The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Research and Theory on Human Development

ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

The Role of Parental Mediation and Peer Norms on

the Likelihood of Cyberbullying

Hagit Sasson & Gustavo Mesch

To cite this article: Hagit Sasson & Gustavo Mesch (2016): The Role of Parental Mediation
and Peer Norms on the Likelihood of Cyberbullying, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330

Published online: 08 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20

Download by: [La Trobe University] Date: 10 July 2016, At: 00:05
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
, VOL. , NO. ,
http://dx.doi.org/./..

The Role of Parental Mediation and Peer Norms on the Likelihood of

Cyberbullying
Hagit Sasson and Gustavo Mesch
Department of Sociology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cyberbullying is a disturbing behavior associated with the use of communica- Received September
tion technologies among adolescents. Many studies have been devoted to the Accepted May
activities of cyber victims as risk factors, while others have considered parental
KEYWORDS
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

mediation a protective factor. However, there is a paucity of studies investigat- cyberbullying; cyber-victims;
ing the joint contribution of parental mediation, peer norms and risky online parental mediation; peer
activities to the likelihood of being bullied on the Internet. To fill this gap, we norms
conducted a study among a representative sample of 495 sixth to eleventh
grade adolescents. We measured risky behavior online with items indicating
the frequency of posting personal details, sending an insulting message and
meeting face-to-face with a stranger met online. Respondents reported their
perceptions about their peers. attitudes toward these risky online behaviors.
We also measured three types of parental mediation: active guidance, restric-
tive supervision and non-intervention. Binary logistic regression findings show
that risky online behaviors and peer norms regarding these behaviors had a
significant effect, suggesting that the likelihood of being bullied on the Inter-
net is associated with both risky behavior online and the norms prevalent
within the adolescents. peer group. Restrictive supervision had a significant
effect, implying that parents who feel their children are being bullied online
may increase their oversight. The results emphasize the critical role of peers
and the declining influence of parents in adolescence.

Most teens in Western societies use the Internet to communicate with known or unknown individu-
als through online social network sites. According to a recent Israeli study of young people, 91% use
online social network sites, 71% send or receive instant messages, 33% participate in chat rooms, and
29% visit forums (Sasson, Erez, & Elgali, 2012). Together with positive outcomes, Internet use might
expose adolescents to risks such as aggressive and hostile interactions with peers and adults (Subrah-
manyam & Smahel, 2011). Therefore, given its potentially negative effects on young peoples well-being,
it is not surprising that concern about the Internets potential for cyberbullying has been rapidly growing
among researchers, parents and educators (Navarro, Serna, Martnez, & Ruiz-Oliva, 2013). Cyber vic-
timization is associated with frustration, academic problems, social anxiety, depression and emotional
distress (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010; Ybarra, 2004).
Some studies have focused on the Internet activities that serve as risk factors for cyberbullying. Their
results indicate that victims of online aggression use the Internet more frequently (Juvonen & Gross,
2008; Ybarra & Mitchel, 2008), are more likely to have an active profile in social networking sites and
more likely to participate in chat rooms (Mesch, 2009). Adolescents who report disclosing personal infor-
mation to unknown others or giving their password to a friend are more likely to be online victims
(Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014).

CONTACT Gustavo Mesch gustavo@soc.haifa.ac.il Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Haifa, Har Hacarmel,
Haifa, , Israel.
Taylor & Francis
 2 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

Other studies focused on the role of parents in the use of media and their protective effect for cyber
victims. The results of these studies are mixed. Some indicate that using restrictive mediation strategies
such as setting rules and installing monitoring software helped reduce cyber victimization (Mesch, 2009;
Navarro et al., 2013). Others found no association between parents reports about setting rules about what
is allowed and parental knowledge as to whether their child had been a victim of cyberbullying (Dehue,
Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). Guiding strategies such as parents providing advice or participating in online
activities with their children had no effect on reducing online victimization (Navarro et al., 2013).
While many studies have focused on the online activities of cyber victims, the characteristics of those
subjected to cyberbullying and parental involvement, none of them considered peer group norms regard-
ing risky online behavior as a risk factor for cyber victimization. This is surprising, because adolescence
is a developmental period of intense social interactions within ones peer group, which serves as the ref-
erence group for young people. The beliefs and activities of ones peer group have a strong influence on
adolescents behaviors (Baumgartner, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2011). Young people who believe that their
peers encourage involvement in risky online behavior will be prone to be involved in such behavior them-
selves and to increase their chances of becoming cyber victims. For this reason the goal of this study is
to investigate the differential contribution of online activities, parental mediation and peer norms to
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

cyber victimization. To accomplish this goal, we used a representative sample of young people and data
obtained through an online survey to investigate the joint contribution of these three factors to the odds
of becoming a victim of online bullying.

