruited through the first year psychology research pool and through emails sent out by a Course Coordinator from the School of Psychology and Counseling at the university to the larger student population. First year psychology students received course credit for their participation, and all other participants were entered in a prize draw for a $100 VISA gift card.

Measures

Coping Questionnaire

An 11-item questionnaire was specifically developed to explore what types of coping strategies university students intended to use in response to any future cyberbullying. Although there are many coping scales available, no coping scale has yet been developed for cyberbullying and the university student population. Therefore, items used in this study’s questionnaire were adapted from a review of the coping with bullying (i.e., traditional and cyber) literature (e.g., Aricak et al., 2008; Parris et al., 2012; Perren et al., 2012; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyer, & Parris, 2011; Tokunaga, 2010). Participants were asked to report the likelihood of using coping strategies on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from very unlikely, unlikely, likely to very likely, if they were cyberbullied in the future. Each item received a score ranging from 1 to 4, respectively. The mean score for each item was used to examine the likelihood of participants using that coping item. An item that received a score of 4 was used to indicate that a specific strategy would be more likely to be used compared with another one that received a score of 1. Examples of the questions included “I would block the cyberbully”; “I would seek help from my friends”; and “I would ask the cyberbully to stop.”

Cyberbullying question

As with other sensitive topics such as adult intimate partner violence (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000) and cyberbullying in adolescents (Campbell et al., 2012), cyberbullying victimization was assessed using a single item. The following definition of cyberbullying was provided to participants:

Cyberbullying is bullying using technology. It is when one person or a group of people repeatedly try to embarrass another person, using their computer or mobile phone, to use power over them. With cyberbullying, the person bullying usually has some advantage over the person targeted, and it is done on purpose to hurt them, not like an accident or when friends tease each other.

The cyberbully victim question asked “How frequently you have been cyberbullied by someone who you suspect was from your university during the past 12 months? This includes emails, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, or text messaging.” Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from never, once or twice, monthly, weekly, or daily. Participants who reported at least one experience of cyberbullying were classed as victims. For this item, victims received a score of 1 and non-victims received a scored a 0. Participants were also asked to indicate their gender (male or female) and age (18- to 25 years old).

Procedure

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The online questionnaire was hosted by the university’s survey software on a secure server. The data for this study were collected as part of a larger research study using a 126-item questionnaire examining various aspects of life at university. An online information sheet was provided to participants prior to the commencement of the study. Submission of the questionnaire indicated consent. Participation was voluntary and responses were anonymous. All data collection took place between July and November 2013.

Analysis

Descriptive analyses were firstly conducted to examine the mean scores of participants who endorsed each of the 11 coping strategies. This analysis was used to indicate the popularity of a strategy. Mann–Whitney U tests were then used to examine if there were differences between males and females, and also between cyberbullying victims and non-victims for the 11 items measuring coping strategies. The distribution of responses of each of the 11 coping styles was skewed and hence non-parametric Mann–Whitney’s were used. Although means and standard deviations are provided by way of description, medians and IQRs and mean ranks are also reported for each coping strategy as is customary with non-parametric between group tests. The alpha level was set at 0.05 and SPSS for Windows version 22 was used for all the analyses.

Results

Descriptive Analysis of Coping Strategy Intentions

Descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the coping strategies university students would most likely use in response to future incidences of cyberbullying. Table 1 presents the descriptive data for the 11 coping strategies.

Table 1.

Descriptive Frequencies of Coping Strategy Intentions for Future Experiences of Cyberbullying.

Coping Item	M	SD	Median	IQR^a
Block	3.36	.753	4.00	1.00
Stay away from where the cyberbullying is taking place	2.89	.782	3.00	1.00
Ask the bully to stop	2.85	.903	3.00	2.00
Help from friends	2.80	.869	3.00	1.00
Ignore	2.56	.855	3.00	1.00
Retaliate	2.47	.837	2.00	1.00
Help from family	2.33	1.02	2.00	2.00
Threaten to report	2.33	.864	2.00	1.00
Help from university counselor	1.83	.843	2.00	1.00
Help from university lecturer	1.64	.788	1.00	1.00
Others to cyberbully the bully	1.60	.741	4.00	1.00

Note. Item names have been truncated.

interquartile range

Victimization Status (i.e., Victim and Non-Victim) and Coping Strategy Intentions

Approximately 16% of the sample reported an incident of cyberbullying within the preceding 12 months. A Mann–Whitney U test indicated three significant differences among the 11 coping strategies between the victims and the non-victims. Table 2 shows the significant differences in coping strategies intentions between victims and non-victims.

