511923

research-article2013
NMS0010.1177/1461444813511923new media & societyTanrıkulu et al.

Article

new media & society

Sensibility Development
2015, Vol. 17(5) 708­–719
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Program against sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461444813511923
Cyberbullying nms.sagepub.com

Taşkın Tanrıkulu and Hüseyin Kınay

Fatih University, Turkey

O Tolga Arıcak
Harvard University, USA

Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of the Sensibility Development Program
against Cyberbullying in raising awareness around cyberbullying and reducing cyberbullying
behaviors. The program specifically targeted adolescents who were at risk of exposure
to cyberbullying behaviors. For this study, an experimental design with a control group
was used (N = 18). The Cyberbullying Sensibility Scale (CBSS) was administered to the
experimental and the control groups before and after the program. The experimental group
also filled out the Cyberbullying Scale, which measured engagement with cyberbullying
behaviors. Statistical analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between
CBSS pre-and-post-test scores in the experimental group. No significant difference was
found for the control group, suggesting that the program was effective in helping students
develop a level of sensibility against cyberbullying. No significant difference was found
between pre-and-post-tests with respect to students’ engagement with cyberbullying
behaviors. The implications for prevention and intervention programs were discussed.

Keywords
Bullying awareness, cyberbullying, cybervictimization, prevention, sensibility

The Internet and mobile phones provide youth with opportunities for new and different
means of communication. However, the use of these devices in schools also causes seri-
ous problems (Wright et al., 2009), such as the rise of a new form of bullying behaviors

Corresponding author:
O Tolga Arıcak, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Email: oaricak@cyber.law.harvard.edu
Tanrıkulu et al. 709

that are known as cyberbullying (Baker and Kavşut, 2007). Cyberbullying includes mak-
ing anonymous calls using the Internet and mobile phones, disturbing others by sending
annoying short messages or pointless emails (spam), sending emails, short messages,
audio and video files and texts to threaten or vilify a group, and sending infected emails
(Arıcak, 2009).
Cyberbullying is defined as “the use of information and communication technologies
such as electronic mail, mobile phone, pager, short message service and web sites that
support deliberate, repeated and hostile behaviors by an individual or group that intend
to harm others” (Ang and Goh, 2010; Totan, 2007; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput, 2009;
Wright et al., 2009). In other words, cyberbullying is defined as “technical-oriented or
relational-oriented harmful behaviors towards a real person or a corporation by using
information and communication technologies” (Arıcak, 2011: 10). According to Arıcak
(2011) “There are two types of cyberbullying: Electronic bullying on the technical side,
e-communication bullying on the psychological side.” Electronic bullying consists of
technical activities such as sending infected emails, sending spam emails, hacking web
sites, and hunting down passwords of others on the Internet. It has a direct effect on
hardware and software and indirect effects on emotions. E-communication bullying con-
sists of relational aggressive behaviors such as teasing, name tagging, spreading rumors,
and insulting others on Internet. It affects the emotions directly.
Cyberbullying differs from traditional bullying in several ways. Firstly, those who
have a tendency to bully may engage in bullying behaviors without knowing that the
behaviors they engage are considered bullying. Secondly, in traditional bullying situa-
tions, bystanders are those who are physically present when bullying takes place and
know the bully and the victim, whereas in cyberbullying situations bystanders are those
who share the cyberspace with the bully and the victim, and who may or may not know
the bully and the victim. They may also learn about the bullying instance afterwards
through other technological means. Thirdly, sexuality can be used easily and more widely
in cyberbullying (Shariff, 2005). Finally, in traditional bullying situations, when the vic-
tim leaves school, they escape from the problem. However, in cyberbullying, there is no
“cyber field” to which the victim can escape (Strom and Strom, 2005).
Cyberbullying may lead to various mental health problems (Arıcak et al., 2008) in
cybervictims, such as depression, fear of people, avoiding technology and virtual envi-
ronments, using drugs, leaving school, and avoiding responsibilities (Mason, 2008;
Morales, 2011; Schneider et al., 2012). Cyberbullying is more common among boys than
girls and previous studies suggest that there is a positive correlation between exposure to
cyberbullying and engaging in bullying behaviors (Arıcak, 2009). Many high school
students engage in cyberbullying as a bully or a victim or witness someone else being
cyberbullied (Arıcak, 2009; Qing, 2005; Wright et al., 2009). Students who are victims
of cyberbullying tend to cyberbully others (Jose et al., 2011). Cyberbullying is more
common in public schools than private schools (Topçu et al., 2008).
With regard to cyberbullying behaviors, three groups can be defined: (1) the victims of
cyberbullying (cybervictims); (2) those who carry out cyberbullying behaviors (cyberbul-
lies); and (3) potential victims. Activities conducted with crime measures to prevent or
reduce bullying, especially in schools, have been inadequate and may lead to the emer-
gence of other school-related problems (Memduhoğlu and Taştan, 2007). The priority, in
710 new media & society 17(5)

