Доклади на Българската академия на науките

Comptes rendus de l’Académie bulgare des Sciences

Tome 73, No 11, 2020

MEDICINE
Clinical medicine

CYBER VICTIMIZATION AND SELF-ESTEEM AMONG

COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM TURKEY
Gulsum Ozturk Emiral, Mustafa Tozun∗,# , Alaettin Unsal∗∗ ,
Didem Arslantas∗∗ , Seval Caliskan Pala∗∗ , Zeynep Demirtas∗∗ ,
Sevil Akbulut Zencirci∗∗

(Submitted by Academician B. Petrunov on March 15, 2020)

Abstract
The study’s aim was to determine the relationships of some variables on
cyber victims and to evaluate the correlation between cyber victimization level
and self-esteem level. This cross-sectional research was conducted from 01
January 2018 to 30 June 2018. The study sample consisted of 2937 students
from fourteen high schools in Western Turkey. The Turkish version of the
Revised Cyber Bullying Inventory-II (RCBI-II) was used to determine the level
of cyber victimization. Logistic Regression Model (Backward Wald) was created
with independent variables that provide p < 0.10 in bivariate analyses. The
prevalence of cyber victimization was 62.6% (n: 1.838). Rural, Father education
level being ’university’, middle or low level family income, Fragmented family
type, being a 9th grade student, Multiple social media account, Using internet
to play games, Talking about cyber victim problems with others, Arguing on
the internet, Being shy on the internet, Low level of self-esteem are important
risk factors for cyber victim (for each one: p < 0.05). It is recommended to
take protective measures and develop strategies about cyber victimization risk
factors in the study area.
Key words: cyber victimization, self-esteem, high school

Introduction. In recent years, cyberbullying has been a public health prob-

lem threatening adolescent health all over the world [1 ]. Rapid changes and devel-
opments in technology and communication tools cause the spread of cyberbullying
#
Corresponding author
DOI:10.7546/CRABS.2020.11.15

1592
 events. Cyberbullying is also a threat to Turkey, as it is a threat to the world
[2 ]. Cyberbullying has been reported in the U.S. to have a steady upward trend,
especially among girls, despite the decline in school bullying in recent years [1 ]. In
a study comparing adolescents in seven European countries, cyber victimization
frequency was reported that is the highest in Romania and the lowest in Spain
[3 ].
Adolescence is the most important period of life for self-development. A per-
son in adolescence lives the most volatile, unstable days of his/her life. Moreover,
he/she is exposed to rapid growth and development, realizes the individual-social-
universal values, and creates an identity. Self-esteem regulating systems gain spe-
cial importance in adolescence. Especially, as a result of maturation in the sexual
and cognitive domain, the egocentrism of the adolescent increases. Internet ad-
diction in adolescence is also a factor associated with egocentrism. An adolescent
tries to get rid of family dependence while affirming his/her self-identity to his/her
family and society [4 ]. Adolescents have some problems such as depression and
anxiety, and immature defense mechanisms and lack of self-esteem. Therefore,
they are at a great risk of cyber victimization [5 ].
The aim of the study was to determine the relationships of some variables on
cyber victims and to evaluate the correlation between cyber victimization level
and self-esteem level.
Material and methods. The study is cross-sectional. It was conducted
from 01 January 2018 to 30 June 2018. The target population (N ) that includes
high school students in Eskisehir province of Turkey was 49 708. It was accepted
that prevalence of 50%, confidence interval 95%, and margin of error 3.0%, and
the sample size was calculated as 1040. In our study, the pattern of design effect
was accepted 2, because cluster sampling is selected. Thus, the sample size was
increased to 2080 (1040 * 2). In fourteen high schools (7 in urban, 7 in rural areas)
included, a total of 2937 (2225 in urban + 712 in rural) students were the sample
of the study. A questionnaire was prepared according to the aim of this study
and by benefiting the similar published articles [6, 7 ]. The Turkish version of the
Revised Cyber Bullying Inventory-II (RCBI-II) was used to determine the level
of cyber victimization. Those who scored 11 or more were accepted as “Cyber
victim” [8, 9 ]. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was used to determine the level of
self-esteem [10 ]. Bivariate analyses, student’s t test and One-way ANOVA were
used. The correlation between cyber victimization scores and self-esteem values
was assessed by the Pearson correlation test.
Logistic Regression Model (Backward Wald) was created with independent
variables that provide p < 0.10 in bivariate analyses. A total of 19 variables
(Residential area (Urban-Rural), School, Age group, Father’s educational level,
Mother’s educational level, Grade, Family income status, Family type, Type of
personality, History of psychiatric disease, Internet usage time per day, Preferred
device to access the internet, Internet access at home, Internet use purpose, Be-

