International Journal of School & Educational Psychology

ISSN: 2168-3603 (Print) 2168-3611 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usep20

Parenting styles and bullying at school: The

mediating role of locus of control

Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou & Panayiotis Stavrinides

To cite this article: Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou & Panayiotis Stavrinides (2016):
Parenting styles and bullying at school: The mediating role of locus of control, International
Journal of School & Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

Published online: 20 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usep20

Download by: [George Mason University] Date: 27 September 2016, At: 04:37
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

ARTICLE

Parenting styles and bullying at school: The mediating role of locus of control
Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou, and Panayiotis Stavrinides
Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study examined the mediating role of children’s locus of control in the relation between locus of control; parenting
parenting styles and bully – victim experiences at school. Participants were 447 students aged 10 styles; bullying experiences;
and 11 years old from 13 different elementary, urban, and rural schools in Cyprus. Analyses using mediation
structural equation modeling showed that parenting styles predict the development of these
experiences differently. Specifically, authoritarian parenting is positively associated to bully – victim
experiences at school, while authoritative parenting is negatively associated to the same variables.
Furthermore, the findings indicated mediation effects, with locus of control being a full mediator in
the relationship between authoritative parenting style and bully – victim experiences and a partial
mediator in the relationship between authoritarian parenting style and bully – victim experiences at
school. Nonrecursive reciprocal models confirmed the theoretically driven direction of the effect
from parenting styles to bullying and victimization through the mechanism of locus of control.
Multigroup analyses of invariance showed that gender moderated the mediation models for the
authoritative and the authoritarian parenting styles.

Introduction Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). Previous research

Bullying, defined as the systematic physical, verbal, or
psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to
cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim (Flouri &
Buchanan, 2003), is becoming a global concern because
of its disturbing consequences, which affect a significant
minority of children and adolescents (Rigby, 2013). It can
be direct, such as physical and verbal violence, or indirect,
such as social exclusion. Typically, it takes place when
there is an imbalance of power between those involved
(Baldry & Farrington, 2000), and leads to repeated
negative actions against those with less ability to defend
themselves.
Several studies have documented the relation of
bullying and victimization experiences to negative child
outcomes, such as emotional and behavioral disorders,
including PTSD, conduct problems, and hyperactivity
(Khamis, 2015; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, &
Haymel, 2010). The involvement in bullying has adverse
effects in the developmental trajectories of children and
adolescents, being related to anxiety and depression
symptoms, low self-esteem, low social competence, and
difficulties that affect their academic pathways, such as
avoidance of school and high dropout rates, and impaired
academic performance (Cardoos & Hinshaw, 2011;
has highlighted that the risk for engagement in bullying
increases during the transition to middle school, a time of
increased developmental vulnerability and experience of
social stressors (Farmer et al., 2015; Pellegrini & Van
Ryzin, 2011), with more than half of sixth graders of
primary schools reporting involvement in bullying
(Nansel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2007). Building on
a developmental contextual approach, individual and peer
factors come together to affect patterns of school behavior
during the last grades of elementary school, where early
adolescents’ social roles and peer relationships are getting
reorganized before the transition to middle school
(Juvonen, 2007; Salmivalli, 2010). During their matu-
ration in early adolescence, children develop new
characteristics and interests and are expected to develop
new friendships, whereas at the same time the develop-
ment of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems
is more evident during the transition to middle school, and
their bullying involvement in fifth and sixth grades seems
to be predictive of these problems (Farmer et al., 2015).
Bullying has been related to individual, parental,
societal, and academic factors, including self-efficacy,
locus of control, parenting style and parental involve-
ment, school climate, academic adjustment, teacher

CONTACT Stelios N. Georgiou stege@ucy.ac.cy Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, CY 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/usep.