effect, to reduce bullying, is given to the prevention of the appearance of new victims.
Hence, those who have not been exposed to bullying acts must be informed and made
aware of the types of conduct that may result in their being exposed to cyberbullying (Liau
et al., 2008). Therefore, they must acquire a level of sensibility about cyberbullying.

Sensibility
Sensibility can be regarded as a defense system to a perceived threat. People with high
levels of sensibility attempt to be alert during a threatening situation or stimulus, control
their surroundings, get to know the possible threat, and develop precautions to protect
themselves from any potential harm that could result from that threat. The threat could
be a real physical situation, such as the prevention of dysphoric emotions, or could be
linked to a restricted stimulus (Roger and Schapals, 1996).
Sensibility is one of the responses that individuals develop to deal with a stimulus that
provokes anxiety. Some people react to anxiety-provoking stimuli with suppression and
ignorance, while others increase their awareness to such stimuli and avoid these anxiety-
provoking situations (Krahé et al., 2011; Rohrmann et al., 2003). Sensibility has also
been defined as a situation that emerges in the form of intellectualization, obsession, and
ruminative alertness (Donald and Patten, 1979; Man, 1990; Olson and Zanna, 1982). In
addition, other situations observed by individuals with high levels of sensibility have
been shown to increase awareness. Such situations involve both inner and outer stimuli.
Sensibility also includes voluntary focus of attention on experiences. Hence, sensibility
is accepted as one of the basic components of awareness (Raffone et al., 2010; Rohrmann
et al., 2003).
Efforts to prevent cyberbullying that rely on law are inadequate; developing sensibil-
ity and awareness is necessary (Cowie and Colliety, 2010). Studies suggest that aware-
ness about cyberbullying can be increased with education (Liau et al., 2008; Soliman and
Mathna, 2009; Sulistyawati et al., 2011). Thus, we need to develop prevention programs
that help students develop sensibility and coping strategies to avoid cyberbullying. Such
programs will make adolescents aware of the potential risks of becoming victims of
cyberbullying, and will empower adolescents to take precautions against such risks.
Sensibility development programs should cover basic information on technology and
security, including informatics systems, environments where information is available,
attributes of information to be protected, current threats and attacks on information secu-
rity, social engineering, important rules of conduct such as clean computer table rules,
physical security, password security, legal arrangements, responsibilities of the individ-
ual, and exemplary attitudes expected from the individual (Şahinaslan et al., 2009).
Furthermore, individuals must be informed about bullying attitudes that can be carried
out via telephone and cybercommunication devices, as well as the financial and emo-
tional problems that can be caused by them.

Sensibility Development Program against Cyberbullying

The authors developed the Sensibility Development Program against Cyberbullying
(SDPaCB) for school counselors to use with adolescents ages between 15 and 18. The
Tanrıkulu et al. 711

aim of the program is to help students develop sensitivity to cyberbullying to protect