Gender, age, online activities, and cyber victimization

Gender and age have been identified as risk factors for cyberbullying, but the findings with regard to
the former are inconclusive. Some studies report that girls are more likely than boys to be online victims
(Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Li, 2007; Navarro et al., 2013). For example, Li found that
almost 60% of cyber victims are girls. Smith et al. (2008) conducted two different studies among students.
While the first study indicated that girls are more likely to become online victims, the second study found
no statistically significant differences between girls and boys with regard to this phenomenon. Another
study strengthens the findings of the last study, because it too found no gender differences in online
victimization (Lapidot-Lefler & Dolev-Cohen, 2014).
Regarding age, several studies determined that the chance of being an online victim increases with
age (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). However, these studies focused on middle school students (1015 years
old) and failed to corroborate the findings with high school students. In contrast, in their sample of 12
20-year-olds, Slonje and Smith (2007) established an inverse relationship between age and victimization.
Others found that cyber victimization reaches the highest point in Grade 8 and declines in high school
(Williams & Guerra, 2007).
Another important factor that might increase the odds of being a cyber victim is Internet activities.
According to the lifestyle routine activities theory of victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979), differences
in the likelihood of victimization are related to differences in the lifestyle of the victims (Mesch, 2009). In
other words, the theory provides an explanation of how everyday activities might expose adolescents to
risk (Felson, 2002). From this perspective, the Internet, which is considered a major venue for interacting
with known and unknown individuals among teens, can provide opportunities for cyber victimization.
As various studies have documented, adolescents use the Internet daily for a variety of activities:
searching for information via webpages or forums, searching for and posting pictures and video clips,
disclosing personal information, interacting with known or unknown individuals, and playing games
(Livingstone, 2007; Mesch, 2007, 2009). These activities differ in the extent to which they expose them to
the risk of being bullied. Following this argument, some studies found that frequent Internet use increases
the risk of being a cyber victim (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchel, 2008). A more recent study
revealed that both frequent and risky use of the Internet was a significant predictor of cyber victimization.
Risky use was assessed as sharing personal information and inviting or accepting an invitation to meet
face to face with a person met online (Erdur-Baker, 2010). Furthermore, disclosing personal information
appears to be a risky activity in other studies as well. Mesch (2009) found that adolescents who are willing
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 3

to disclose more personal information are at greater risk of victimization than those less willing to do so.
Therefore, he suggested that participating in activities that encourage providing personal information
puts one at greater risk of online bullying. Koutamanis, Vossen, and Valkenburg (2015) offered addi-
tional support for this contention by showing that adolescents engaged in risky online self-presentation
are more likely to receive negative peer feedback.
Indeed, studies provide solid evidence for the occurrence of aggressive behavior in chat rooms (Juvo-
nen & Gross, 2008; Mesch, 2009; Ybarra & Mitchel, 2008). Although engaging in chat rooms is a less
popular activity among teens, it is one of the most common places where interpersonal victimization
occurs (Ybarra & Mitchel, 2008). As other research documented, another dangerous arena is instant
messaging (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008). In a recent study 32% reported being
offended via ICQ, instant messages and Facebook, and 11% by SMS messages (Heiman, Olenik-Shemesh,
& Eden, 2014).

Parental mediation and cyberbullying

Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

As several studies have noted, adolescents spend a large amount of their time looking at their com-
puter screens and smartphones, usually in the privacy of their bedrooms. This situation makes it more
difficult for parents to supervise and control their activities. According to the routine activities theory,
guardianship (the use of protective activities or the presence of people who can prevent a crime from
taking place) is a key element in preventing crime (Mesch, 2009). Given that the Internet has become a
major space for the social activity of youngsters, the absence of responsible adults in their activities can
have negative outcomes for children. Parents adopt various mediation strategies in an attempt to mon-
itor their childrens activities. The term parental mediation was originally used in TV media research.
In the context of the Internet, this term refers to everything parents do to protect their children from
online risks (Livingstone, 2007). Studies suggest different typologies of online parental mediation (Kir-
wil, 2009; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Lwin, Stanaland, & Miyazaki, 2008). These typologies converge
into two main strategies: restrictive mediation and instructive mediation. Restrictive mediation refers
to rules and restrictions designed to limit childrens exposure to content and social interactions (Kirwil,
2009). It includes using technological means for blocking inappropriate websites and tracking browsing
history (Eastin, Greenberg, & Hofschire, 2006), and restricting social interactions by setting rules and
checking the childrens activities in an open or covert manner (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). In contrast,
instructive mediation refers to parents efforts to guide their children about Internet use, advising and
helping them learn how to behave online and recommending appropriate websites (Lee & Chae, 2007).
Additional strategies less documented in the research literature are nonintervention mediation, meaning
that parents neither monitor their childrens activities nor guide them. In the digital space where strong
computer skills are needed, some parents might not track their childrens activities because they lack the
competencies needed to do so.
Only a few studies have addressed the issue of parental mediation and its effects on cyber victimiza-
tion (Navarro et al., 2013). Dehue and colleagues (2008) interviewed parents with children, and asked
about their house rules about the Internet and text messaging. They found that 60% of the parents set
rules about the frequency of Internet use and 80% set rules about what the children were allowed or not
allowed to do on the Internet. Nevertheless, many parents did not know that their child was a victim of
cyberbullying. These findings led the researchers to conclude that despite the rules the parents set, they
were not sufficiently aware of online bullying.
Mesch (2009) analyzed data from 935 teenagers 1217 years old and their parents. Parental media-
tion was measured with three items reflecting restrictive mediation strategies and three items reflecting
evaluative mediation strategies. Out of all the mediation techniques, only monitoring the web sites
visited by the youngsters (restrictive mediation) and the existence of rules about the sites that the
children were allowed to visit (evaluative mediation) reduced the risk of cyber victimization. Following
this work, Navarro et al. (2013) surveyed children about being cyberbullied, Internet use, and parental
mediation strategies. The results showed that monitoring software installed on the computer (restrictive
 4 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

