Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
To date, relatively little is known about differences between perpetrators and victims of cyber and traditional forms of aggression. Hence, this study investigated differences among traditional and cyber aggressors and victims on psychosocial characteristics typically examined in research on traditional aggression and victimization, specifically effortful control, manipulativeness, remorselessness, proactive and reactive aggression, and anxious/depressive symptoms. Participants (N = 300; 63.2% female; M age = 12.89, SD = .95; 52% Caucasian, 27% African American, 11% Latino, and 10% other) were categorized based on aggressor type (non/low aggressor, traditional-only, cyber-only, and combined traditional and cyber) and victim type (non-victim, traditional-only, cyber-only, and combined traditional and cyber). Cyber aggressors reported lower levels of reactive aggression compared to traditional-only and combined aggressors. Combined aggressors demonstrated the poorest psychosocial profile compared to all other aggressor groups. For victimization, cyber-only and combined victims reported higher levels of reactive aggression and were more likely to be cyber aggressors themselves compared to traditional-only victims and non-victims. Findings suggest that there may be unique aspects about cyber aggression and victimization that warrant further investigation.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Manual for the youth self-report and 2001 profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blauuw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp. 131–158). The Hague: Elsevier.
Clemans, K. H., & Sontag, L. M. (2009). Characteristics of adolescent aggressors: Peer vs. individual approaches. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyber Psychology and Behavior,11, 217–233.
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in youth. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719–788). New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., Rieiser, M., et al. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology,45, 988–1008. PubMedCrossRef
Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001, April). Revision of the early adolescent temperament questionnaire. Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Graber, J. A., & Sontag, L. M. (2009). Internalizing problems during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 642–682). New York: Wiley.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior,29, 129–156. CrossRef
Hoffman, J. (2010). Online bullies pull schools into the fray. The New York Times, pp. A1, A12.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the victims? Journal of Media Psychology,21, 25–36.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx.
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J. (2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine,158, 730–736. CrossRef
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology,15, 263–280. CrossRef
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,4, 148–169. CrossRef
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology,28, 191–193. CrossRef
Vandenbosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology and Behavior,11, 499–503. CrossRef
- Traditional and Cyber Aggressors and Victims: A Comparison of Psychosocial Characteristics
Lisa M. Sontag
Katherine H. Clemans
Julia A. Graber
Sarah T. Lyndon
- Springer US