Table 2.

Mann–Whitney U Test Results for Coping Strategy Intentions for Victims and Non-Victims.

Coping Item	Victims				Non-Victim
Coping Item	n	M (SD)	Median (IQR)	Rank Average	n	M (SD)	Median (IQR)	Rank Average	Z
Blocking	41	3.07 (0.848)	3.00 (1.00)	113.44	240	3.41 (0.726)	4.00 (2.00)	145.71	−2.60**
Help from university lecturer	41	1.92 (0.848)	2.00 (2.00)	167.63	240	1.60 (0.770)	1.00 (1.00)	136.45	−2.510**
Others to cyberbully the bully	41	1.80 (0.714)	2.00 (1.00)	164.49	239	1.56 (0.741)	1.00 (1.00)	163.38	−2.290**
Retaliate	41	2.41 (0.865)	3.00 (1.00)	137.67	240	2.48 (0.833)	2.00 (1.00)	141.57	−0.303
Threaten to report	41	2.15 (0.882)	2.00 (1.50)	124.98`	241	2.36 (0.860)	2.00 (1.00)	144.31	−1.488
Stay away from where the cyberbullying is taking place	41	2.78 (0.822)	3.00 (1.00)	129.77	241	2.92 (0.780)	3.00 (1.00)	143.50	−1.083
Ignore it	41	2.49 (0.711)	2.00 (1.00)	132.01	240	2.58 (0.879)	3.00 (1.00)	142.54	−0.814
Ask the cyberbully to stop	40	2.75 (0.870)	3.00 (1.00)	127.91	237	2.88 (0.910)	3.00 (2.00)	140.87	−0.997
Seek help from family	41	2.41 (1.07)	2.00 (1.50)	147.85	241	2.31 (1.02)	2.00 (2.00)	140.42	−0.560
Seek help from friends	41	2.78 (1.01)	3.00 (2.00)	140.63	238	2.81 (0.845)	3.00 (1.00)	139.89	−0.059

p < .01. Items have been truncated.

Gender and Coping Strategy Intentions

A Mann–Whitney U test revealed a number of significant differences for gender and coping strategy intentions. Table 3 shows the coping items that yielded significant results for gender.

Table 3.

Mann–Whitney U Test Results for Coping Strategy Intentions for Females and Males.

Coping Item	Females				Males
Coping Item	n	M (SD)	Median (IQR)	Rank Average	n	M (SD)	Median (IQR)	Rank Average	Z
Blocking	204	3.50 (0.608)	4.00 (1.00)	151.93	77	3.00 (0.960)	3.00 (2.00)	112.05	−4.06**
Others to cyberbully	203	1.50 (0.692)	1.00 (1.00)	131.47	77	1.84 (0.812)	2.00 (1.00)	164.30	−3.37**
Threaten to report	204	2.43 (0.842)	2.00 (1.00)	151.13	78	2.05 (0.866)	2.00 (2.00)	116.31	−3.40**
Help from family	204	2.51 (0.985)	3.00 (1.00)	155.98	78	1.85 (0.968)	2.00 (1.00)	103.64	−5.05**
Help from friends	201	2.89 (0.835)	3.00 (1.00)	147.26	78	2.58 (0.919)	3.00 (1.00)	121.29	−2.59**
Help from university counselor	202	1.94 (0.861)	2.00 (2.00)	149.25	77	1.57 (0.733)	1.00 (1.00)	115.74	−3.32**
Help from university lecturer	203	1.76 (0.799)	2.00 (1.00)	152.56	78	1.36 (0.683)	1.00 (1.00)	110.90	−4.25**
Retaliate	204	2.47 (0.797)	3.00 (1.00)	141.38	77	2.48 (0.940)	2.00 (1.00)	139.98	−0.138
Stay away	204	2.96 (0.735)	3.00 (0.75)	146.61	78	2.73 (0.878)	3.00 (1.00)	128.13	−1.85
Ignore	203	2.55 (0.844)	2.00 (0.100)	139.70	78	2.59 (0.889)	3.00 (1.00)	144.38	−0.460
Ask cyberbully to stop	201	2.88 (0.875)	3.00 (2.00)	140.22	76	2.80 (0.980)	3.00 (2.00)	135.76	−0.436

p < .01. Item names have been truncated.