mediation) and the joint creation of rules regarding the time spent online and personal information
shared (evaluative mediation) helped reduce the likelihood of online victimization.

Peer norms and cyberbullying

Adolescence is a period of major changes, including physical growth, the onset of sexual maturation, the
activation of new drives and motivations, and a wide range of social and affective changes (Forbes & Dahl,
2010). During this developmental stage, the peer group plays an important role in shaping adolescents
attitudes and actions (Erikson, 1968), which can sometimes lead to a deviation from acceptable social
norms (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). The desire to fit in with the peer group can drive adolescents to take
risks such as disclosing personal information, meeting face to face with strangers met on line or sending
insulting messages. The motivation to obey the prevailing social norms within the peer group is based on
fear of expulsion or negative reactions from the group (Real & Rimal, 2007), fear of shaming or ridicule,
the desire to demonstrate loyalty, and the desire to maintain status or rank, all characteristics of social
control methods (Warr, 2002).
The social norms theory suggests that peers have an influence on adolescents involvement in risky
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

behavior (Berkowitz, 2005) that is rooted in the teenagers beliefs about the norms that are prevalent
among their peers (Sasson & Mesch, 2014). Such norms may dictate expectations about types of media
use and how these media influence their friends attitudes and behavior. In a series of studies Baum-
gartner, Valkenburg, and Peter (2010, 2011) determined that adolescents who expected their friends
to engage in risky online sexual behavior were more prone to seek such activities themselves. The
researchers concluded that as in risky offline behavior, perceived peer involvement is an important pre-
dictor of risky behavior among adolescents.
The theory also posits that there are two types of social norms: descriptive norms and injuctive norms.
Descriptive norms are beliefs about what is actually done by most people in ones social group. These
norms imply that if one believes that everybody is engaging in a certain behavior, one is prompted to
engage in the same behavior himself (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Injunctive norms refer to beliefs about
the approval of a certain behavior by ones peers, namely, whether ones friends would approve or disap-
prove of this behavior (Baumgartner et al., 2010). A study that investigated the effect of peer norms on
engaging in cyberbullying found that adolescents who perceived negative social pressure from signifi-
cant others in their lives had fewer intentions of engaging in cyberbullying (Heirman & Walrave, 2012).
In the same vein, Pabian and Vandebosch (2013) conducted a longitudinal study among teens to test
which behavioral, normative and control beliefs are the best predictors of attitudes, subjective norms
and perceived behavior control with regard to cyberbullying. They found that perceived social pressure
to engage in cyberbullying along with beliefs about what their peers think and do underlies the subjec-
tive norms that directly influence the perpetration of cyberbullying. These results led the researchers to
conclude that for teenagers peers are indeed the most influential reference group.
In considering the influence of peers, parents and educators on cyberbullying behaviors, Hinduja and
Patchin (2013) determined that while perceptions of peers being involved in cyberbullying increased the
individuals involvement in cyberbullying, the belief that adults would punish them for such behavior
deterred it. Other studies focused on the classroom as a social reference group that had an effect on teens
offensive behavior. Class atmosphere had an impact on bullies and victims alike. The greater the number
of students engaged in cyberbullying, the more likely that everyone in the class would become a cyber
bully or cyber victim (Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2013).
Despite these studies that have established the extensive influence of peer norms on adolescents
behavior, the literature has little research about the effect of the norms of teenagers peers on their engage-
ment in risky online behavior that may lead to cyber victimization.