themselves from cyberbullying. The program is a group guidance program based on
Choice Theory and Reality Therapy (Glasser, 1999). Choice Theory and Reality Therapy
focus on the concept of responsibility. Those people with a developed sense of responsi-
bility know what they want, what they can achieve, and what they need to do to achieve
them. Thus, Reality Therapy aims at helping individuals gain responsibility. The therapy
environment includes what the client does, what s/he feels, confronts what s/he thinks,
and the therapist’s role is to show alternative roads to the client for more functional
behavior. The goal of therapy is to ensure that individuals can control their lives effi-
ciently. This is accomplished by having individuals become aware of their attitudes,
which may or may not match with reality, and helping them replace these attitudes with
more useful ones (Glasser, 1999; Howatt, 2001). Against this background, the idea
behind the SDPaCB is that individuals must be aware of their responsibilities in cyber
environments and take effective precautions by increasing their level of sensibility
regarding dangerous situations.
To develop the program, authors first reviewed the related literature on cyberbully-
ing and sensibility development (Chan and Chan, 2008; Corey, 2008; Levine and
Conway, 2010; Morganett, 2005; Oceja et al., 2010; Soliman and Mathna, 2009;
Warner, 2005), and then conducted a qualitative study to determine the experience of
adolescent students regarding cyberbullying and compared the findings with previous
studies on cyberbullying. A total of 71 students (ages 11 and 14) from a public elemen-
tary school in Istanbul were asked to write an essay on the harmful and hostile behav-
iors youth engage in via Internet or mobile phones. A content analysis was conducted
to analyze student responses to identify the cyberbullying behaviors the program needs
to address. Two of the authors who specialized in the subject matter analyzed the pro-
gram and made recommendations for modifications before authors implemented the
program with students.
Each session lasted 70–80 minutes and was divided into two sections. The first sec-
tion involved psychologically based group activities that aimed at increasing cyberbully-
ing awareness. The second section involved a computer-simulated lecture to increase
students’ technical knowledge about cyberspace and a discussion by a technology expert
to increase awareness of cyber security among students. The goals of the group sessions
are as follows:

1. to facilitate students’ understanding of what constitutes cyberbullying;

2. to inform students about the precautionary measures when their information pri-
vacy rights are violated;
3. to help students’ understand that cyber environments are susceptible to misuses;
4. to explain to students the consequences of trusting people they do not know well;
5. to inform students about the possible misuses of cyber environments and the
precautions they can take to prevent them;
6. to help students understand peer pressure;
7. to help students develop the ability to resist peer pressure, and say “No”;
8. to help students understand that they are responsible for their own actions.
712 new media & society 17(5)

The first session covered basic information about cyberbullying, and the aims of the
program. The second session focused on teaching students about their human rights and
providing information about what actions students could take when their human rights
were violated in cyber environments. In the third session, the students were informed
about the negative aspects of cyber environments and how it affected real life. The fourth
session provided information about peer pressure. Finally, the last session focused on
students’ experiences and feelings about cyberbullying. The technical information pro-
vided by a computer and technology expert during the sessions included:

1. the difference between cyberaggression and cyberbullying;

2. the distinction between bullying conducted towards individuals versus violence
towards systems;
3. email security, encryption, and protection from email address hacking (getting
information through fake mail, Trojan horses, viruses, key logger, method of heu-
ristics approach, and the use of Internet cafes);
4. an understanding of how we were impaired psychologically through the products
of social engineering (to make the subjects feel responsibility, confidence in rela-
tionships, the idea of moral task and the use of conscience, made up situations,
personal persuasion, requests) and protection measures from prospective harm;
5. circumstances where it was necessary to say “No” on Internet and social net-
working sites (Facebook, Myspace) (phishing in Facebook, password reset,
friendship offers, and “I have forgotten my password”);
6. practical information about cyber environments (privacy and account settings in
Facebook, mail settings, privacy in MSN accounts, encrypting a file, use of win-
rar, deleting tracks in browsers, optimizing computer and initializing);
7. precautions for telephone security.

This study investigates the effects of the program on students’ awareness of cyberbul-
lying and cyberbullying behaviors. The research questions include the following.

1. Is there a significant difference between the experimental and the control groups
with respect to the pre-test scores on the Cyberbullying Sensibility Scale (CBSS)?
2. Is there a significant difference between the experimental and control groups
with respect to post-test scores on the CBSS?
3. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores on the
CBSS of the experimental group and control group, respectively?
4. Is there a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores on the
Cyberbullying Scale (CBS) of the experimental group?