Discussion

The current study revealed that university students intend to cope with cyberbullying in a number of different ways. The three most popular strategies (i.e., blocking, staying away from where the cyberbullying was taking place, and seeking help from friends) indicated that university students would use a combination of online and offline strategies to cope with cyberbullying. This pattern of results could indicate that university students may desire to engage in coping strategies that are perceived to be autonomous and problem focused (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011).

We found that most university students would intend to cope by using a blocking strategy. Although results from this and other studies (e.g., Price & Dalgleish, 2010) indicate blocking is widely as endorsed coping strategy, efficacy issues have been raised within the literature (Cassidy et al., 2013). From one aspect, blocking may be considered a productive problem-solving strategy as the bullying can be immediately stopped (Tokunaga, 2010). An alternative view suggests that blocking could be an unproductive strategy as cybervictimization can continue through other mechanisms such as emails or text messages (Cassidy et al., 2012; Dehue et al., 2008). It is posited that university students view this strategy as a convenient first line of defense for cybervictimization, and could use it while contemplating other strategies.

Examination of the victimization results revealed important findings. These results indicated victims, as opposed to non-victims, are less likely to use the blocking function to cope with future cyberbullying events. This finding is inconsistent with some school-based research, which showed that these cybervictims commonly use, and regard blocking as an effective coping strategy (e.g., Aricak et al., 2008; Price & Dalgleish, 2010). University-based cybervictims may perceive blocking to be an ineffective strategy, as they recognize or have experienced that victimization can continue through other mechanisms (e.g., private text messages or social media post). This finding is interesting and indicates that university-based cybervictims may be less inclined to use strategies that are perceived to be ineffective than has been shown previously.

The other important finding was that cybervictims were more likely to seek help from a university lecturer compared with non-victims. School-based cybervictims are reportedly reluctant to seek help from teachers, due to fears associated with loss of peer relationships, concerns about restriction to their devices, or that teachers are unable to provide adequate support (Cassidy et al., 2013; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). The finding that cybervictims would seek help from a university lecturer indicates that university students may not have these concerns, and this could be associated with developmental maturity (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). These results may have also occurred as many of the participants were psychology students. These individuals may believe that within university settings, reports of cybervictimization would be managed more confidentially compared with other students. This speculation, together with the findings, appears to reinforce the notion that coping is an appraisal-based process, and that appraisals become more sophisticated with age (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007).

School-based cyberbullying research demonstrates that cybervictims are more likely to cope by help-seeking from teachers, when they are perceived to be supportive, knowledgeable about cyberbullying, and can offer adequate assistance (Cassidy et al., 2012; Perren et al., 2012). Therefore, university cybervictims may have an expectation that university lecturers will have the necessary knowledge and skills to resolve cyberbullying situations, particularly if cyberbullying is occurring on a university platform (e.g., online class discussion board). University cybervictims may also feel that they have greater potential to work with a lecturer to manage the cyberbullying in a co-operative manner. This may explain why cybervictims are more likely to seek help from a lecturer as opposed to using blocking as a coping strategy.

The finding that cybervictims would be more likely to cope by getting others to cyberbully the bully compared with non-victims is interesting. This result could indicate that when placed in a stressful situation such as cyberbullying, victims may feel that they have a greater chance at ameliorating the bullying with the help of others. This appears to be somewhat similar to Schenk and Fremouw’s (2012) study that found university cybervictims can use retaliation as a coping strategy. Together, these findings may suggest that university students feel that retaliation-based strategies are effective ways to cope with cyberbullying. To explore this supposition, future research should investigate the rationale for coping strategy use.

Gender findings indicate that female university students showed a greater tendency to use help-seeking strategies compared with males, which is consistent with school-based research (e.g., Li, 2006). Females may intend to cope by using help-seeking to a greater extent than males as they believe these are more effective coping strategies for reducing or stopping the cyberbullying. The finding that males would be more likely to cope by getting others to cyberbully the bully could indicate that males as opposed to females believe that support from their friends—using forms of retaliation—would be an effective coping strategy. The other gender finding showed that females would be more likely to use blocking as a coping strategy compared with males. This result may demonstrate that females aim to use coping strategies that directly restrict contact with the cyberbully. Comparing the gender findings, it would seem that males prefer to cope by engaging in retaliating type behaviors, whereas females prefer to engage in help-seeking and contact restricting coping strategies (e.g., help-seeking and blocking). These finding, however, must be interpreted with caution as the sample for this study was imbalanced with many more females than males.