Present study
In this study we considered the complex relations between parents and peers as a factor that might be
associated with the likelihood of cyber victimization. As the previous literature demonstrates, most of
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 5

the research addresses only some of the factors that might affect becoming a victim of cyberbullying,
providing only a partial perspective on this subject. Some studies investigated parental mediation, ado-
lescence activities, and their effects on cyber victimization (Dehue et al., 2008; Mesch, 2009; Navarro
et al., 2013) but overlooked peer norms. Other studies assessed Internet use and activities, but ignored
the role of parents and peers in the likelihood of becoming a cyber victim (e.g., Erdur-Baker, 2010; Juvo-
nen & Gross, 2008). Finally, other scholars focused on the influence of peer norms as a motivating factor
for engaging in cyberbullying, but neglected the peer norms associated with risky online behaviors and
parental mediation (Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2013). The innovation of the
present study is the simultaneous test of the association between all of these variables and cyberbullying
in a single study. In addition, we focus on the role of social norms, which previous research has demon-
strated play an important role in explaining involvement in risky activities but have not been considered
in other studies on cyberbullying.
Based on the literature presented, we posited that:

Hypothesis 1: Girls would be more involved in cyberbullying as victims than boys.

Hypothesis 2: Older adolescents would be less likely to become cyber victims than younger adolescents.
Hypothesis 3: Frequent use of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, and forums would increase
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

the odds of being an online victim.

Hypothesis 4: Engagement in risky online behavior would increase the likelihood of becoming a cyber
victim.
Hypothesis 5: Parental mediation through restrictions would reduce the odds of cyberbullying, because
it allows parents to control their childrens activities and intervene if something is wrong. Parental
mediation through guidance would reduce the odds of being cyber bullied because it provides chil-
dren with knowledge about how to protect themselves.
Hypothesis 6: Parental mediation through nonintervention would increase the likelihood of becoming
a cyber victim, because the lack of parental presence might expose children to more risks.
Hypothesis 7: Peers injunctive norms would be positively associated with online victimization. The
stronger the perception that the norms of peer support engaging in risky online activities, the greater
the odds of being a victim of online bullying.

Method
We collected data from students in Grades 611 in 13 different schools in a large city in Israel. The
research ethics committee of the Ministry of Education reviewed and approved the proposed study. Par-
ents were sent a letter informing them about the purpose of the survey and requesting permission for
their children to participate in it. Those whose parents objected to their participation were not included
in the study. Participants responded to an anonymous online survey that was administered in the schools
computer lab in privacy. In the case of sensitive questions as in this study, an online survey is preferable
to paper and pencil surveys because it minimizes missing data (Wood, Nosko, Desmarais, Ross, & Irvine,
2006). The survey included 130 questions and took 45 min on average to complete.
The survey sample was unique and had several advantages. First, it was comprised of students from
regular schools as well as students from schools for children who drop out of other schools. Second,
it included students from the last year of elementary school, junior high school and high school, so,
unlike other studies that focused on junior high school students, it covered all of the stages of education.
Third, it included students from secular schools as well as students from religious schools. Fourth, the
sample contained students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, the large number
of schools (13) selected for the sample were located in different geographical areas of the city. Thus, our
sample was diverse and representative of the student population in the city in many relevant aspects,
providing a reliable measurement of the investigated phenomena.
A total of 495 youngsters 1018 years old (girls = 229, boys = 266) were included in the analyses
(M age = 13.83 years, SD = 1.86 years). The sample was designed to contain a similar number of stu-
dents from each grade level. As planned, 14.7% were in Grade 6, 17.4% in Grade 7, 14.7% in Grade 8,
 6 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

16.4% in Grade 9, 18.0% in Grade 10, and 18.8% in Grade 11. As mentioned previously, the sample was
representative of the student population attending the schools in a large city in the central part of Israel.

Measures
Age and gender
Participants indicated their age and gender. Age was measured as a continuous variable, and gender was
introduced in the analysis as a dummy variable (boys = 1, girls = 0).

Cyberbullying
We measured this variable in two steps. First, the participants were asked to read a short paragraph
presenting a general definition of bullying behavior adapted from the research questionnaire of European
Union (EU) Kids Online (2010). We assessed cyber victimization in several stages. In the first stage the
children were asked if in the last year anyone had behaved toward him/her in an insulting or damaging
way. Children who answered yes were then asked if this behavior happened online, face to face, or over the
phone. Those who responded that it happened online were coded as cyber victims and received a value of
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

one. All other respondents were classified as noncyber victims and received a value of zero. Measuring
bullying and obtaining a reliable estimate is challenging. There are rapid changes in technologies (Smith,
2015), meaning that adults and children may ascribe different meanings to the concept of bullying. We
addressed this issue by providing an explicit and comprehensive definition that included various forms of
bullying behavior. Additionally, in contrast to some studies that used a single direct question to measure
cyber victimization, we adopted a two-step method that minimized the issue of misunderstanding the
question, providing a more solid and precise measurement of cyber victimization.

Risky online behavior

We measured risky online behavior with an item asking the respondents to indicate the frequency with
which they had engaged in three online behaviors in the past year. Likert-type scale responses ranged
from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). Items included sending an insulting message, posting personal details,
and meeting face-to-face with a stranger they had met online. Factor analysis (varimax rotation) indi-
cated that the items belonged to a single factor. Items were combined into a single scale by adding the
scores of the individual items (Cronbachs alpha = .81).