Method
This study is an experimental design with control group. The first factor in this design,
which is defined as mixed design (split-spot) of a 2×2, is to have sensibility acquired
against cyberbullying and the second factor is to show repeated measurements of the
Tanrıkulu et al. 713

dependent variable (pre-test, post-test, and monitoring measurement). The difference

between the pre-test and post-test results is linked to the independent variable
(Shaughnessy, 1997).

Participants
A total of 16 students (eight girls, eight boys) were recruited at a private high school in
Istanbul. All students were 16 years old. Four of the girls were randomly assigned to the
experimental group and the other four were assigned to the control group. The same was done
for the male students, resulting in the experimental and the control groups having eight stu-
dents each. Pre-test means on the CBSS of the experimental and control group were exam-
ined for significant differences. No significant difference was found between the means of the
groups. Subsequently, the program was implemented with the experimental group.

Measures
Cyberbullying Sensibility Scale.  The CBSS was developed by Tanrıkulu et al. (2013) for
adolescents aged between 12 and 18. The scale can be used as a self-assessment tool and
can be applied to groups or individuals. The scale is a three-point Likert scale with a total
of 14 items. The minimum score is 14 and the maximum score is 42. High scores mean
high levels of sensibility against cyberbullying. The factor loads under a single factor
varied between .32 and .73. This single factor structure was tested using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and the model was fit at an acceptable level (χ2/sd = 2.06 and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .078). Hence, it was confirmed that the
scale had a single factor structure. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire scale
was found to be .79 and the re-test reliability coefficient was .65 (N = 125), which sug-
gests that this scale was a valid and reliable measurement tool. Items on CBSS include
the following.

Item 1. Sometimes I think about what to do when incorrect information about me is

spread on the Internet.
Item 2. I take into consideration the fact that my personal information on social net-
work websites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) can be used by other people for unfavorable
purposes.
Item 3. I think that someone who wants to harm me can harm me using Internet, cell
phone, etc.

Cyberbullying Scale.  In order to determine whether the SDPaCB increased cyberbullying

behaviors, the CBS developed by Arıcak et al. (2012) was used. The scale is a four-point
Likert scale that consists of 24 items. The minimum score on this scale is 24 and the
maximum score is 96. The factor loads under a single factor varied between .49 and .80.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire scale was found to be .95 and the test–
retest reliability coefficient was .70 (N = 103). These results suggest that the measure-
ment tool is both valid and reliable. Below are some items from CBS.
714 new media & society 17(5)

Item 1: I create accounts in websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, secretly using
others’ names.
Item 2: I send messages to my friends or other people on the Internet that they don’t
like.
Item 3: I publish my friends’ or other people’s photos in different websites on the
Internet without their permission.
Item 4: I tease my friends or other people on the Internet.

Procedure
A qualitative study was carried out within the scope of the current study to learn about
the perception and knowledge levels regarding cyberbullying of the experimental group
a week before the sessions started. Accordingly, students were asked to freely write down
their opinions about harmful behaviors of adolescents using the Internet and cell phones.
In line with their opinions, the SDPaCB was revised. Prior to the beginning of the ses-
sions, the CBSS pre-test was administered to the experimental and control group. To
examine if the program increase the cyberbullying behaviors in students, the CBS pre-
test was administered to the experimental group only. The experimental group received
the SDPaCB, while the control group received no treatment. The program started during
the first week of May 2011. The program lasted for a total of five sessions, one session
per week for 70–80 minutes. At the end of the fifth session students in the experimental
and control groups received the CBSS post-test. In addition, the experimental group
received the CBS post-test.

Data analysis
The group sizes formed for this study were taken into consideration in determining the
appropriate statistical techniques for data analysis. When the sample size falls below 15,
it is hard to assume that the scores will be distributed normally. Therefore, non-parametric
techniques should be preferred instead of parametric techniques (Glass and Hopkins,
2008; Stevens, 2009). Since this study was carried out with small groups of eight mem-
bers, non-parametric techniques were used during data analysis. Accordingly, the Mann–
Whitney U-test was used to compare pre-test means of the experimental and control
group and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to compare the pre-test and post-test
means of the experimental and control groups. The Mann–Whitney U-test is also used to
compare the post-test means of the experimental and the control groups. Statistical anal-
ysis was conducted using SPSS v.17.0 software.