q 2016 International School Psychology Association

2 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
practices, and social stressors, among others (Atik &
Guneri, 2013). Parenting styles and practices have been
consistently identified by prior research as either risk or
protective familial factors in relation to bullying and
victimization experiences at school (Georgiou &
Stavrinides, 2013). More specifically, authoritative
parenting that promotes a warm and accepting
relationship with the child is negatively associated with
bullying experiences (Spera, 2005). In contrast, several
studies have consistently shown that children of
authoritarian parents tend to exhibit bullying behavior
(Kaufmann et al., 2000). However, it is not yet clear how
parenting is related to bullying activities. The main
question that needs to be answered before this process
can be fully understood has to do with the existence or
not of mediating variables between these two constructs.
Following some earlier attempts (Andreou, 2000;
Georgiou, Fousiani, Michaelides, & Stavrinides, 2013;
Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2007), the present study aims at
examining the role of one such possible mediator in early
adolescents before their transition to middle school: locus
of control. The present study is important, as it uses
complex structural equation analyses in an effort to test
the role of locus of control, an individual factor impacted
by parenting behavior, through which bullying behavior
might be affected.
Parenting styles, bullying, and victimization
There is strong evidence connecting family factors, and
specifically parenting style (Baumrind, 1991), to bullying
and victimization experiences (e.g., Stevens, Bourdeaud-
huij, & Oost, 2002). A recent meta-analysis showed that
bullies and victims tend to experience negative parenting
behavior, neglect, abuse, and maladaptive behavior.
In contrast, parental supervision, involvement, and
communication were found to be predictive of protective
effects regarding the involvement in bullying and
victimization (Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Parent-
ing styles were described by Baumrind (1991) based on
two dimensions, demandingness and responsiveness.
Authoritarian parents score high on demandingness,
expect strict obedience, achieve control over their
children through punishment, and score low in
responsiveness and warmth. The authoritative parenting
style characterizes parents who score high on both
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness and
present a stable, consistent, and flexible parental
behavior. Parents with a permissive style are found to
be high in responsiveness and warmth and low in
demandingness, since they exercise low or no control
over their children. Research on Greek and Cypriot
populations agree with these three typologies (e.g.,
Georgiou et al., 2013; Koumoundourou, Tsaousis, &
Kounenou, 2010).
Several studies show that authoritarian parental style,
which is characterized by harsh and punitive child-rearing
practices, predicts bullying behavior (Ahmed &
Braithwaite, 2004; Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Espelage,
Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Kaufmann et al., 2000).
Children who have authoritarian parents tend to develop
maladaptive, perfectionist self-representation (Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez, & Goossens, 2005),
depression, depersonalization, and delinquency (Heaven,
Newbury, & Mak, 2004; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles,
2003). Bullies report in general higher family conflict,
parental control, and punishment (Georgiou, 2009) that
suggest links with authoritarian parenting styles, but may
also report low monitoring and inconsistent discipline
practices (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 1997), suggesting
links with permissive parenting styles as well. Other
studies further support that permissive parents tend to
have children with difficulties in curtailing their impulsive
bullying behavior (Miller, Diiorio, & Dudley, 2002).
On the other hand, victimization has been linked to
permissive parenting styles and overprotection (Bowers,
Smith, & Binney, 1994). Victimized children tend to
have parents who express intense emotions, present an
overprotective stance, or express consistent threats of
rejection and low encouragement of assertion (Brock,
Nickerson, O’Malley, & Chang, 2006; Rubin, Coplan, &
Bowker, 2009). Children who are exposed to parental
overcontrol are more socially nonassertive, more anxious
and vulnerable, and thus become victimized; these
characteristics enhance the maintenance of the cycle of
their hopelessness and helplessness and the analogous
parental overprotection and overcontrol (Wood, McLeod,
Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Investigating the above in
a Cypriot sample, Georgiou (2008a) showed that children
with permissive parents had the highest scores in
victimization, whereas having a mother characterized
by high demandingness was negatively related to
victimization.
Locus of control and bullying experiences
Locus of control refers to the distinction made by
individuals about what controls their lives, discriminat-
ing between factors internal to individuals such as their
abilities, decisions, or actions, and external forces such as
luck, chance, powerful other people, or fate (Rotter,
1996). In Weiner’s (1985) typology of attributions, locus
is one of three dimensions, the other two being stability
over time and controllability. Locus of control orientation
reflects a continuum ranging from internal locus (i.e.,
perception that behaviors and outcomes of one’s
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
behaviors are attributed to the influences of forces within
one’s control) to external locus (i.e., perception that one’s
life is controlled by random forces outside his control;
Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
Locus of control as a form of attribution has been
considered a powerful construct to explain bullying and
victimization. Andreou (2000) showed that adolescents
with high scores of peer victimization had also higher
scores in the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale
for children. Higher scores in that scale indicate external
locus, suggesting that victimized children tend to feel that
others control their life, behavior, and actions (Georgiou
& Stavrinides, 2008). Wallace, Barry, Zeigler-Hill, and
Green (2012), suggested that bullies tend to have an
internal locus of control and because of that, they
continuously strive for more power and control over
others. The thread or the possibility of losing control
drives them to use aggression and to get involved in
bullying behaviors (Karatzias, Power, & Swanson, 2002).
The findings regarding internal orientation of control of
bullies are not clear, however. Georgiou (2009) reported
that children who participate in bullying episodes with
the role of bullies tend to attribute their actions to
external factors (i.e., the teacher, the parents, or the
victims). This finding is in line with previous
conceptualizations of bullies as individuals who blame
others about their behavior and show inability to take
responsibility for their own actions (Craig & Pepler, 2003;
Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008). Tony (2010) has found
that external locus of control in the Nowicki-Strickland
scale and pessimistic attributions were the best predictors
of discipline and aggressive problems at schools, even
when controlling for other measured variables.
Locus of control and parenting practices
Parenting practices have been found to be related to
either internal or external orientation of control in
children and adolescents. McClun and Merrell (1998)
have highlighted that internal locus of control is
presented in children who are exposed to authoritative
parenting styles characterized by autonomy, consistency
of punishment, discipline, and systematic reinforcement
of positive behaviors. Examining a large-scale sample
from nine high schools, Glasgow and colleagues (1997)
noted that nonauthoritative parenting styles are consist-
ently related to more dysfunctional attributions and
external locus of control, which prevents students from
attaining a better achievement in school. According to
Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, and Griffith-Ross (2007),
children exposed to permissive parenting styles are less
able to develop a sense of internal control. Spokas and
Heimberg (2009) have confirmed that authoritarian
3
parenting style that emphasizes overcontrol, and
permissive parenting style that emphasizes overprotec-
tion, contribute to the children’s perception that their
behavior and the outcomes of their behavior are
determined by external factors; hence the external locus
of control demonstrated in children exposed to
authoritarian and permissive styles.
The present study
The purpose of the current study was to examine in a
single design the existing relationship between parental
style, locus of control, and bullying and victimization
experiences at school. One particular aim of this study
was to test the role of locus of control orientation as a
mediator in the relationship between parenting styles and
bullying experiences, since the literature has shown that
parenting styles are associated with locus of control
and the orientation of control has been consistently
associated with bullying and victimization, adding on the
systematic research linking parenting to bullying and
victimization. Finally, the study explored the role of
gender, and tried to examine whether it could
differentiate the mediation models, because of previous
research pointing to the different rates of bullying among
boys and girls (e.g., Khamis, 2015), and the differential
impact of risk factors across gender (e.g., Yau et al., 2013).
Child’s gender has been considered to have influential
moderation effects in previous investigations between
bullying and parenting, and also between parenting and
victimization. A meta-analysis examining the studies
supporting relationships between parenting practices and
delinquency also supported that gender moderated
several significant effect sizes, since supportive parenting
style of fathers was related to increased delinquency in
boys but not girls; and supportive parenting style of
mothers was related to bullying behavior by girls but not
boys (Hoeve et al., 2009). Also, gender was found to
moderate the links between locus of control and bullying
and victimization. As Osterman and colleagues (1999)
showed, external locus of control was related to bullying
only for boys and not for girls. Furthermore, Hunter and
Boyle (2002) have found that males who are victimized
have stronger perceptions of internal control, compared
to females who are victimized. One should note, however,
that the gender differences reported by the recent
literature could be at least partially attributable to the
engagement in different types of bullying by males and
females. In particular, males are reported to be more
involved in direct physical and verbal forms of bullying
(e.g., hitting, punching), whereas females are more likely
to get involved in indirect, psychological, and relational
forms of bullying (e.g., spreading rumors, cyber-bullying;
4 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Turner et al., 2013). Also, males
are more likely to be bullies only or bullies as well as
victims, compared to females (e.g., Shao, Liang, Yuan, &
Bian, 2014); an effect that may be related to community
values and traditional gender norms.
Early adolescents’ (attending the last grades of
elementary schools) risk factors among individual,
parental, and peer domains are indicative and predictive
of longitudinal involvement in bullying, whereas at
the same time serious problems concerning individual
factors seem to be already apparent in late elementary
grades (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). Based on
the biopsychosocial model of development (Ford &
Lerner, 1992), pubertal changes in early adolescence and
changes in peer contexts affect the efforts to establish
power and control, and are expected to be reflected in the
emergence of bullying (Pepler et al., 2006). Involvement
in bullying around the transition to middle school is
increased and highly important in our efforts to
understand developmental trajectories of bullying and
victimization (Farmer et al., 2015). Therefore, the
purpose of the present study was formed around recent
developmental considerations regarding bullying beha-
vior, and we aimed to recruit early adolescents of fifth
and sixth elementary grades.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature outlined above, the following
hypotheses were stated and tested:
1. Parental styles would be related differently to
bullying and victimization experiences. More
specifically, authoritarian and permissive styles
would be positively related to bully – victim
behavior, whereas authoritative style would be
negatively related to the same variables.
2. Locus of control would mediate the relationship
between parenting styles and bullying. More
specifically, low internal locus of control would be
a mediator between authoritarian parenting and
bullying or victimization, and permissive parent-
ing and bullying or victimization. Higher internal
locus would be a mediator between authoritative
parenting and bullying experiences.
3. Gender would moderate the mediation model
among parenting styles, locus of control, and
bullying.
Methodology
Participants and procedure
This study is part of a larger study that was approved by
the Center of Educational Research and Evaluation of the