The results from this study provide preliminary evidence to indicate that online coping strategies are popular among university students, and that victimization status and gender appears to influence coping intentions. Importantly, this is the first known study to show that university cybervictims, and female students in general, intend to use a number of types of help-seeking strategies in response to cyberbullying.

Limitations

As it was expected that there would be a low percentage of cyberbullying victims in the sample, all university students were surveyed about their intentions. Although examining intentions can yield important insight into the types of coping strategies likely to be used, it is acknowledged, however, that intentions are not failsafe predictors of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). So although these results indicate the types of strategies likely to be used in response to cyberbullying, these findings may not reflect actual coping behaviors. Therefore, the current study’s results can only be used to speculate about the coping strategies likely to be used in response to future cyberbullying, as other factors such as changes in the university setting, for example, may influence actual coping behaviors (Cassidy et al., 2013; Richard et al., 2012). Noteworthy, these coping results may also have occurred as participants were required to report on their coping intentions using a forced choice questionnaire and could not rank their coping preferences. The findings could be an artifact of the questionnaire rather than actual coping intentions, thus further research using different measures is required.

This study did not examine the type and strength of cyberbullying (e.g., one defamatory picture posted on a forum or multiple text messages to personal phone). Consequently, it cannot be determined whether these issues mediated or moderated the coping results.

Future Research and Implications

Investigating lecturers’ perspectives about their roles, responsibilities, and competency for managing reports of cybervictimization may help to establish better methods to reduce cyberbullying within university settings. This research seems crucial as school-based research shows that teachers reportedly have poor response resolution skills for cyberbullying situations (Cassidy et al., 2012). Future research in this area may help inform the development of more specialized coping strategy campaigns for the student population both within universities and other tertiary education contexts.

This study has revealed that university students have experienced cybervictimization, yet to date support for these individuals seems to be largely overlooked by universities. In recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on school-based prevention and intervention campaigns (Paul, Smith, & Blumberg, 2012). However, this emphasis does not appear to be mirrored in university settings and highlights a major disservice to students. Given the deleterious consequences of cyberbullying, increased knowledge is required to help tertiary institutions position more effectively against cyberbullying. A stronger stance is important to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment is provided to all students.

Conclusion

The current study was an exploratory investigation of the coping strategies likely to be used by university students in response to cyberbullying. Findings indicate that these students may intend to use both online and offline coping strategies, and that gender and previous experiences of cybervictimization may result in the use of different coping strategies. Combining these results with previous research supports the view that coping with cyberbullying is a complex phenomenon, one likely to be influenced by victimization status and gender. This study offers new insights into how university students intend on coping with cyberbullying. Such information broadens the field and is likely to provide practical information for universities and other tertiary institutions.

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.

Author Biographies

Alexandria Orel is a provisional psychologist currently completing the master of educational and developmental psychology in Brisbane, Australia. She has a strong interest in adolescent development and aims to work clinically in this field.

Marilyn Campbell is a professor at the Queensland University of Technology. She is a registered teacher and psychologist. Previous to this, she supervised school counselors and has worked in infants, primary, and secondary schools. Her main research interests are anxiety disorders in young people and cyberbullying.

Kelly Wozencroft is a provisional psychologist practicing in Brisbane, Australia. She has recently completed a masters of psychology (educational and developmental) at the Queensland University of Technology. She has a passion for child and adolescent psychology and hopes to embark on a long and fulfilling clinical career.

Eliza Leong is a provisional psychologist practicing in Singapore. She recently completed a masters of psychology (educational and developmental) at the Queensland University of Technology. Previous to this, she was a teacher in Singapore. She enjoys working with children and parents and hopes to continue supporting children with psychosocial difficulties.

Melanie Kimpton is a provisional psychologist who has recently completed a master of psychology (educational and developmental) at Queensland University of Technology. She is currently working in the training and education of counselors. Her interests include education, positive psychology, and health.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020T

Aldwin

C. M.

(2007). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY. Guildford Press.