Results
No significant difference was found between the cyberbullying sensibility levels of the
experimental and control groups before the program (U = 22.00, p > .05). Table 1 illus-
trates the experimental and control groups’ Mann–Whitney U-test results for the pre-test
and post-test application of the CBSS.
Tanrıkulu et al. 715

Table 1. Mann–Whitney U-test result of the pre-test scores of the Cyberbullying Sensibility
Scale by groups.

Group N Mean rank Sum of ranks U p

Sensibility pre-test  Experimental 8 9.75 78.00 22.00 .328
Control 8 7.25 58.00  
Sensibility post-test Experimental 8 10.81 86.50 13.50 .050
Control 8 6.19 49.50

Table 2.  Wilcoxon signed rank test result of the pre-test and post-test scores of the
Cyberbullying Scale for the experimental group.

N Mean rank Sum of ranks z p

Negative ranks 1 4.00 4.00 .368a .713
Positive ranks 3 2.00 6.00  
Ties 4  
Total 8  
aBased on negative ranks.

Findings indicated a significant difference for the level of sensibility between the
experimental and the control group in favor of the experimental group after the program
was implemented (U = 12.50, p < .05).
Table 2 shows the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test result for cyberbullying pre-test and
post-test scores of the experimental group. The result of the analysis indicated that there
was no significant difference between the CBS pre-test and post-test scores of the experi-
mental group (z = .368, p > .05).
As seen in Table 3, the data revealed a significant difference between the scores of the
CBSS for the pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group (z = 2.11, p < .05).
However, no significant difference was found for the control group’s CBSS pre-test and
post-test scores (z = 1.34, p > .05). When the mean rank and sum of ranks are taken into
consideration, it is evident that the difference is in favor of the positive ranks (post-test)
in the experimental group.

Conclusion
Data revealed that there was no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test
scores of the experimental and control groups in their levels of sensibility regarding
cyberbullying. Therefore, it appears both of the selected groups were equal according to
their levels of sensibility.
When we looked at the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the
CBSS for the experimental group, it was observed that a significant difference existed in
favor of the post-test. No such differentiation was found for the control group. According
to this result, it could be assumed that a level of sensibility against cyberbullying was
developed.
716 new media & society 17(5)

Table 3.  Wilcoxon signed rank test result of the pre-test and post-test scores of the
Cyberbullying Sensibility Scale for the experimental group and control group.

N Mean rank Sum of ranks z p

Experimental Negative rank 1 3.00  3.00 2.11a .035
Group Positive rank 7 4.71 33.00  
  Ties 0  
  Total 8  
Control Negative rank 2 4.25  8.50 1.34a .181
Group Positive rank 6 4.58 27.50  
  Ties 0  
  Total 8  
aBased on negative ranks.

When we looked at the test results for the experimental and control group, we found
a difference between the post-test scores of the CBSS in favor of the experimental group.
As mentioned previously, the experimental group had a “group guidance” experience of
five sessions. The control group, which was equal to the experimental group at the begin-
ning, did not receive any application. As a result, the fact that the difference between the
post-test scores of the two groups is significant makes us believe that this study effec-
tively demonstrates that the program has a considerable impact on sensibility for cyber-
bullying among students.
In order to understand whether or not the information and experiences provided in the
applied program increased cyberbullying behaviors of the experimental group, we looked
at the differences between the pre-test and post-test cyberbullying scores of the experi-
mental group and found no significant differences. According to this finding, it could be
noted that the SDPaCB did not increase cyberbullying behaviors.
It may be especially meaningful to view this study in terms of protective mental
health. If it is considered that cyberbullying behaviors have become much more common
in schools, it is expected that this program would be a useful tool for school psycholo-
gists and school counselors to deal with these types of problems.