Time online
We assessed exposure to online activities using a number of variables. Time online was measured with an
item that asked the respondents to indicate their frequency of Internet use in minutes during an average
day. The variable was introduced into the multivariate analysis as a continuous variable.

Exposure to online activities

Internet activities were measured with items that asked the respondents to indicate whether in the last
month they had participated in an open chat room, an open online forum, or used IM to communicate
with others. Variables were introduced as dummy variables in the multivariate analysis with 1 indicating
use in the last month and 0 indicating nonuse.

Parental mediation
We measured this concept using three scales adapted from EU Kids Online (ONeill & McLaughlin,
2010).

Parental mediation through guidance

This scale contained six items. Respondents were asked to indicate whether their parents provided help
in using the Internet, explained about sites that were not recommended for children, suggested ways
to use the Internet safely, recommended how to behave with strangers online, helped when something
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 7

bothered them online, and indicated what to do when something disturbed them online. More precisely,
the participants were asked:
Have either of your parents ever done any of the following things with you? 1) Helped you when something is
difficult to do or find on the Internet; 2) Explained why some websites are good or bad; 3) Suggested ways to use the
Internet safely; 4) Suggested ways to behave toward other people online; 5) Helped you in the past when something
has bothered you on the Internet; 6) In general, talked to you about what you would do if something on the Internet
ever bothered you.

Each item was coded as a dummy variable, with yes responses coded as 1 and no responses as 0. The
items were combined into a single scale (Cronbachs alpha = .84) by summing the items.

Parental mediation through supervision

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their parents checked their emails or IM
accounts, their Facebook profile, their IM or Facebook contact list (i.e., When you use the Internet
at home, do either of your parents sometimes check any of the following things: The messages in your
email or instant messaging account; your profile on a social network or online community; which friends
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

or contacts you add to your social networking profile or instant messaging service?), and installed soft-
ware on their computer that blocked nonrecommended sites, recorded sites that were visited, and limited
the amount of time they could use the Internet (i.e., As far as you know, do your parents make use of
any of the following for the computer that you use most often at home? Parental controls or other means
of blocking or filtering some types of websites; parental controls or other means of keeping track of the
websites you visit; a service or contract that limits the time you spend on the Internet?). The six items
were introduced as dummy variables coded 1 for a positive response and 0 for a negative response. These
answers were combined into a single scale by adding the responses to the items (Cronbachs alpha = .73).

Parental mediation through nonintervention

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their parents allowed to them to freely use IM,
download music and video clips from the Internet, watch video clips on the Internet, have a personal
profile on Facebook, post personal information and upload personal pictures and clips online (e.g., Do
your parents currently let you do the following whenever you want: Use instant messaging; download
music or films on the Internet; watch video clips on the Internet; have your own social networking profile;
give out personal information to others on the Internet; upload photos, videos or music to share with
others?). The answers were coded into two categories: 1 (allowed all the time) and 0 (do not allow me).
Responses were combined into a single scale by summing the responses to the items (Cronbachs alpha
= .84).

Peers injunctive norms

We measured this variable using a scale that combined the responses to three items indicating the extent
of agreement with the statements: (a) Most of my friends think it is OK to post personal details online,
(b) Most of my friends think it is OK to send an offensive message to somebody, and (c) Most of my
friends think it is OK to meet face-to-face with a stranger they met online. Using factor analysis (varimax
rotation), we found that the items belonged to a single factor and were able to combine the responses
into a single scale of standardized scores (Cronbachs alpha = .76).

Results
Our data revealed that 10% of the participants reported being victims of cyberbullying in the last
12 months. Comparing this finding to a study conducted among 25 European countries (ONeill &
McLaughlin, 2010) shows that only four countries in Europe reported slightly higher rates of cyber vic-
timization (1114%; Livingstone, Haddon, Grzig, & lafsson, 2011), placing Israel among the countries
with higher rates of cyber victimization.
 8 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

Table . Descriptive statistics.

M SD Min Max

Age (years) . .
Time online (minutes on average per day) . .
Risky online behavior . .
Parental mediationguidance . .
Parental mediationsupervision . .
Parental mediationnonintervention . .
Perceptions about friends norms . .

Table . Statistics for the dierences between victims and noncyber victims.

Cyber victims (n = ) Noncyber victims (n = )

M (SD) M (SD) T-Value

Gender . (.) . (.) .

Age . (.) . (.) .
Time online . (.) . (.) .
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

Risky online behavior . (.) . (.) .

Visiting chat room . (.) . (.) .
Using instant messaging . (.) . (.) .
Participant in forums . (.) . (.) .
Parental mediationguidance . (.) . (.) .
Parental mediationsupervision . (.) . (.) .
Parental mediationnonintervention . (.) . (.) .
Perceptions about friends norms . (.) . (.) .

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation. p ., p .