Cyprus Ministry of Education. The participants of this
study were 447 students attending fifth to sixth grade of
elementary school (ages 10–11 years old) during the
academic year of 2013 –2014. The participants were
randomly selected from 13 schools in urban and rural
areas in Cyprus. The only criterion used for the selection
of the 13 schools was the schools’ location in either a rural
or an urban area. Following the demographic represen-
tation of Cyprus, about 70% of these schools were located
in urban areas and about 30% of them were located in
rural areas. Generally, blue-collar workers and lower
educational levels are found in rural rather than in urban
areas. All of the schools accepted the invitation. The fifth
and sixth grades of each school were asked to participate,
and in case the schools had more than one section of fifth
and sixth grades, one of them was randomly selected
using a coin. Parent consent forms were given to the
children and a period of two weeks was given to the
teachers in order to collect the signed consent forms. All
the children were asked to participate and no exclusion
criteria were established (apart from the teachers’
confirmation that all students were able to read
independently using a single statement by the teachers),
aiming to increase the generalizability of the study. The
response rate was 91.4%, as some children were absent
during the day of questionnaire administration (n ¼ 18),
and some children did not return the parental consent
forms (n ¼ 24). The administration of the questionnaires
occurred in a single date in each school, during a single
45-min school period for each class, and students
answered the questionnaires independently in their
classrooms. The sample consisted of 44.17% males and
55.83% females, a ratio that approximated the general
population statistics on gender representation. In terms
of socioeconomic status (SES) the participants’ scores
had a normal distribution (about 20% low, 20% high,
and 60% average) and are representative of national
population statistics (e.g., Koutsampelas, 2011). The
normality of the SES was addressed by the selection of
schools with blue-collar and white-collar workers and by
an indication of the educational level of participants’
parents, which followed the national statistics (e.g.,
Andreou, 2012).
Measures
The participants completed three questionnaires: the
Revised Bullying and Victimization Questionnaire
(BVQ-R), the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ),
and the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External
control scale (CNSIE). All of the questionnaires were
administered in Greek using a rotated order to avoid
response set bias, by postgraduate students in psychology,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
who were blinded to the aims of the study. All of the
questionnaires were translated from English to Greek
using a front and backward translation method
(Giannitsas, 1988; Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay,
2006; Tsaousis, 2002). Also, all of them were adapted to
the Greek Cypriot culture and used in earlier studies (e.g.,
Georgiou, 2008b; Georgiou et al., 2013).
The BVQ-R (Olweus, 1993, 1996) consists of 20 items
that measure the children’s bullying and victimization
experiences (using 10 statements for each subscale).
Participants give their answers on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 ( ¼ not true) to 5 ( ¼ absolutely
true). Sample items from the bullying subscale include,
“Other children are afraid of me” and “Other children
complain that I hit them.” Sample items from the
victimization subscale include, “Other children have hit
me or tried to hit me” and “Other children constantly
tease me and call me names.” In earlier studies conducted
with Cypriot populations (e.g., Georgiou, 2008b;
Georgiou et al., 2013; Kyriakides et al., 2006; Stavrinides,
Georgiou, & Theofanous, 2010; Stavrinides, Georgiou,
Nikiforou, & Kiteri, 2011), the measurement tool yielded
two factors representing the concepts of bullying and
victimization and showed good psychometric properties
(Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .70 to .80). This
instrument was found to have construct validity, in a
considerably large sample of Greek Cypriot pupils
(Kyriakides et al., 2006) and results of prior research in
the studies above constitute further evidence of
consistency with the construct theory. For the present
study, both subscales showed good internal consistency,
with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .821 for the victimization
subscale and alpha ¼ .852 for the subscale of bullying.
Reliability analysis for the whole Revised Bullying and
Victimization Questionnaire showed excellent psycho-
metric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .877.
The PAQ instrument (Buri, 1991) is a self-report
measuring the children’s perspective about the rearing
practices of their parents, which constitute their parenting
style. According to Baumrind’s (1991) taxonomy, the
PAQ yields three factors that represent the authoritarian,
the permissive, and the authoritative parenting styles. The
tool consists of 30 statements on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 ( ¼ strongly disagree) to 5
( ¼ strongly agree), having 10 statements measuring
each parenting style. Sample items include, “As I was
growing up my mother did not allow me to question any
decision she had made” for the authoritarian style, “My
mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take
whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions
were unreasonable” for the authoritative style, and “As I
was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most
things for myself without a lot of direction from her” for
5
the permissive style. The PAQ has been translated into
Greek following a front and backward translation and has
been validated showing adequate reliability and validity
estimates for all the styles by Tsaousis (2002). Previous
studies in the Greek-Cypriot population have shown that
the instrument yields the three proposed factors with
good psychometric properties of the subscales and the
whole scale and Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .73
to .87 (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2013; Koumoundourou et al.,
2010). Prior research shows adequate validity of this
instrument and congruency with the construct theory for
parenting styles (Koumoundourou et al., 2010; Timpano
et al., 2010; Tsaousis, 2002). For the present study, the
psychometric properties for the authoritarian subscale
were good, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .781, as well as for
the authoritative subscale with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .826.
The psychometric properties for the permissive parenting
style subscale were worse than the other subscales of the
PAQ, with alpha ¼ .61, but were considered acceptable.
The whole PAQ had good internal consistency in the
current study, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .786.
The CNSIE scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)
assesses children’s and adolescents’ perceptions for
locus of control. The CNSIE instrument consists of 40
statements that are answered in a dichotomous yes or no
way, measuring the internal and the external orientation
to locus of control. Higher scores express more external
locus of control, with yes responses gaining 1 point
(internal locus) and no responses gaining 2 points
(external locus). Sample items include, “Do you feel that
most of the time parents listen to what their children have
to say?” and “Are you often blamed for things that just
aren’t your fault?” The CNSIE measure has been adapted
in Greek by Giannitsas (1988) and has been showed to be
valid and reliable in previous studies conducted with
Greek populations (e.g., Andreou, 2000; Makri-Botsari,
1999). Prior research shows appropriate content validity,
concurrent validity, and construct validity of this
instrument (e.g., Andreou, 2000; Gifford, Briceno-
Perriot, & Mianzo, 2006; Li & Lopez, 2004). Split-half
methods that have been used to test the reliability of this
instrument showed satisfactory psychometric properties
in previous studies (e.g., Chubb et al., 1997; Keshavarz
& Baharudin, 2012) with split-half coefficient values
ranging from .70 to .81. The psychometric properties of
the locus of control scale for the current study were
acceptable, with Spearman-Brown coefficient ¼ .783 and
Guttman split-half coefficient ¼ .766.
Data analysis
All the confirmatory factor analyses, structural equation
models, path analyses, and analyses of invariance were
6 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients between the studied constructs.
1. Authoritative parenting style
2. Authoritarian parenting style
3. Permissive parenting style
4. Internal locus of control
5. Bullying
6. Victimization
Note. *p , .05, **p , .01.
NR: mean and SD could not be imputed because of the dichotomous nature of these constructs and their
computation as factor scores
run using AMOS 19, and maximum likelihood
estimation was applied, with the raw data matrix being
analyzed. Confirmatory factor analyses were run for the
PAQ and the BVQ scales before all the other analyses, in
order to confirm the consistency of the measurement
models and the representation of the required-factors
constructs, showing good fit for both. Locus of control
represented an observed variable due to the dichotomous
nature of its instrument. Model fit was a priori decided
to be evaluated with the chi-square test, as well as the
following approximate fit indices: the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) that quantifies
badness of fit, the parsimony corrected (PCLOSE), the
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of relative
improvement in the fit of the hypothesized model over
a baseline one that assumes that factors are independent,
the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of absolute fit, and the
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) that
measures the difference between observed and predicted
correlation. For an adequate model fit, most of the indices
should be met, with the CFI ..90, the PCLOSE close to 1,
the GFI ..90, and the RMSEA and the SRMR ,.05,
with ,.08 being satisfactory as well (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
For the mediation models, the guidelines provided by
Holmbeck (1997) were followed, as well as the
suggestions by Wong and Law (1999) in order to test
for the reciprocal effects between locus of control and
bullying and victimization using nonrecursive models.
For the examination of gender differences, multigroup
analyses were performed and evaluated by the change in
chi-square with the change in degrees of freedom, along
with the index presenting change in CFI ,.01 to be
acceptable as well.
Results
A composite score was computed for each construct,
using the raw data representing the answers of each
individual on the items that compose each factor to create
a mean score. The means and standard deviations of the
constructs, as well as the bivariate correlations between
them, were computed in order to examine the
Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6
3.76 .79 .09 .23** .16** 2.08 2.09*
2.47 .78 .20** 2.31** .28** .28**
2.58 .63 2.15** .03 .17**
NR NR 2.25** 2.26**
1.38 .58 .51**
1.71 .74
associations between each parenting style, internal locus
of control, bullying, and victimization (see Table 1).
No multicollinearity (correlations above .80) was
identified between the constructs. All the items were
assessed on normality, kyrtosis, and skewness as well,
showing that some of the items in the bullying–
victimization scale had univariate kyrtosis higher than 10.
Logarithmic transformation was thus performed to all of
the items of the bullying –victimization scale, reducing
the univariate kyrtosis lower than 4. Mahalanobis
distance showed that no outliers existed in any of the
measured items and constructs. Tests for multivariate
normality in AMOS with Mardia’s k showed that the
critical ratio for multivariate normality was well above 3,
indicating violation of the multivariate normality
hypothesis. Bayesian estimation was applied and
compared to maximum likelihood estimation, demon-
strating similar results (example in Appendix).
Following this, the structural equation model
including parenting styles and bullying and victimiza-
tion experiences was tested, with the parenting styles
being the exogenous variables. All the estimates
presented are the standardized estimates. The model
showed that having an authoritative parent is associated
with lower levels of victimization (b ¼ 2.17, p ¼ .004)
and lower levels of bullying (b ¼ 2.27, p , .001).
In contrast, having an authoritarian parent positively
predicted greater levels of bullying (b ¼ .31, p , .001)
and greater levels of victimization (b ¼ .35, p , .001).
Having a permissive parent predicted greater levels of
bullying as well (b ¼ .19, p ¼ .008). The model had an
almost acceptable fit, with x2 (1064) ¼ 1860.005,
p , .001, GFI ¼ .851, CFI ¼ .858, RMSEA ¼ .041,
PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .0655. The alternative
model with the reverse relations (i.e., from victimization
and bullying to parenting) had a less acceptable fit, with
x2(1066) ¼ 1922.942, p , .001, GFI ¼ .847, CFI ¼ .847,
RMSEA ¼ .042, PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .0731. The
first model conceptualizing parenting styles as predictors
of bullying and victimization was also better supported
by the theories of bullying (especially social-cognitive-
learning theory and system developmental theory); thus
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