8 C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 73, No 11, 2020 1593

ing attached with strangers on social media, Feeling strong in social networks,
Arguing on the internet, Being shy on the internet, Mentioning about the cyber
victimization problem and Self-esteem) were included in the Logistic Regression
Model. Goodness of fit was evaluated by Hosmer–Lemeshow test. The results of
Step 4, which gives p = 0.756, are presented.
IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 was used
for data entry and analysis.
Results. The prevalence of cyber victimization was 62.6% (n = 1838). The
average score of cyber victim in women (13.79 ± 4.98) was higher than in men
(13.45 ± 4.54), (p < 0.05).
The level of cyber victimization was higher in the ones whose father’s ed-
ucation level was high school (13.96 ± 4.93) and university (14.09 ± 4.78) than
others (if the father’s education level was primary school and below, the score
was 13.35 ± 4.78 and if secondary school, the score was 13.06 ± 4.50), (F = 7373;
p < 0.001).
The average score of cyber victimization was lower in the extended family
(13.21 ± 4.52) than in the nuclear (13.62 ± 4.76) and fragmented family (14.54 ±
5.44), (F = 4689; p = 0.009).
In other bivariate analyses, variables with p < 0.10 values were included in
the linear model.
A negative correlation was found between cyber victimization and self-esteem,
but the correlation was not strong (ρ = −0.154; p < 0.001).
Rural (OR=1369), Father education level being ’university’ (OR=1317), mid-
dle or low level family income (OR=1232; OR=2430), Fragmented family type
(OR=1488), being a 9th grade student (OR=1335), Multiple social media account
(OR=1995), Using internet to play games (OR=1805), Talking about cyber victim
problems with others (OR=1239), Arguing on the internet (OR=2309), Being shy
on the internet (OR=1477), Low level of self-esteem (OR=1022) are important
risk factors for cyber victim (for each one: p < 0.05).
Results of Logistic Regression Model (Backward Wald) about relationships
between cyber victimization and some variables are presented in Table 1.
Discussion. Cyber victimization prevalence studies conducted in different
countries and Turkey are reported to be between from 6.5% to 72% [3 ]. The
prevalence of cyber victimization was 62.6% in our study.
A brief discussion on our results is presented below:
Many studies from various countries report a relationship between cyber vic-
timization and being female. However, logistic model eliminated gender factor
in our study (p > 0.05) [11 ]. In our study, 9th grade students had higher risk
than 12th grade students in terms of cyber victimization (p < 0.05). This may be
because they are the youngest and inexperienced students at high school. The
father’s high education indicates a high socio-economic level. In high school
students, students with high socioeconomic levels are likely to be harassed by

1594 G. O. Emiral, M. Tozun, A. Unsal et al.

 Table 1
Results of Logistic Regression Model (Backward Wald) about relationships between cyber vic-
timization and some variables

Step 4 95% C.I.for EXP(B)

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Residential area (Reference: Urban (N: 2225))
Rural
.314 .100 9.753 .002 1.369 1.124 1.667
(N = 712)
School (Reference: Anatolian High School (N: 1554))
Vocational
high School –.223 .095 5.489 .019 .800 .664 .964
(N = 899)
Imam Hatip
High School –.098 .117 .700 .403 .907 .721 1.141
(N = 484)
Father’s educational level (Reference: Primary School (N = 640))
Secondary school
–.106 .118 .803 .370 .900 .714 1.134
(N = 704)
High school
.155 .111 1.935 .164 1.167 .939 1.452
(N = 1083)
University
.276 .137 4.053 .044 1.317 1.007 1.722
(N = 510)
Family income (Reference: High (N = 1024))
Middle (N = 1846) .208 .087 5.776 .016 1.232 1.039 1.460
Low (N = 67) .888 .312 8.104 .004 2.430 1.319 4.478
Family type (Reference: Nuclear (N = 2424))
Extended (N = 322) –.053 .130 .165 .684 .949 .736 1.223
Fragmented
.397 .177 5.031 .025 1.488 1.051 2.105
(N = 191)
Personality type (Reference: A type (N = 1312))
B type
–.147 .082 3.197 .074 .863 .735 1.014
(N = 1625)
Internet usage time per day (Reference: Less than 1 hour (N = 440))
1–2 hours
–.204 .136 2.227 .136 .816 .624 1.066
(N = 648)
3–8 hours
.138 .125 1.210 .271 1.147 .898 1.466
(N = 1480)
More than
8 hours .082 .164 .249 .617 1.086 .787 1.498
(N = 369)
Grade (Reference: 12 (N = 470))
9 (N = 1002) –.288 .123 5.469 .019 1.335 .589 .954
Social media account (Reference: No (N = 76))
Only 1 account
.334 .283 1.392 .238 1.397 .802 2.434
(N = 309)
Multiple accounts (N = 2552) .691 .267 6.673 .010 1.995 1.181 3.370