The descriptive statistics revealed that 54% of the participants were boys, 46% girls. The average age
was 14 years old and the average time online on a regular day was about 2 hr. Regarding Internet activities,
IM use was the most popular (69% used it in the last month), followed by chat rooms (33%) and forums
(30%). Table 1 provides the findings with regard to other descriptive statistics.
Table 2 presents the results for a means comparison and t-test statistics between victims and non
cyber victims relative to the studys variables. As the table shows, we did find statistically significant
differences based on gender, suggesting that a higher percent of girls than boys reported being victims
of cyberbullying. In terms of online activities, we established three statistically significant differences.
First, victims of cyberbullying spent more time online than noncyber victims. Second, a higher per-
centage of victims of cyberbullying used instant messaging than noncyber victims. Third, victims of
online bullying were more likely than noncyber victims to engage in risky online behaviors such as
disclosing personal information, sending insulting messages and meeting face to face with strangers met
online. We did not uncover any statistically significant differences based on activities such as visiting chat
rooms and participating in forums. With regard to the three types of parental mediation, two differences
emerged. The average for parental mediation through guidance was higher for cyberbullying victims
than noncyber victims. Similarly, the average for parental mediation through supervision was higher
for cyberbullying victims than noncyber victims. Regarding injunctive norms, online victims reported
that their friends were generally more supportive of disclosing personal information, sending insulting
messages and meeting face to face with strangers met online than noncyber victims.
In order to test the studys hypotheses, we conducted a multivariate analysis using logistic regression
modeling because the dependent variablecyber victimizationwas a dummy variable (see Table 3).
The multivariate findings are presented in four models. The first model presents the results for gender
and age. In the second model we added measures for the variables related to Internet activitiestime
online, risky online behaviors, and online exposure (chat rooms, instant messaging, and forums). In
model 3, we added measures for the dimensions of parental mediation, and in model 4, peers injuctive
norms were added to the previous variables.
The results indicate that the odds of online victimization are higher for girls than boys, as Hypothesis 1
expected, but not for youngsters or older teens as Hypothesis 2 predicted. Contrary to our expectations
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 9

Table . Odds of being a victim of cyberbullying (N = ).

Variables B SE B Exp(B) % CI Model Nagelkerke R

Model 1 = . , df = .
Gender . . . [., .]
Age . . . [., .]
Constant . . .
Model 2 = . , df = .
Gender . . . [., .]
Age . . . [., .]
Time online . . . [., .]
Risky online behavior . . . [., .]
Visiting chat room . . . [., .]
Using instant messaging . . . [., .]
Participant in forums . . . [., .]
Constant . . .
Model 3 . , df = .
Gender . . . [., .]
Age . . . [., .]
Time online . . . [., .]
Risky online behavior . . . [., .]
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

Visiting chat room . . . [., .]

Using instant messaging . . . [., .]
Participant in forums . . . [., .]
Parental mediationsupervision . . . [., .]
Parental mediationguidance . . . [., .]
Parental mediationnonintervention . . . [., .]
Constant . . .
Model 4 . , df = .
Gender . . . [., .]
Age . . . [., .]
Time online . . . [., .]
Risky online behavior . . . [., .]
Visiting chat room . . . [., .]
Using instant messaging . . . [., .]
Participant in forums . . . [., .]
Parental mediationsupervision . . . [., .]
Parental mediationguidance . . . [., .]
Parental mediationnonintervention . . . [., .]
Peers injunctive norms . . . [., .]
Constant . . .

Note. p ., p .

in Hypothesis 3, online activities (time online, chat rooms, forums, and instant messaging) exhibited
no significant association with online victimization, indicating that teens who are exposed to different
activities online are no more or less likely to be victims of cyberbullying than those who are not exposed
to these activities.
Hypothesis 4 posited that risky behavior online would be associated with online victimization. The
findings provided strong support for this contention. Adolescents who disclose more private information
online, send frequent insulting messages and meet face to face with strangers met online are at higher
risk of online victimization than adolescents who are less involved in these behaviors.
In step three, we added the parental mediation variables to the model. According to Hypothesis 5,
we expected that parental mediation through supervision or guidance would reduce the risk of online
victimization, whereas parental mediation through nonintervention would increase the risk of online
victimization (Hypothesis 6). Our findings did not support these hypotheses. Parental mediation through
guidance or through nonintervention was not statistically significant, meaning that regardless of whether
parents provide guidance to their children or do not control their activities, these actions have no effect
on the odds of their children becoming online victims. On the other hand, parents efforts to control
their childrens activities by technological means or by checking their emails, IM accounts, or Facebook
 10 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

profile were positively associated with the odds of online victimization. Perhaps, parents who feel that
something is bothering their children seek proof to confirm their suspicions.
Finally, our findings support Hypothesis 7, which expected a positive association between perceptions
about peers injuctive norms and cyber victimization. The perception that ones peers support disclosing
private information, meeting face to face with strangers met online and sending insulting messages are
more prevalent in teens who are susceptible to cyberbullying than in those who are not. This finding
implies that online victimization is connected to the social norms about risky behaviors online inherent
in the peer group.
To sum, our findings point to three important risk factors for cyber victimizationrisky online behav-
iors, peers injunctive norms, and gender.