it was decided that it was the best, along with its
significantly better fit (Dx2 (2) ¼ 62.937, p , .001), in
order to continue with the rest of the analyses.
The mediation model was then calculated for testing
the second hypothesis, based on the steps suggested by
Holmbeck (1997). Only some of the associations were
significant, with permissive parenting style not being
related to any of the locus of control orientations.
Therefore, separate mediation analyses were performed
for the authoritarian parenting style and for the
authoritative parenting style, which had associations
with locus attributions, and were further investigated
(Table 2). The results showed that internal locus of
control was a partial mediator of the relationship between
having an authoritarian parent and engaging in bullying
and victimization behaviors, whereas internal orientation
of control was a full mediator of the relationship between
authoritative parenting style and victimization and
bullying experiences. The direct effect of authoritarian
parenting on bullying and victimization became smaller
after the inclusion of internal locus of control in the
model, and the mediated model had a better fit on the
data. That is, greater authoritarian parenting predicts
lower internal locus of control. Then, lower orientation of
control predicts significantly higher victimization and
higher bullying. However, the model without the direct
effects of authoritarian parenting on bullying and
victimization had a worse fit than the mediated model,
suggesting partial mediation of the relationship. To
illustrate, authoritarian parenting significantly increases
victimization and bullying behaviors, apart from the
variance accounted by the mediating factor of internal
locus of control (Figure 1).
On the other hand, having an authoritative parent
significantly predicts higher internal locus of control and
less bullying and victimization experiences. Internal
control was negatively associated with bullying and
victimization, suggesting that higher internal orientation
was related to less bullying and victimization experiences.
The insert of locus of control in the relationship between
authoritative parenting style and bullying – victimization
experiences annihilated the direct effect from author-
itative parenting style, suggesting full mediation
(Figure 2). The results of the mediation analyses partially
confirmed the second hypothesis, since mediation effects
were found for authoritative and authoritarian styles
only, and not for permissive parenting style.
Nonrecursive models to test reciprocal effects as
suggested by Wong and Law (1999) were also
conducted, in order to increase the reliability of the
findings. In these models, the parenting styles were the
instrumental variables, while locus of control and
bullying and victimization were allowed to have
reciprocal relations and their disturbances were allowed
to be correlated. The results showed that the
standardized estimates were larger when the direction
was from locus of control to bullying and victimization,
compared to the reciprocal ones from bullying and
victimization to locus of control (Figure 3). The higher
effect of locus of control on behavior than the reversed
shows that internal orientation of control is negatively
related to bullying and victimization. Based on the
theoretical framework outlined previously, orientation of
control as a construct, starts its formation long before
the beginning of primary school and one of the variables
accounting for its variance is parenting style. After their
involvement in bullying and victimization, children
seem to slightly increase their internal orientation of
control, at least at the short term. Children who bully
may increase their internal locus as a form of power
gain, whereas internal locus may be increased in victims
as a form of self-blame.
Following the mediation analyses, multigroup analyses
were applied, in order to identify if gender moderated the
mediation effects found for authoritative and authoritar-
ian parenting styles. The model for the authoritarian style
was not invariant, as the model fit for the unconstrained
model was not acceptable, with x2(736) ¼ 1,288.40,
p , .001, GFI ¼ .836, CFI ¼ .851, RMSEA ¼ .041,
PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .076. The investigation of
the differences in the estimates for males and females
showed that locus of control was (a) a full mediator of the
relationship between authoritarian style and bullying for
males, as the direct relationship between authoritarian
style and bullying stopped being significant (b ¼ .147,
p ¼ .121), but (b) a partial mediator of the same
relationship for females, as authoritarian style main-
tained a marginally positive effect on bullying (b ¼ .164,