Aricak

Siyahhan

Uzunhasanoglu

Saribeyoglu

Ciplak

Yilmaz

Memmedov

(2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish youth. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 253-261. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0016

Bauman

Toomey

R. B.

Walker

J. L.

(2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 341-350. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001

Campbell

Spears

Slee

Butler

Kift

(2012). Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 389-401. doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704316

Cassidy

Brown

K. N.

Jackson

(2012). “Under the radar”: Educators and cyberbullying in schools. School Psychology International, 33, 520-532. doi:10.1177/0143034312445245

Cassidy

Faucher

Jackson

(2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and applications to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34, 575-612. doi:10.1177/0143034313479697

Cassidy

Jackson

Brown

K. N.

(2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyberbullying. School Psychology International, 30, 383-402. doi:10.1177/0143034309106948

Coker

Smith

McKeown

King

(2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553-559.

10.

Compas

B. E.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Saltzman

Thomsen

A. H.

Wadsworth

M. E.

(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87-127. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.87

11.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Compas

B. E.

Wadsworth

M. E.

Thomsen

A. H.

Saltzman

(2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976-992. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976

12.

Davidson

Demaray

(2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing–externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36, 383-405.

13.

Dehue

Bolman

Vollink

(2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11, 217-223. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0008

14.

Dooley

J. J.

Gradinger

Strohmeier

Cross

Spiel

(2010). Cybervictimisation: The association between help-seeking behaviours and self reported emotional symptoms in Australia and Austria. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 194-209. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.194

15.

Frydenberg

(2008). Adolescent coping: Advances in theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 253-266. doi:10.1006/jado.1993.1024

17.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(2000). Teaching coping to adolescents: When and to whom? American Educational Research Journal, 37, 727-745. doi:10.3102/00028312037003727

18.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89-112. doi:10.1300/J202v06n03_06

19.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviours among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 711 722. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4

20.

Hoff

D. L.

Mitchell

S. N.

(2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 652-665. doi:10.1108/09578230910981107

21.

Juvonen

Gross

E. F.

(2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496-505. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x

22.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping, New York, NY: Springer.

23.

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

24.

MacDonald

C. D.

Roberts-Pittman

(2010). Cyberbullying among college students: Prevalence and demographic differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 2003 2009. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436

25.

Machmutow

Perren

Sticca

Alasker

F. D.

(2012). Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 403-420. doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704310

26.

Mitchell

K. J.

Ybarra

Finkelhor

(2007). The relative importance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency and substance use. Child Maltreatment, 12, 314-324. doi:10.1177/1077559507305996

27.

Parris

Varjas

Meyers

Cutts

(2012). High school students’ perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44, 284-306. doi:10.1177/0044118X11398881

28.

Paul

Smith

P. K.

Blumberg

H. H.

(2012). Revisiting cyberbullying in schools using the quality circle approach. School Psychology International, 33,492-504. doi:10.1177/0143034312445243

29.

Perren

Corcoran

Cowie

Dehue

Garcia

McGurkin

. . . Vollink

(2012). Tackling cyberbullying: Review of empirical evidence regarding successful responses by students, parents, and schools. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6, 283-293.

30.

Price

Dalgleish

(2010). Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia, 29, 51 59.

31.

Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallet

(2012). Revisiting the whole school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33, 263-284. doi:10.1177/0143034311415906

32.

Schenk

A. M.

Fremouw

W. J.

(2012). Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of cyberbullying victims among college students. Journal of School Violence, 11, 21-37. doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.630310

33.

Skinner

E. A.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2007). The development of coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 119-144. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085705

34.

Slonje

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi:10.1111/j.14679450.2007.00611.x

35.

Smith

P. K.

Mahdavi

Carvalho

Fisher

Russell

Tippett

(2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385. doi:10.1111/j.14697610.2007.01846.x

36.

Smith

P. K.

Shu

(2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193-212. doi:10.1177/0907568200007002005

37.

Sticca

Perren

(2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 739-750. doi:10.1007/s10964 012-9867-3

38.

Tenenbaum

L. S.

Varjas

Meyer

Parris

(2011). Coping strategies and perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 32, 263-287. doi:10.1177/0143034311402309

39.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimisation. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277 87. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014

40.

Vollink

Bolman

C. A. W.

Dehue

Jacobs

N. C. L.

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

41.

Walker

C. M.

Rajan Sockman

Koehn

(2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying with undergraduate university students. TechTrends, 55, 31-38. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0481-0

42.

Wensley

Campbell

(2012). Heterosexual and non-heterosexual young university students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 649-654. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0132

43.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

(2011). Review: The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1-17. doi:10.1177/0165025410384923