Discussion
Previous studies have established that cyber victimization has negative outcomes for adolescents well-
being. Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have investigated the joint effect of Internet activities, peers
injuctive norms, and parental mediation on online victimization. Doing so is important because such
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

information can deepen our understanding of the complex association between various risk factors
and cyber victimization. During adolescence, parents and friends, two important social agents, can play
opposite roles. Whereas parents seek to protect their children, friends try to challenge acceptable behav-
iors (Sasson & Mesch, 2014). Restrictive parental mediation strategies, setting rules on sites that the
children are allowed to visit and installing monitoring software can reduce the odds of being a cyber
victim (Mesch, 2009; Navarro et al., 2013). Our findings suggested that not all types of parental media-
tion were related to cyber victimization. Contrary to our expectations, social and technical supervision
by parents was more prevalent among adolescents who reported being a cyber victim than among those
who were not. This finding might imply that parents who sense something is wrong try to confirm their
feelings by checking their childrens emails, IM accounts, Facebook profiles or installing software that
records the sites that were visited.
Furthermore, we can only assume that cyber victims do not share their negative experience with
their parents. Dehue et al. (2008) provided support for this assumption by showing that although most
parents supervised their childrens online activities, they did not know that their child was a victim of
cyberbullying. One explanation for this phenomenon is that during the transition from childhood to
adolescence children try to achieve personal autonomy. Parental supervision is considered an invasion
of the childs autonomy (Sasson & Mesch, 2014) and may actually discourage adolescents from sharing
their experience with their parents. Additionally, the desire to be independent that is common in this
developmental phase can lead teens not to share negative experiences with their parents. Other reasons
are the fear that computer privileges will be taken away, the belief that adults would not be able to find
evidence of the cyberbullying or identify the aggressor, and the fear that telling would exacerbate the
cyberbullying (Mishna, Saini, & Solomon, 2009).
Gender is considered a risk factor for cyberbullying, but the picture created in various studies is incon-
sistent. Our findings suggested that the odds of girls being cyber victims are higher than those of boys.
This finding is consistent with some recent studies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Navarro et al., 2013), but
does not accord with the EU Kids Online report that did not indicate differences in cyber victimiza-
tion based on gender (Livingstone et al., 2011). One frequent explanation for this finding focuses on the
characteristics of the technology involved. Cyberbullying is considered an indirect form of aggression,
more frequent among girls both as perpetrators and as victims (Kowalski et al., 2014). This perspective
provides some clarification of our findings. Finally, we found no significant differences based on age. We
can assume that the indirect communication that the Internet facilitates allows adolescents to continue
with online bullying until an older age. This assumption is supported by the increasing rates of cyber
victims 1116 years old (Smith et al., 2008).
Our study also explored the relationships between Internet activities and cyber victimization. The
theory of lifestyle routine activities posits that everyday activities influence the individuals exposure
to risk. Our results support this approach, confirming that risky online behaviors (disclosing personal
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 11

information, sending insulting messages, and meeting face to face with strangers met online) increase
the odds of being cyberbullied. These findings also accord with the work of Erdur-Baker (2010) showing
that risky use of the Internet predicted cyber victimization. Adolescence is a period in life characterized
by impulsive behavior due to cognitive and physiological changes (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008; Gibbons,
Kingsbury, & Gerrard, 2012). Unlike adults, adolescents tend to prefer short-term benefits even if the
risk is high, a pattern that contributes to impulsive decisions about engaging in risky behavior (Gibbons
et al., 2012). Such an attitude can result in the types of behavior that lead to being bullied. Contrary
to our expectations, chat rooms and IM activities neither increase nor decrease the chances of being
bullied, implying that the arenas of activity are not as important as the behavior itself. Furthermore,
previous studies show that in most cases of cyberbullying the identity of the aggressor is known to the
victim (Lapidot-Lefler & Dolev-Cohen, 2014). Since most of the interactions in chat rooms are between
strangers (Subrahmanyam & Smahel, 2011), it is not surprising that visiting them does not increase the
odds of being an online victim.
In addition, our results indicate that adolescents who fall victim to cyberbullying believe that their
friends approve of engagement in risky online activities. Therefore, it is possible that the social norms
prevailing in the peer group motivate adolescents to believe that disclosing private information, meeting
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

face to face with strangers met online and sending insulting messages are acceptable behaviors, prompt-
ing them to behave in that manner themselves. Sasson and Mesch (2014) provide additional support for
this contention by establishing that teens who engage in risky online activities believe that their friends
approve of such behavior. As documented in other studies, involvement in such behaviors increases the
odds of becoming online victims (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Festl et al., 2013). This pattern might be connected
to the norms prevalent in a social group (Li, 2007) or to the climate in the classroom. An aggressive
atmosphere in the latter not only seems to motivate students cyberbullying behavior, but also increases
the risk of victimization (Festl et al., 2013). Further research is needed to explore the social norms within
the peer group and their association with cyber victims.
Thus, our findings emphasize the importance of teens risky behavior online and the effect of peer
norms for cyber victimization. As the evidence indicates, during adolescence, peers become increasingly
important as an individuals main reference group, whereas parental influence declines.