Table 2. Steps to test mediation independently for authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles.
Model x2 (df) GFI CFI RMSEA /PCLOSE SRMR Dx2 (Ddf) Sig.
1A. Authoritarian parenting style, bullying –victimization 621.878** (df ¼ 343) .909 .924 .043 / .989 .0527
1B. Mediation by internal locus 649.300** (df ¼ 368) .909 .925 .041 / .997 .0518 27.422 (25) NS
1C. Authoritarian to bullying–victimization constrained to zero 675.486** (df ¼ 370) .906 .914 .043 / .988 .0705 26.186 (2) ***
2A. Authoritative parenting style, bullying–victimization 585.635** (df ¼ 343) .912 .938 .040 / .999 .0468
2B. Mediation by internal locus 612.757** (df ¼ 368) .911 .938 .039 / 1.000 .0460 27.12 (25) NS
2C. Authoritative to bullying–victimization constrained to zero 616.963** (df ¼ 370) .911 .938 .039 / 1.000 .0506 4.206 (2) NS
Note. **p , .001.
8 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
Figure 1. Mediation models for authoritarian parenting, internal locus, and bullying– victimization (1A: direct model, 1B: mediation,
1C: direct effects constrained to zero).
p ¼ .05). The model for the authoritative style was not
invariant either, as the fit indices of the unconstrained
model were not acceptable, with x2(736) ¼ 1,251.948,
p , .001, GFI ¼ .836, CFI ¼ .870, RMSEA ¼ .040,
PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .066. Internal locus of
control was a full mediator of the relationship between
authoritative style and victimization for females, as
authoritative style stopped having a direct effect on
victimization (b ¼ 2.043, p ¼ .565), but a marginally
partial mediator for males, as having an authoritative
parent still had a direct negative effect on victimization
(b ¼ 2.164, p ¼ .05).
Discussion
The present study examined the association between
parenting styles and bullying or victimization experiences
in children aged 10– 11 years old. The study investigated
the possible role of locus of control as a mediator in the
relationship between parenting style and bullying or
victimization, as well as the moderating role of gender.
The results showed that parenting styles were
significantly associated to bully – victim behaviors.
Specifically, authoritarian parenting was positively
associated to bullying and victimization experiences,
whereas authoritative parenting was negatively associated
to those behaviors. Permissive parenting was positively
related only to bullying and not to victimization. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. These findings
are in line with the previous literature (Lereya et al.,
2013), but question some of the findings supporting that
permissive style is positively associated to victimization
(e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Georgiou, 2008a). The
findings of the current study may point to the ineffective
monitoring that characterizes permissive styles, which
may subsequently lead to delinquent behaviors by the
child. The positive association between authoritarian
parenting and bully– victim experiences, as well as the
negative association between authoritative parenting
and bully– victim experiences found in the current study
offer support to several prior studies (e.g,, Ahmed &
Braithwaite, 2004; Stevens et al., 2002).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Figure 2. Mediation models for authoritative parenting, internal locus of control, and bullying–victimization (2A: direct model,
2B: mediation, 2C: direct effects constrained to zero).
As far as the second aim of the study is concerned,
Hypothesis 2 mediation analyses were partially successful
in confirming that locus of control mediates the link
between parenting styles and bullying experiences. Even
though the permissive style did not have any relationship
to locus of control, the models with authoritative and
authoritarian styles led to important findings. Specifi-
cally, internal locus of control partially mediated the link
between authoritarian parenting and bullying or
victimization experiences and also internal locus fully
mediated the linkage between authoritative parenting
and engagement in bullying behaviors. That is, growing
up with an authoritarian parent decreases the children’s
internal locus orientation, resulting in the belief that their
actions happen as a matter of external forces and are
outside of their control. Decreased internal locus
becomes then predictor of more bullying experiences,
possibly because these children learn to attribute their
own behaviors to the control of others. This is in line with
previous findings arguing that bullies tend to blame the
9
victim rather than themselves (e.g., Georgiou &
Stavrinides, 2008). It may also be that low responsibility
at home, as the result of authoritarian parenting, fosters
engagement in bullying behaviors at school. That is,
bullying represents a means to gain control at school,
since this control is fully exercised by the parent in the
home environment. This issue may have further
implications and should be more thoroughly investigated
by future studies. Decreased internal locus predicts also
higher victimization, probably because children who
believe that their lives are controlled by powerful others
are easy targets of potential bullies.
Authoritarian parenting remained a significant pre-
dictor of bullying and victimization experiences, apart
from the mediating role of locus of control, suggesting
that other factors are also involved in this
relationship. Multigroup analyses based on gender
suggested that partial mediation was a distinct phenom-
enon for females only, whereas full mediation was
evident for males. A number of psychological factors
10 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
Figure 3. Nonrecursive models to test the reciprocal relationships between locus of control and bullying and victimization with
instrumental variables being authoritarian parenting style and authoritative parenting style. Standardized estimates are presented.
related to bullying and victimization have been identified,
such as social support, attachment, coping, somatization,
and negative affectivity (Hansen, Steenberg, Palic, &
Elklit, 2012), which could be tested as mediators or
moderators. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the
lacking relationship between permissive style and locus of
control, since having a permissive parent was related to
more bullying behavior, but permissive style was not
related to locus of control. This finding suggests that
parenting alone cannot account for the variance of locus
of control and other school factors may be important,
such as peer connection, school climate, and teacher
relationships. Future research should test other variables
accounting for the variance of locus of control, stressing
the need to conceptualize it as a factor affected by
different systems in a child’s life.
The full mediation employed by internal locus in the
relationship between authoritative parenting and bully-
ing or victimization suggests that authoritative parenting
predicts less bullying and victimization experiences
probably because of its effect on children’s locus of
control. To illustrate, having an authoritative parent
makes the children feel that the events in their life are
contingent upon their own behavior and not upon a
complexity of other, external forces (such as luck, fate, or
powerful others). That may prevent the children from
being involved in bullying episodes, since they know that
they will then have to take responsibility for their own
actions. A child who is reared by an authoritative parent
and has low external control, but not so extremely low
as to be undermanaged (as is true with permissive
parenting), may feel that his parents trust him to behave
properly at school. Consequently, children who are not
exposed to overprotective practices and who have an
internal locus of control may be then less likely to become
victimized. This hypothesis seems logical when consider-
ing previous findings that link overprotection to
victimization (e.g., Bowers et al., 1994; Kokkinos &
Panayiotou, 2007). The findings of the study do not
suggest that authoritative parenting becomes not
important in the model, but that locus of control seem
to be important at this developmental stage as a
mechanism linking parenting style to school behavior.
The results on reciprocal effects of locus of control and
bullying and victimization illustrate the interaction
between the two during the progress of children’s life.
At a theoretical level, the interaction effects seem to
indicate that children have more external orientation of
control before their involvement in bullying and
victimization, but after their involvement in bullying
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
and victimization their orientation of control becomes
more internal, at least in the short term. Longitudinal
designs are needed to replicate this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3, stating that gender moderates the
mediating role of locus of control, was confirmed,
suggesting that the mediation models had mild
differences across gender. The results on gender confirm
previous research indicating mixed evidence on the
moderating role of gender, and may capture the
differential effects of the same parenting practices for
males and females. Internal locus of control seems to
have a more central function for males, among
adolescents with authoritarian parents. This may be
related to the differential nature of authoritarian
parenting style for males and females, as well as with
the perceptions of control. Authoritarian parenting for
males may be conceptualized as an effort to control their
orientation, which, combined with the sociocultural
pressures to gain control, increases bullying, especially
physical and direct forms of bullying. At the same time,
authoritarian parenting for females may be related to
bullying not only because of the elimination of their
perceived control, but also because of other mechanisms,
such as increase of their emotional hardness and a
decreased sense of self-efficacy, that increase indirect and
psychological forms of bullying. Comparisons for
adolescents with authoritative parents point to a slightly
more important role of internal locus of control for
females than for males. It might be that due to different
characteristics of adolescent males and females and
earlier maturation of females, authoritative parenting
may support more internal orientation of control by
females, which protects them against bullying and
victimization. One should note that locus of control
may be a construct that is differentially conceptualized by
cultures depending on gender. Bullying usually takes
different forms among genders and this may have impact
on the finding of moderation by gender. Parenting styles
may be qualitatively different for males and females, as
related to sociocultural background as well.
All of the above need to be discussed through a
developmental perspective. The point at which the
variables measured become developmentally operational
and can be considered stable needs to be clarified. The
time in which early adolescents were tested in the study
is important, as the influence of peers is thought to have
been more prominent at this age. Also, the impact of
parenting practices is progressively reduced during this
developmental stage. During this developmental stage,
children may form a more personal orientation of
control, as they distance themselves more from parental
control, protection, and involvement. On the other hand,
the time in which we measured locus of control may not
11
be considered stable enough, though locus of control may
never get stable as a construct and may differ based on
the context and other situational factors influencing
orientation of control (such as people involved,
motivation and values, suddenness of event, etc.).
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the use of a cross-
sectional design and the potential cultural specificity of
the results. Cypriot culture used to be more collectivistic
at the beginning of the previous century, but individua-
listic values have prevailed among the Cypriot families,
with the children being abler to voice their options
against parental control (Georgiou, 1996). A meta-
analysis that included a Cypriot study on parenting styles
showed comparability of the parenting dimensions found
in the Cypriot population with the Western studies
(Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). The use of a nonrecursive
reciprocal model and the strong theoretical background,
by which the direction of effect was decided, increase the
reliability of the findings. Also, all of the measures used
have been previously validated and adapted in this
culture, suggesting consistent factorial structure with
Western countries. The moderate correlation between