Limitations of the study

This study is the first group study that aims to develop sensibility against cyberbullying.
In the studies so far, topics such as the prevalence, impacts, and reasons of cyberbullying
were studied with a correlational model. Very few studies (Diamanduros et al., 2008;
Pearce et al., 2011; Williford et al., 2013) focused on prevention or intervention to solve
cyberbullying or cybervictimization problems. This study contributes experimental
research for future studies and can be accepted as a baseline. The program is developed
for adolescents who have not been exposed to cyberbullying but who are at risk. This
may not be possible in some cases, especially in some schools. Currently there are no
findings about how the current program affects bullies, victims, and bully-victims.
Another limitation is that the program is developed for small groups. This makes the
Tanrıkulu et al. 717

program impractical for most schools. Finally, since the current study is experimental, it
is as of yet impossible to generalize the results for the entire population.

Suggestions for future research

In the light of the limitations of our current study, some important suggestions can be
addressed in future research. First of all, this program should be used in different
groups from different backgrounds to examine the reliability of the results. Also, con-
trol variables such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and academic achievement can
be used to examine the effectiveness of the program. The program can be adapted to
a classroom setting for practical applications in schools; a classroom-based study
would test the program with large groups, and generalization of the results would
become possible. Finally, follow-up studies should be applied to test the permanence
of program; in doing so, we can gather more detailed information about the effective-
ness of the program.

Acknowledgement
We (the authors) would like to thank Dr Sinem Siyahhan for reading the entire manuscript and
proofreading of the article.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Ang RP and Goh DH (2010) Cyberbullying among adolescents: the role of affective and cognitive
empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development 41(4): 387–397.
Arıcak OT (2009) Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of cyberbullying among university
students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 34(Winter): 167–184.
Arıcak OT (2011) Cyberbullying: the new danger waiting for adolescents. Career Window
(Kariyer Penceresi) November–December(6): 10–11.
Arıcak OT, Kınay H and Tanrıkulu T (2012) Initial psychometric findings of cyber bullying scale.
Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 9(1): 101–114.
Arıcak T, Siyahhan S, Uzunhasanoglu A, et al. (2008) Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 11(3): 253–261.
Baker ÖE and Kavşut F (2007) Cyberbullying: a new face of peer bullying. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research 27: 31–42.
Chan K and Chan S (2008) Emotional autonomy versus susceptibility to peer pressure. Research
in Education 79: 38–52.
Corey G (2008) Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy. 7th ed. Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Cowie H and Colliety P (2010) Cyberbullying: sanctions or sensitivity? Pastoral Care in Education
28(4): 261–268.
Diamanduros T, Downs E and Jenkins SJ (2008) The role of school psychologists in the assess-
ment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools 45: 693–704.
Donald JW and Patten TG (1979) Repression-sensitization and nonverbal expressiveness. Journal
of Personality Assessment 43(2): 171–176.
718 new media & society 17(5)

Glasser W (1999) Choice Theory a New Psychology of Personal Freedom. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Glass GV and Hopkins KD (2008) Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. 3rd ed.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Howatt WA (2001) The evolution of reality therapy to choice theory. International Journal of
Reality Therapy 21(1): 7–12.
Jose PE, Kljakovic M, Scheib E, et al. (2011) The joint development of traditional bullying and
victimization with cyber bullying and victimization in adolescence. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 22(2): 301–309.
Krahé B, Möller I, Berger A, et al. (2011) Repression versus sensitization in response to media
violence as predictors of cognitive avoidance and vigilance. Journal of Personality 79(1):
165–190.
Levine LE and Conway JM (2010) Self-other awareness and peer relationships in toddlers: gender
comparisons. Infant and Child Development 19(5): 455–464.
Liau AK, Khoo A and Ang PH (2008) Parental awareness and monitoring of adolescent Internet
use. Current Psychology 27(4): 217–233.
Man AF (1990) Repression-sensitization and measures of adjustment. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal 18(1): 13–16.
Mason KL (2008) Cyberbullying: a preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in
the Schools 45(4): 323–348.
Memduhoğlu HB and Taştan M (2007) School and student security: a conceptual solution. Journal
of Çukurova University Educational Sciences 34(3): 69–83.
Morales M (2011) Cyberbullying. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 15(4): 406–419.
Morganett RS (2005) Ergenler için Grupla Psikolojik Danışma Uygulamaları [Skills for Living:
Group Counseling Activities for Young Adolescents]. Translated by Alim Kaya et al. Ankara:
Pegem A Press.
Oceja L, Ambrona T, López-Pérez B, et al. (2010) When the victim is one among others: empathy,
awareness of others and motivational ambivalence. Motivation and Emotion 34(2): 110–119.
Olson JM and Zanna MP (1982) Repression-sensitization differences responses to a decision.
Journal of Personality 50: 46–57.
Pearce N, Cross D, Monks H, et al. (2011) Current evidence of best practice in whole-school bul-
lying intervention and its potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal
of Guidance and Counselling 21: 1–21.
Qing L (2005) Cyberbullying in schools: nature and extent of Canadian adolescents’ experience.
In: The Montreal: annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April,
2005.Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490641.pdf.
Raffone A, Tagini A and Srinivasan N (2010) Mindfulness and the cognitive neuroscience of
attention and awareness. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 45(3): 627–646.
Roger D and Schapals T (1996) Repression-sensitization and emotion control. Current Psychology
15(1): 30–37.
Rohrmann S, Netter P, Hennig J, et al. (2003) Repression-sensitization, gender, and discrepancies in
psychobiological reactions to examination stress. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 16(3): 321–329.
Schneider SK, O’Donnell L, Stueve A, et al. (2012) Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psycho-
logical distress: a regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health
102(1): 171–177.
Shariff S (2005) Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: school obligations to provide student
safety in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education 40(3): 457–477.
Shaughnessy JJ (1997) Research Methods in Psychology. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Soliman AM and Mathna EK (2009) Metacognitive strategy training improves driving situation
awareness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 37(9): 1161–1170.
Tanrıkulu et al. 719