C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 73, No 11, 2020 1595

 Table 1
Continued

Step 4 95% C.I.for EXP(B)

Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Internet use purpose (Reference: News. information and homework (N = 142))
Entertainment
–.004 .173 .001 .981 .996 .709 1.398
(N = 211)
Social media
–.184 .209 .777 .378 .832 .552 1.253
(N = 659)
Playing games
.590 .256 5.310 .021 1.805 1.092 2.982
(N = 150)
Multiple
.173 .205 .712 .399 1.188 .796 1.774
(N = 1677)
Chat (N = 98) –.036 .102 .126 .722 .965 .791 1.177
Mentioning about the cyber victimization problem (Reference: No (N = 590))
Talking with
–.240 .115 4.333 .037 .787 .628 .986
parents (N = 939)
Talking with
other people .214 .110 3.822 .050 1.239 .999 1.536
(N = 1408)
Feeling strong in social networks (reference: Yes (N = 918))
No (N = 2019) –.103 .091 1.282 .257 .902 .754 1.079
Arguing on the internet (reference: No (N = 1852))
Yes (N = 1085) –.836 .091 83.674 .000 2.309 .362 .518
Being shy on the internet (reference: No (N = 1835))
Yes (N = 1102) –.390 .089 19.146 .000 1.477 .569 .806
History of psychiatric disease
–.256 .139 3.384 .066 .774 .589 1.017
Self esteem –.022 .008 8.621 .003 1.022 .964 .993
Constant 1.475 .405 13.304 .000 4.373
Goodness of fit, Hosmer–Lemeshow test: 6.798; p = 0.559

cyberbullies. Therefore, in this study, it is an expected result that the risk of

cyber victimization is high among students with high level of father education
(p < 0.05). In the city in which the study was conducted (Eskisehir is located in
the West of Turkey), there is a decrease in agriculture production and livestock in
rural areas. Families mostly migrated to urban areas. Children of rural families
may have insufficient knowledge about security in internet use. In our study, it
was found that high school students living in rural areas were a risk group for
cyber victimization (p < 0.05). It was reported that bully students are jealous
of students who are generally more successful and more popular than themselves,
and they are extremely uncomfortable with the success of others [12 ]. Williams
and Guerra [13 ] report that the rate of cyber victimization is higher in lower
grades than in upper grades. In Turkey, we think that the children of low-income
families who attend high school or higher education are labelled as poor in school.

1596 G. O. Emiral, M. Tozun, A. Unsal et al.

It has been reported that cyberbullying/cyber victimization is more common in
adolescents of fragmented families [14 ]. Cyber victimization is more common in
patients with anxiety and depression [15 ]. However, logistic model eliminated
‘History of psychiatric disease’ factor in our study (p > 0.05).
Studies from Turkey report that with the increase of internet usage, cyber
victimization also increases. While the presence of multiple devices may increase
internet usage time, it may also increase the likelihood of access to websites in a
more uncontrolled way [14, 16 ]. Various studies from abroad and Turkey reported
that most cyberbullying/cyber victimization events are observed at chat rooms
[13 ]. In our study, the ’chat’ factor was eliminated (p > 0.05). However, cyber
victimization is more common among those who use the internet to play games
in the study group (p < 0.05). This may be because the purpose of the internet
for students is to play games more than chat. Various studies reported that being
limited about internet usage by family reduces cyber victimization in adolescents
[14, 17 ]. However, in our study, the relationship between restricting the internet
use by the family and cyber victimization could not be shown (p > 0.05). Some
researchers report that cyber victimization inhibits social communication, makes
it difficult to adapt to the social environment, and leads to friendship problems
[18, 19 ]. In some studies, the relation between cyber victimization and those who
say they are ashamed has been mentioned [5 ]. A relation was found between the
cyber victimization and the mentioning to people except for parents about the
cyber victimization problem in our study (p < 0.05). A study from Turkey reports
a similar result too [20 ]. Arguing on the internet can make it easier to encounter
cyberbullies. Therefore, the risk of becoming a cyber victim may increase. We
also achieved a result in this direction (p < 0.05). And finally, as similar to our
result, some studies report an inverse relationship between self-esteem and cyber
victimization in adolescents [21 ].
Conclusion. It is recommended to take protective measures and develop
strategies about cyber victimization risk factors in the study area.
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ferhan
ELMALI for his help in statistical analysis.