bullying and victimization may call into question the
discriminant validity of the constructs, but this is a
problem that many studies report for that specific
instrument (e.g., Beran, 2006). Since the instrument does
not differentiate between bullies, victims, bully– victims,
and uninvolved, it might be that the moderate correlation
captures the children in the bully– victim category.
Because assessment was exclusively provided by children
through self-reports, it is possible that answers in some of
the tests were influenced by children’s responses in the
rest of the tests (e.g., orientation of control impacted
children’s perceptions about their parents’ practices, or
about their rating of bullying). Additional raters would
have increased the reliability of the findings. The
acceptable and almost acceptable fit indices of some of
the models suggest that other factors should be taken into
consideration in future investigations. Also, even though
the vast majority of bullying research investigates
children from the late elementary school, there is not
yet a clear consensus regarding when children have the
cognitive abilities and are developmentally operational to
describe and report bullying and victimization (Hemp-
hill, Heerde, & Gomo, 2014). Locus of control is not
considered a stable characteristic, since many psychoso-
cial factors and their interpretation may alter one’s
orientation, though the findings of the present study
suggest its importance at this developmental stage.
Culturally related factors, such as the sociopolitical
12 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
history of Cyprus, may have influenced parents’ and
children’s feelings of external control, and cultural gender
differences may have influenced the findings pointing at
the moderating role of gender.
Contribution of the present study and future
studies
Regardless of the above limitations, the findings of the
current study add to the literature exploring the factors
that are related to bullying and victimization experiences,
focusing on the cumulative effect of a familial factor
(parenting style) and a personal one (locus of control).
The results show that the locus of control construct is
important in early adolescence and should be addressed
in intervention and prevention programs for bullying and
victimization at schools. Through classes of psychoemo-
tional development and social-emotional learning,
children should learn to attribute their behaviors to
internal factors, as this may protect them from a range of
dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., bullying and victimization,
low school effort and achievement, or disruptive
behaviors). Given the early development of locus of
control and its dynamic nature, prevention programs
should be applied from the beginning of social
interactions with others in the kindergarten. At this
stage, preschoolers should learn to balance between their
interactions with family, peers, and schools, and to start
attributing the results of their behaviors to themselves.
Prevention and intervention programs are doomed
to failure if they are constrained within the boundaries
of the school only. Students’ homes should also be
involved, especially parental attitudes and practices.
Most importantly, parents should be educated about the
effects that their rearing style has on a series of variables
that concern their children, including their perceived
locus of control and their bullying and victimization
experiences at school. Psychoeducation sessions
and skills training for parents should be evaluated in
terms of their effect on parenting practices, and also in
terms of the impact of parenting practices on personal
variables.
Future studies should also investigate additional
parameters regarding their mediating or moderating
role in the relationship between parenting styles and
bullying experiences. Examples of such parameters are
the emotional proximity between parents and children,
fear of rejection, child resilience, and child disclosure.
More than that, future investigations should concurrently
examine the potential role of multiple personal variables
as mediators, and also determine the potential signifi-
cance of each of them in order to explain the relationship
between parenting practices and bullying and victimiza-
tion. The examination of multiple parenting variables
together would also be of importance, providing a more
holistic conceptualization of parenting practices. Future
studies should also examine the importance of locus of
control as a mechanism for understanding the relation-
ship between parenting styles and bullying and
victimization in other developmental stages. Longitudinal
studies would be able to increase the specificity of the
findings regarding the direction of relationships, and
complex designs including nonrecursive longitudinal
studies would increase our insight into the reciprocal
relations within parent –child relationships.
About the authors
Stelios N. Georgiou is a Professor of educational psychology at
the University of Cyprus. His main research interests include
parenting, home-school relations, peer aggression and bullying at
school.
Myria Ioannou is a Doctoral Student in Clinical Psychology at the
University of Cyprus. Her main research interests include
behavioral problems and resilience in adolescence, and self-
regulation mechanisms after exposure to psychological trauma.
Panayiotis Stavrinides is an Assistant Professor of Developmental
Psychology at the University of Cyprus. He is the director of the
Developmental Psychology Lab, and his main research interests
include parenting, atypical developmental adaptation in adoles-
cence, mechanisms related to peer aggression and bullying at
school.
References
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimiza-
tion: Cause for concern for both families and schools. Social
Psychology of Education, 7, 35– 54. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:
SPOE.0000010668.43236.60
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their
association with psychological constructs in 8- to 12-year-
old Greek school children. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 49 –56.
http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1,49:AID-
AB4.3.0.CO;2-M
Andreou, S. N. (2012). Analysis of household expenditure on
education in Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review, 6(2),
17 – 38. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://www.ucy.ac.cy/
erc/documents/Andreou_17-38-new.pdf
Atik, G., & Güneri, O. Y. (2013). Bullying and victimization:
Predictive role of individual, parental, and academic factors.
School Psychology International, 34(6), 658– 673. http://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034313479699
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and
delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10,
17– 31. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)
10:1,17:AID-CASP526.3.0.CO;2-M
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent
development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. Petersen
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746– 758). New
York, NY: Garland.
Beran, T. N. (2006). A construct validity study of bullying.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 241 –250.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Retrieved on April 15, 2016, from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/228669903?accountid¼17200
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family
relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle
childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
215 –232. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594112004
Brock, S. E., Nickerson, A. B., O’Malley, M. D., & Chang, Y.
(2006). Understanding children victimized by their peers.
Journal of School Violence, 5(3), 3 – 18. http://doi.org/10.
1300/J202v05n03_02
Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 1, 110 –119. http://doi.org/10.1207/s
15327752jpa5701_13
Cardoos, S. L., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2011). Friendship as
protection from peer victimization for girls with and without
ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(7),
1035– 1045. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9517-3
Chubb, N. H., Fertman, C. I., & Ross, J. L. (1997). Adolescent
self-esteem and locus of control: A longitudinal study of
gender and age differences. Adolescence, 32(125), 113– 129,
Retrieved on May 3, 2016, from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/195943252?accountid¼17200
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2003). Identifying and targeting
risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 577– 582. http://doi.org/10.1177/
070674370304800903
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining
the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326 –333. http://
doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x
Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Motoca, L. M., Leung, M. C.,
Hutchins, B. C., Brooks, D. S., & Hall, C. M. (2015).
Externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, peer
affiliations, and bullying involvement across the transition to
middle school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
23(1), 3 – 16. http://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613491286
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother
involvement and father involvement in adolescent bullying
behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 634– 644.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503251129
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems
theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Georgiou, S. N. (1996). Parental involvement: Definition and
outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 1(3), 189– 209.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02339890
Georgiou, S. N. (2008a). Parental style and child bullying and
victimization experiences at school. Social Psychology of
Education, 11(3), 213– 227. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-
007-9048-5
Georgiou, S. N. (2008b). Bullying and victimization at school:
The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 109 – 125. http://doi.org/10.1348/
000709907X204363
Georgiou, S. N. (2009). Personal and maternal parameters of
peer violence at school. Journal of School Violence, 8(2),
100 –119. http://doi.org/10.1080/15388220802073928
Georgiou, S. N., Fousiani, K., Michaelides, M., & Stavrinides, P.
(2013). Cultural value orientation and authoritarian parent-
ing as parameters of bullying and victimization at school.
International Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 69 – 78. http://doi.
org/10.1080/00207594.2012.754104
13
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims, and
bully-victims: Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles.
School Psychology International, 29, 574 – 589. http://doi.org/
10.1177/0143034308099202
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home
and bullying at school. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2),
165 – 179. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z
Giannitsas, N. (1988). Degree of “certainty-uncertainty”:
Causal factors and impact on child’s adaptation (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). University of Athens, Athens,
Greece.
Gifford, D. D., Briceno-Perriot, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus
of control: Academic achievement and retention in a sample
of university first-year students. Journal of College Admission,
191, 18– 25. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952675.n169
Hansen, T. B., Steenberg, L. M., Palic, S., & Elklit, A. (2012).
A review of psychological factors related to bullying
victimization in schools. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
17(4), 383 –387. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.008
Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Mak, A. (2004). The impact of
adolescent and parental characteristics on adolescent levels of
delinquency and depression. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36(1), 173 – 185. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(03)00077-1
Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual
definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research
and academic community. Australia: Australian Research
Alliance for Children and Youth.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Bullying beyond the
schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H.,
Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between
parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749 – 775. http://doi.org/
10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual,
statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators:
Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology
literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,
599 – 610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1– 55. http://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control
in the victims of school bullying: The importance of early
intervention. Educational Research, 44(3), 323 – 336. http://
doi.org/10.1080/0013188022000031614
Juvonen, J. (2007). Reforming middle schools: Focus on
continuity, social connectedness, and engagement. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 42, 197– 208. http://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520701621046
Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2002). Bullying and
victimisation in Scottish secondary schools: Same or separate
entities? Aggressive Behavior, 28, 45– 61. http://doi.org/10.
1002/ab.90005
Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R., Salcedo, O.,
Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Gadd, R. (2000). The relationship
between parenting style and children’s adjustment: The
parents’ perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
14 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.
9(2), 231 –245. http://doi.org/1062-1024/00/0600-0231$18.
00/0
Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2012). The moderating role of
gender on the relationships between perceived paternal
parenting style, locus of control and self-efficacy. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32(2011), 63 – 68. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.011
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental
acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-
analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64(1), 54– 64. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2002.00054.x
Khamis, V. (2015). Bullying among school-age children in the
greater Beirut area: Risk and protective factors. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 39, 137 – 146. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.
08.005
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2007). Parental discipline
practices and locus of control: Relationship to bullying and
victimization experiences of elementary school students.
Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 281– 301. http://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-007-9021-3
Koumoundourou, G. A., Tsaousis, I., & Kounenou, K. (2010).
Parental influences on Greek adolescents’ career decision-
making difficulties: The mediating role of core self-
evaluations. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(2), 165– 182.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710385547
Koutsampelas, C. (2011). Social transfers and income
distribution in Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review,
5(2), 35 – 55, Retrieved on July 2, 2016, from http://
econpapers.repec.org/article/erccypepr/
v_3a5_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a35-55.htm
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis
of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the
Rasch measurement model. The British Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 76(Pt 4), 781– 801. http://doi.org/10.
1348/000709905X53499
Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting
behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/
victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse and Neglect,
37(12), 1091– 1108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.
001
Li, H. C. W., & Lopez, V. (2004). Chinese translation and
validation of the Nowicki-Strickland locus of control scale for
children. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(5),
463 –469. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2003.12.001
Makri-Botsari, E. (1999). Academic intrinsic motivation:
Developmental differences and relations to perceived
scholastic competence, locus of control and achievement.
Evaluation & Research in Education, 13(3), 157– 171. http://
doi.org/10.1080/09500799908666955
Marsiglia, C. S., Walczyk, J. J., Buboltz, W. C., & Griffith-Ross,
D. A. (2007). Impact of parenting styles and locus of control
on emerging adults’ psychosocial success. Journal of
Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1 – 12, Retrieved
on February 16, 2016, from http://www.scientificjournals.
org/journals2007/articles/1031.htm
McClun, L. A., & Merrell, K. W. (1998). Relationship of
perceived parenting styles, locus of control orientation, and
self-concept among junior high age students. Psychology in
the Schools, 35(4), 381– 390. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1520-6807(199810)35:4,381:AID-PITS9.3.0.CO;2-S
Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S., & Isava, D. (2008). How
effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-
analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quar-
terly, 23, 26– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26
Miller, J. M., Diiorio, C., & Dudley, W. (2002). Parenting style
and adolescent’s reaction to conflict: Is there a relationship?
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 463– 468. http://doi.org/
10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00452-4
Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2007).
The association of bullying and victimization with middle
school adjustment. In J. E. Zins, M. J. Elias, & C. A. Maher
(Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and peer harassment
(pp. 49 – 65). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale
for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
40(1), 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033978
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects,
26, 331 – 359. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195509
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Charpentier,
S., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1999). Locus of control
and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 61 –65.
http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:1,61:AID-
AB6.3.0.CO;2-G
Pellegrini, A. D., & Van Ryzin, M. J. (2011). Part of the problem
and part of the solution: The role of peers in bullying,
dominance, and victimization during the transition from
primary school to secondary school. In D. L. Espelage &
S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (2nd
ed., pp. 91 – 100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008).
Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors.
Child Development, 79(2), 325– 338. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2007.01128.x
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., Mcmaster,
L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on
bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376 –384. http://doi.org/10.
1002/ab.20136
Rigby, K. (2013). Bullying in schools and its relation to
parenting and family life. Family Matters, 92(92), 61 –67.
Retrieved March 27, 2016, from https://search.informit.com.
au/documentSummary;dn¼442237495856995;res¼IELAPA
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 80, 1– 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0092976
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social
withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
141 – 171. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.
163642
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Aggression and violent behavior bullying
and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 15(2), 112– 120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.
08.007
Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The
aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural
dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers.
In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:
The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147– 174).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Shao, A., Liang, L., Yuan, C., & Bian, Y. (2014). A latent class
analysis of bullies, victims and aggressive victims in Chinese
adolescence: Relations with social and school adjustments.
PLoS ONE, 9(4). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0095290
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., &
Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionistic self-
representations: The mediational link between psychological
control and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 38(2), 487– 498. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.
008
Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting
practices, parenting styles and adolescent school achieve-
ment. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125– 146. http://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1
Spokas, M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2009). Overprotective
parenting, social anxiety, and external locus of control:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 33(6), 543 – 551. http://doi.org/10.
1007/s10608-008-9227-5
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., Nikiforou, M., & Kiteri, E. (2011).
Longitudinal investigation of the relationship between
bullying and psychosocial adjustment. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 8(6), 730 – 743. http://doi.org/10.
1080/17405629.2011.628545
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying
and empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation.
Educational Psychology, 30(7), 793– 802. http://doi.org/10.
1080/01443410.2010.506004
Stevens, V., Bourdeaudhuij, I. D., & Oost, P. V. (2002).
Relationship of the family environment to children’s
involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 31(6), 419– 428. http://doi.org/10.
1023/A:1020207003027
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Haymel, S.
(2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking
research to educational practice. Educational Researcher,
39(1), 38– 47. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622
Timpano, K. R., Keough, M. E., Mahaffey, B., Schmidt, N. B., &
Abramowitz, J. (2010). Parenting and obsessive compulsive
symptoms: Implications of authoritarian parenting. Journal
15
of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(3), 151– 164. http://doi.org/
10.1891/0889-8391.24.3.151
Tony, S. T. K. (2010). Locus of control, attributional style and
discipline problems in secondary schools. Early Child
Development and Care, 173(5), 37 – 41. http://doi.org/10.
1080/0300443032000088203
Tsaousis, I. (2002). The parental authority style and students
self-esteem as variables relevant to school problem
behaviour. In M. Kaila, G. Kalavasis, & N. Polemikos
(Eds.), Educational, family and political psychopathology
(pp. 274 –303). Athens, Greece: Atrapos.
Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013).
Bullying victimization and adolescent mental health: General
and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice,
41(1), 53 –59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005
Wallace, M. T., Barry, C. T., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Green, B. A.
(2012). Locus of control as a contributing factor in the
relation between self-perception and adolescent aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 38, 213– 221. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.
21419
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement
motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 –573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. (2003). Perceived
parenting styles, depersonalization, anxiety and coping
behavior in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 34(3), 521– 531. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869
(02)00092-2
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Testing reciprocal relations by
nonrecursive structural equation models using cross-
sectional data. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1),
69 – 87. http://doi.org/10.1177/109442819921005
Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu,
B. C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory,
empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 134 – 151. http://doi.org/10.
1111/1469-7610.00106
Yau, G., Schluchter, M., Taylor, H. G., Margevicius, S., Forrest,
C. B., . . . Hack, M. (2013). Bullying of extremely low birth
weight children: Associated risk factors during adolescence.
Early Human Development, 89(5), 333 – 338. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2012.11.004
16 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Appendix: Regression weights for the mediation model (authoritative, internal/ external locus,
victimization and bullying) with maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimation
Regression weights with maximum likelihood estimation