Stevens JP (2009) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Strom P and Strom R (2005) When teens turn cyberbullies. The Education Digest 71(4): 35–41.
Sulistyawati K, Wickens C and Chui YP (2011) Prediction in situation awareness: confidence
bias and underlying cognitive abilities. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 21(2):
153–174.
Şahinaslan E, Kandemir R and Şahinaslan Ö (2009) Bilgi güvenliği farkındalık eğitim örneği
[Information Security Awareness Sample]. Academic Informatics'09 XI. Academic
Informatics Conference Paper, Şanlıurfa: Harran University. Retrieved from http://ab.org.tr/
ab09/bildiri/117.pdf
Tanrıkulu T, Kınay H and Arıcak OT (2013) Cyberbullying sensibility scale: validity and reliabil-
ity study. Trakya University Journal of Education 3(1): 38–47.
Topçu Ç, Erdur-Baker Ö and Çapa-Aydin Y (2008) Examination of cyberbullying experiences
among Turkish students from different school types. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11(6):
643–648.
Totan T (2007) Okulda zorbalığı önlemede eğitimcilere ve ebeveynlere öneriler [Suggestions for
Educators and Parents to Prevent Bullying in School]. AIBU Journal of Education Faculty
7(2):190-202.
Vandebosch H and Van Cleemput K (2009) Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies
and victims. New Media & Society 11(8): 1349–1371.
Warner QT (2005) Awareness and cognition: the role of awareness training in child development.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 17: 47–64.
Williford AL, Elledge C, Boulton AJ, et  al. (2013) Effects of the Kiva antibullying program on cyber-
bullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology. Epub ahead of print 9 May. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2013.787623.
Wright VH, Joy JB, Christopher TI, et al. (2009) Cyberbullying: using virtual scenarios to educate
and raise awareness. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 26(1): 35–42.

Author biographies
Taşkın Tanrıkulu is an assistant professor and vice chair in the Department of Psychological
Counseling and Guidance at Fatih University in Istanbul. His research areas include cyberbullying,
cybervictimization, and sensibility development for cyberbullying. He is also a family counselor.
He works with families and children.
Hüseyin Kınay is a research assistant in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies at Fatih University in Istanbul. He is also studying towards a PhD in Cognitive
Sciences at the Middle East Technical University. He focuses on cyberbullying, online safety, and
Internet security.
O Tolga Arıcak is an associate professor of educational psychology. He is currently research fel-
low at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. His main research inter-
ests are cyberbullying, cybervictimization, online privacy, and online safety. He is also interested
in methodological and statistical issues in psychological research.