REFERENCES

[1 ] Nixon C. L. (2014) Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent

health, Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 4(5), 143–158.
[2 ] Aricak O. T., T. Tanrikulu, H. Kinay (2012) Initial Psychometric Findings of
Cyber Victimization Scale, Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 2(11),
1–6.
[3 ] Athanasiou K., E. Melegkovits, E. K. Andrie, C. Magoulas, C. K.
Tzavara et al. (2018) Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among

C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 73, No 11, 2020 1597

 14–17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries, BMC Public Health,
18(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5682-4.
[4 ] Fomby P., C. A. Sennott (2013) Family structure instability and mobility: The
consequences for adolescents’ problem behavior, Social Science Research, 42(1), 186–
201.
[5 ] Wigderson S., M. Lynch (2013) Cyber-and traditional peer victimization: Unique
relationships with adolescent well-being, Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 297–309.
[6 ] Ozdemir M., F. Akar (2011) Examination of High School Students’ Opinions on
Cyberbullying in Terms of Various Variables, Educational Administration: Theory
and Practice, 4(4), 605–626.
[7 ] Peker A., Y. Eroglu, S. Ada (2012) The Investigation of Predictors of Cyberbul-
lying and Cybervictimization in Adolescents, Journal of Education Faculty of Abant
Izzet Baysal University, 12(2), 185–206.
[8 ] Topcu C., O. Erdur-Baker (2010) The revised cyber bullying inventory (RCBI):
Validity and reliability studies, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 660–664.
[9 ] Topcu C., O. Erdur-Baker (2018) RCBI-II: The Second Revision of the Revised
Cyber Bullying Inventory, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Develop-
ment, 51(1), 32–41.
[10 ] Robins R. W., H. M. Hendin, K. H. Trzesniewski (2001) Measuring global
self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161.
[11 ] Walrave M., W. Heirman (2011) Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and
perpetration, Children & Society, 25(1), 59–72.
[12 ] Pellegrini A. D., J. D. Long (2002) A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance,
and victimization during the transition from primary school through middle school,
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.
[13 ] Williams K., N. G. Guerra (2007) Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying,
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21.
[14 ] Eroglu Y., E. Aktepe, S. Akbaba, A. Isik, E. Ozkorumak (2015) The investi-
gation of prevalence and risk factors associated with cyber bullying and victimization,
Education and Science, 40(177), 93–107.
[15 ] Sjursø I. R., H. Fandrem, E. Roland (2016) Emotional problems in traditional
and cyber victimization, Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 114–131.
[16 ] Park S., E. Y. Na, E. M. Kim (2014) The relationship between online activities,
netiquette and cyberbullying, Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 74–81.
[17 ] Wright M. F. (2018) Cyber victimization and depression among adolescents with
autism spectrum disorder: the buffering effects of parental mediation and social
support, Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 17–25.
[18 ] Dreßing H., J. Bailer, A. Anders, H. Wagner, C. Gallas (2014) Cyber-
stalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and
impact upon victims, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2),
61–67.
[19 ] Ybarra M. L., K. J. Mitchell (2007) Prevalence and Frequency of Internet
Harassment Instigation: Implications for Adolescent Health, Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41, 189–195.
[20 ] Kerr M., H. Stattin, W. J. Burk (2010) A reinterpretation of parental moni-
toring in longitudinal perspective, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 39–64.

1598 G. O. Emiral, M. Tozun, A. Unsal et al.

[21 ] Ozdemir Y. (2014) Cyber victimization and adolescent self esteem: The role of
communication with parents, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(4), 255–263.

Istanbul Bahcelievler District
Health Directorate
Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: dr.gulsum.ozturk@gmail.com
∗
Department of Public Health
Medical Faculty
Izmir Katip Celebi University
Balatcik Mahallesi Havaalani
Sosesi No:33/2 Balatçık
(Postal code: 35620) Çiǧli, Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: mtzn76@gmail.com

Department of Public Health

∗∗

Medical Faculty
Eskisehir Osmangazi University
Eskisehir, Turkey
e-mail: alaattin@ogu.edu.tr
adidem@ogu.edu.tr
sevalclskn@gmail.com
zeynpdemirtas@gmail.com
sevilakbulut83@gmail.com

C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci., 73, No 11, 2020 1599