The current study tested the relation between culture and cyberbullying using a short-term longitudinal research design. College-aged participants from the United States (n = 293) and Japan (n = 722) completed several questionnaires at Wave 1 that measured cyberbullying frequency, cyberbullying reinforcement, positive attitudes toward cyberbullying, and interdependent self-construal. Approximately 2 months later, participants completed the cyberbullying frequency questionnaire again. Results showed higher levels of cyberbullying change for the U.S. sample compared with the Japanese sample. Follow-up analyses showed that cyberbullying reinforcement and interdependent self-construal moderated this effect. Specifically, cyberbullying change was the highest (showing an increase over time) for the U.S. sample when reinforcement was highest and when interdependent self-construal was the lowest. Theoretical implications are discussed.
AndersonC. A.BuckleyK. E.CarnageyN. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggression and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 462-473.
2.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
3.
AndersonC. A.HuesmannL. R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. In HoggM. A.CooperJ. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 296-323). London, England: SAGE.
4.
AngR. P.TanK.MansorA. T. (2010). Normative beliefs about aggression as a mediator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2619-2634.
5.
BarlettC. P.GentileD. A. (2012). Long-term psychological predictors of cyber-bullying in late adolescence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 123-135.
6.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
7.
BeranT.LiQ. (2006). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265-277.
8.
BeranT.LiQ. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 15-33.
9.
BergeronN.SchneiderB. H. (2005). Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed aggression: A quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 116-137.
10.
BoultonM.LloydJ.DownJ.MarxH. (2012). Predicting undergraduates’ self-reported engagement in traditional and cyberbullying from attitudes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 141-147.
11.
BuckleyK. E.AndersonC. A. (2006). A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. Chapter in VordererP.BryantJ. (Eds.), Playing Video Games - Motives, Responses, and Consequences (pp. 363-378). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
12.
CalveteE.OrueI.EstevezA.VillardonL.PadillaP. (2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128-1135.
13.
CetinB.YamanE.PekerA. (2011). Cyber victim and bullying scale: A study of validity and reliability. Computers & Education, 57, 2261-2271.
14.
Cost. (2012). COST ACTION IS0801 cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/costis0801/
15.
CrossS. E.MadsonL. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Erdur-BakerO. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12, 109-125.
18.
FantiK. A.DemetriouA. G.HawaV. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: Examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 168-181.
GentileD. A.AndersonC. A.YukawaS.IhoriN.SaleemM.MingL. K.. . . SakamotoA. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752-763.
21.
GentileD. A.SesmaA. (2003). Developmental approaches to understanding media effects on individuals. In GentileD. A. (Ed.), Media violence and children (pp. 19-37). Westport, CT: Praeger.
22.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.
23.
JoseP. E.KljakovicM.ScheibE.NotterO. (2012). The joint development of traditional bullying and victimization with cyber bullying and victimization in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 301-309.
24.
LiQ. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50, 223-234.
25.
MasudaT.NisbettR. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922-934.
26.
MesquitaB.LeuJ. (2007). The cultural psychology of emotion. In KitayamaS.CohenD. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 734-759). New York, NY: Guilford.
27.
OlweusD. (1999). Sweden. In SmithK.MoritaY.Junger-TasJ.OlweusD.CatalanoR.SleeP. (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7-27). New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169.
29.
PerrenS.DooleyJ.ShawT.CrossD. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 4, 28-38.
30.
RiversI.NoretN (2010). ‘I h 8 u’: Findings from a five-year study of text and email bullying. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 643-671.
31.
SevcikovaA.SmahelD. (2009). Online harassment and cyberbullying in the Czech republic. Journal of Psychology, 217, 227-229.
32.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
33.
SmithP. K.MahdaviJ.CarvalhoM.FisherS.RussellS.TippettN. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
34.
VandeboschH.Van CleemputK. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 499-503.
35.
YbarraM. L.Diener-WestM.LeafP. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 42-50.
36.
ZumboB. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