Estimate SE C.R. P Label

FACexternal ˆ authoritative 2.300 .062 24.861 *** par_24
FACinternal ˆ authoritative .192 .065 2.979 .003 par_25
FACinternal ˆ eext 2.852 .029 229.716 *** par_31
FACexternal ˆ eint .773 .026 29.423 *** par_32
bullying ˆ resbul .129 .008 16.375 *** par_14
bullying ˆ authoritative 2.020 .011 21.944 .052 par_26
victimization ˆ FACinternal 2.043 .009 24.884 *** par_27
bullying ˆ FACinternal 2.043 .008 25.425 *** par_28
victimization ˆ FACexternal .008 .008 .986 .324 par_29
victimization ˆ resvic .138 .011 12.370 *** par_33
victimization ˆ authoritative 2.015 .012 21.278 .201 par_34
tb14 ˆ bullying 1.085 .067 16.148 *** par_1
tb15 ˆ bullying .742 .068 10.993 *** par_2
tb18 ˆ bullying .495 .072 6.888 *** par_3
tb19 ˆ bullying .872 .068 12.904 *** par_4
c27 ˆ authoritative 1.086 .116 9.334 *** par_5
c23 ˆ authoritative 1.274 .117 10.852 *** par_6
c22 ˆ authoritative .828 .101 8.169 *** par_7
c20 ˆ authoritative 1.035 .116 8.925 *** par_8
c15 ˆ authoritative 1.065 .111 9.597 *** par_9
c11 ˆ authoritative .922 .106 8.692 *** par_10
c8 ˆ authoritative .959 .103 9.274 *** par_11
c5 ˆ authoritative .938 .121 7.725 *** par_12
c4 ˆ authoritative .985 .110 8.973 *** par_13
tb3 ˆ victimization .974 .102 9.558 *** par_15
tb4 ˆ victimization 1.252 .108 11.579 *** par_16
tb5 ˆ victimization 1.206 .106 11.408 *** par_17
tb6 ˆ victimization .833 .082 10.128 *** par_18
tb7 ˆ victimization .549 .065 8.446 *** par_19
tb8 ˆ victimization .842 .087 9.696 *** par_20
tb9 ˆ victimization .726 .080 9.073 *** par_21
tb12 ˆ bullying .875 .049 18.026 *** par_35
tb13 ˆ bullying 1.066 .072 14.912 *** par_36
tb16 ˆ bullying .698 .078 8.947 *** par_37
tb17 ˆ bullying .434 .059 7.382 *** par_38
tb20 ˆ bullying .652 .062 10.442 *** par_39
***p , .001.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

Regression weights with Bayesian estimation

Regression weights Mean SE SD C.S. Skewness Kurtosis Min Max

tb14 ˆ bullying 1.112 0.002 0.071 1.000 0.280 0.494 0.879 1.539
tb15 ˆ bullying 0.760 0.002 0.071 1.000 0.227 0.146 0.513 1.057
tb18 ˆ bullying 0.509 0.003 0.075 1.001 0.028 0.056 0.198 0.868
tb19 ˆ bullying 0.893 0.002 0.072 1.000 0.157 0.085 0.594 1.178
c27 ˆ authoritative 1.187 0.006 0.138 1.001 0.404 0.142 0.728 1.729
c23 ˆ authoritative 1.394 0.007 0.142 1.001 0.406 0.089 0.982 1.981
c22 ˆ authoritative 0.897 0.005 0.114 1.001 0.224 0.042 0.477 1.406
c20 ˆ authoritative 1.130 0.005 0.133 1.001 0.335 0.143 0.669 1.687
c15 ˆ authoritative 1.164 0.006 0.136 1.001 0.377 0.176 0.691 1.730
c11 ˆ authoritative 1.008 0.005 0.124 1.001 0.403 0.225 0.625 1.558
c8 ˆ authoritative 1.047 0.007 0.122 1.001 0.321 0.208 0.666 1.624
c5 ˆ authoritative 1.029 0.005 0.140 1.001 0.366 0.473 0.550 1.707
c4 ˆ authoritative 1.081 0.006 0.128 1.001 0.286 0.193 0.595 1.637
bullying ˆ resbul 0.127 0.000 0.008 1.000 0.034 20.039 0.095 0.157
tb3 ˆ victimization 1.000 0.004 0.108 1.001 0.316 0.251 0.627 1.488
tb4 ˆ victimization 1.285 0.005 0.115 1.001 0.385 0.248 0.910 1.832
tb5 ˆ victimization 1.242 0.004 0.115 1.001 0.498 0.485 0.876 1.800
tb6 ˆ victimization 0.854 0.003 0.090 1.001 0.503 0.864 0.583 1.381
tb7 ˆ victimization 0.566 0.002 0.069 1.000 0.371 0.474 0.341 0.935
tb8 ˆ victimization 0.867 0.002 0.092 1.000 0.283 0.118 0.568 1.256
tb9 ˆ victimization 0.746 0.002 0.087 1.000 0.358 0.261 0.450 1.130
FACexternal ˆ authoritative 20.328 0.002 0.070 1.001 20.259 0.170 20.621 20.088
FACinternal ˆ authoritative 0.207 0.002 0.071 1.001 0.113 0.104 20.079 0.475
bullying ˆ authoritative 20.022 0.001 0.012 1.001 20.148 0.054 20.069 0.023
victimization ˆ FACinternal 20.042 0.000 0.009 1.000 20.077 20.034 20.076 20.011
bullying ˆ FACinternal 20.043 0.000 0.008 1.001 20.070 0.125 20.078 20.012
victimization ˆ FACexternal 0.008 0.000 0.008 1.000 20.096 0.232 20.027 0.042
FACinternal ˆ eext 0.856 0.001 0.029 1.001 0.160 0.019 0.743 0.966
FACexternal ˆ eint 20.777 0.001 0.026 1.000 20.138 20.025 20.885 20.676
victimization ˆ resvic 0.136 0.000 0.012 1.001 0.075 0.042 0.094 0.183
victimization ˆ authoritative 20.016 0.000 0.013 1.001 20.246 0.254 20.075 0.033
tb12 ˆ bullying 0.890 0.001 0.051 1.000 0.253 0.262 0.700 1.122
tb13 ˆ bullying 1.092 0.002 0.080 1.000 0.288 0.213 0.819 1.451
tb16 ˆ bullying 0.713 0.003 0.082 1.001 0.131 0.070 0.404 1.082
tb17 ˆ bullying 0.444 0.002 0.062 1.000 0.048 20.068 0.206 0.673
tb20 ˆ bullying 0.669 0.002 0.067 1.000 0.200 0.081 0.417 0.941