Studys limitations
The findings of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, this study was
designed as a cross-sectional one and therefore does not allow us to infer causal associations. Lon-
gitudinal studies are needed to determine causality. Second, we assessed risky behavior online using
only three measures: sending an insulting message, posting personal details and meeting face to face
with a stranger met online. Although they provide a solid and reliable measure of the concept of risky
online behavior, studies that broaden the measures will provide more information. In addition, our
study was limited to online bullying only and does not provide information regarding bullying face to
face or bullying via the phone. Future researchers need to address simultaneously the three contexts of
victimization.

References
Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Assessing causality in the relationship between adolescents risky
sexual online behavior and their perceptions of this behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 12261239.
Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). The influence of descriptive and injunctive peer norms on ado-
lescents risky sexual online behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 00, 16.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. C. Lederman & L. P. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the
culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Casey, B. J, Jones, R. M, Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111
126.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological
Review, 44, 588608.
 12 H. SASSON AND G. MESCH

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vollink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: youngsters experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychol-
ogy & Behavior, 11, 217223.
Eastin, M. S., Greenberg, B. S., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Parenting the internet. Journal of Communication, 56, 486504.
Erdur-Baker, . (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of
internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12, 109125.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Festl, R., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Peer influence, internet use and cyberbullying: A comparison of different
context effects among German adolescents. Journal of Children and Media, 7, 446462.
Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Hormonal activation of social and motivational
tendencies. Brain and Cognition, 72, 6672.
Gibbons, F. X., Kingsbury, J. H., & Gerrard, M. (2012). Social-psychological theories and adolescent health risk behavior.
Social and Personality Compass, 6, 170183.
Heiman, T., Olenik-Shemesh, D., & Eden, S. (2014). Violence and vulnerability on the Internet: Charac-
teristics, patterns, risk factors and protective factors among children and adolescents. Retrieved from
http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/5B2E6358-A9D7-4F8B-83A2-E1F46CB4DF94/185400/Unnamed6.pdf
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Psicothema, 24, 614620.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school students.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 711722.

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School
Health Association, 78, 496505.
Kirwil, L. (2009). Parental mediation of childrens internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and
Media, 3, 394409.
Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Adolescents comments in social media: Why do adolescents
receive negative feedback and who is most at risk? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 486494.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health,
41, S22S30.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review
and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Dolev-Cohen, M. (2014). Comparing cyberbullying and school bullying among school students:
prevalence, gender, and grade level differences. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 116.
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 2, 127147.
Lee, S. J., & Chae, Y. G. (2007). Childrens Internet use in a family context: Influence on family relationships and parental
mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 640644.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777
1791.
Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media rich home. Computers and Human Behavior, 23, 920
941.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Grzig, A., & lafsson, K. (2011). Risk and safety on the Internet. The perspective of Euro-
pean children. Full findings. London, England: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental mediation and childrens Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 52, 581599.
Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting childrens privacy online: How parental mediation
strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84, 205217.
Mesch, G. S. (2007). Social diversification: A perspective for the study of social networks of adolescents offline and online.
In Grenzenlose Cyberwelt? (pp. 105117). Berlin, Germany: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 387393.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and offline: children and youths perceptions of cyber bullying. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, 31, 12221228.
Navarro, R., Serna, C., Martnez, V., & Ruiz-Oliva, R. (2013). The role of Internet use and parental mediation on cyberbul-
lying victimization among Spanish children from rural public schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
28, 725745.
ONeill, B, and McLaughlin, S. (2010). Recommendations on Safety Initiatives. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2013). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand cyberbullying: The importance
of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 463477.
Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: exploring the role of peer communication in the
theory of normative social behavior. Health Communication, 22, 169180.
Sasson, H., Erez, R., & Elgali, Z. (2012). Perceptions and attitudes toward risk behaviors, among adolescents.
http://www.holon.muni.il/Lists/List6/DispForm.aspx?ID=880
 THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY 13

Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers
in Human Behavior, 33, 3238.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2007). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49,
147154.
Smith, P. K. (2015). The nature of cyberbullying and what we can do about it. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 15, 176184.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in
secondary school pupils. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376385.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. New York, NY: Springer.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying
victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277287.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Williams, K., & Guerra, N. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, s14s21.
Wood, E., Nosko, A., Desmarais, S., Ross, C., & Irvine, C. (2006). Online and traditional paper-and-pencil survey admin-
istration: Examining experimenter presence, sensitive material and long surveys. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 15, 147.
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and internet harassment among young regular internet
users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 247257.
Downloaded by [La Trobe University] at 00:05 10 July 2016

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth
sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121, e350e357.