See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327051845

FACTORS THAT AFFECT CYBERBULLYING IN ADOLESCENTS: A LITERATURE

REVIEW

Article · August 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 593

1 author:

Jey Fernandez
UNIVERSITY OF SURABAYA
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LITERATUR REVIEW FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI CYBERBULLYING PADA REMAJA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jey Fernandez on 16 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FACTORS THAT AFFECT CYBERBULLYING IN ADOLESCENTS: A
LITERATURE REVIEW
Germanikus Clintonis Fernandez
Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Surabaya, Germanikusfernandez94@gmail.com

Abstract

Cyberbullying aims to harass others such as cyber-hacking,cyber-stalking and various of cyber violence
that allow victims to escape and repeated attacks by perpetrators. The impact of adolescents becoming
more at risk of experiencing various health problems both physically and mentally such as anxiety,
depression, loneliness and in extreme cases is an attempt to commit suicide, also experienceing poor
physical health conditions and trying to injure oneself. This literature review was created to raise
awareness of this continuing trend of cyberbullying among teenagers. An exhaustive search of current
literature was conducted using a variety of databases including Google Scholar and Science Direct to
gather relevant studies for inclusion in this review. Articles are used to describe the factors that affect
cyberbullying. Future research should investigate factors for further research, especially with diverse
cultural backgrounds in Indonesia.

Keywords: cyberbullying, factors affecting cyberbullying

1
 2

INTRODUCTION
Cyberbullying is a global phenomenon in the 21st century among adolescents.
Because, they were born in the telecommunications era which was equipped with
several applications and supported by the internet network including blogs, social
networking sites, instant messaging, games, websites and e-mail. Teenagers
immediately get the tendency for computers and the internet. A small number of
children who are growing experience violence, abuse and abuse from others indirectly
through information on news reports or articles (Kowalski et al., 2008, Hinduja and
Patchin, 2008; Smith., 2012). This phenomenon raises concerns of various parties such
as parents, teachers, academics, policy makers and specialists in the field of law
(Cassidy et al., 2009; Hempill et al, 2012; Yang et al, 2013; Gou., 2016).

Teenagers can easily harass others 24 hours or 7 days a week online without
limits and in any location. The goal is to harm and harm others such as cyber-hacking
(ie, using the internet to get access to information and resources illegally), cyber-
stalking (ie, using the internet to spy on or observe others) and various forms of cyber
violence ( that is, using the internet to harm or harm others) that allows victims to be
unable to escape and repeated attacks by the perpetrator and the nature of the message
is relatively permanent (Kowalski et al, 2014).

Cyberbullying provides an opportunity for the perpetrators to hide an identity that

is actually called "anonymous" and has a sense of security that they will not be caught
and detected. But also, making it easier for them to "forget" what they have done. On
the other hand, they did not see the impact on the victims. Psychologically these actors
tend to be less likely to have a sense of empathy with the actions they have taken, for
example, by making victims unable to be trusted by many people (Rogers, 2010).

The impact caused by this action is very wide in scope if left unchecked.
Teenagers become victims more at risk of experiencing various health problems both
physically and mentally such as anxiety, depression, loneliness and in extreme cases
 3

are attempts to commit suicide, also experience bad physical health conditions and try
to hurt themselves (Mehari et al, 2014 ; Kowalski et al, 2014).

Therefore the aim of writing this article is to increase awareness of the

prevalence of cyberbullying in the educational environment among adolescents.
Further literature study to find out the factors that influence cyber-bullying, especially
in junior and senior high school education.

METHOD
The search for published literature was carried out through various databases
including Google Scholar and Science Direct. About 17 documents were reviewed, and
13 documents were finally used in the literature review. Topic articles were published
between 2011 and 2017. The author uses the following keywords to search: "predictor
of cyberbullying". Some of the articles obtained discussed the factors that influence
cyberbullying among adolescents at junior and senior high school levels. Apart from
that, articles with a sample of primary school age and student levels were not used in
the literature review. The following section briefly presents the factors that influence
cyberbullying, namely internal factors and external factors.

RESULTS OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

Based on the literature reviewed there are 2 factors that influence

cyberbullying, namely internal and external factors as follows:

Internal Factors

Gender
Research findings about sex differences regarding cyberbullying are
slightly different. Hemphill, Tollit, Herrenkohl, Toumbourou, and Catalano
(2012) reported that there were no gender differences (male and female) among
perpetrators of cyberbullying. Barlett (2015) reported no gender differences in
cyberbullying behavior (seperti., sikap, frekuensi dan anonim) pada remaja boy
 4

and girl. However, it was different reported by Walrave and Heirman (2011);
Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and Heerde, (2014); Kowalski et al, (2014); Guo,
(2016); and Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) reported that boys tend to be
perpetrators, but girls are more vulnerable to becoming victims and involved in
cyberbullying. While Brighi, Galli and Genta (2012) report boys are more likely
to be victims of direct bullying, whereas in girls more likely to be victims of
indirect bullying or cyberbullying.
Lee and Shin (2017) reported that boys (6.5%) participated in
cyberbullying higher than girls (6.2%), while girls (16.8%) became cyber
victims higher than boys - male (12.7%).
Lee and Shin (2017) also reported that there are gender differences in the
form of cyberbullying behavior, namely that boys use chat services, online
games, and more photos or videos than girls and girls, tend to use exclusion
strategies. more than boys, for example isolating planned victims from online
groups of friends or chatting, which is one of the most common types of cyber-
oppression among girls. Specifically, boys (16.1%) experienced more
oppression on online gaming platforms than girls (3.3%), while girls (9.3%)
became more victims by being rejected by friendship. online or join a chat room
than boys (6.0%).

Age

Cross-ages are the speed of several experts in predicting cyberbullying

behavior such as Walrave and Heirman (2011); Chen and Lwin (2016); and
Guo (2016) they report that early adolescents or adults tend to be perpetrators
rather than victims. Then speculate, that it makes sense adults are better able to
manage online behavior and protect themselves when using technology
compared to children. Kowalski et al, (2014) reported age groups in junior high
school students (seventh and eighth grade) and high school students (grades
 5

nine and ten) where, when students reach peak age or maximum shows that
teenagers tend to be victims of cyberbullying.
Lee and Shin (2017) reported that the 10th grade students had the
highest level of cyber actors (7.4%) and in the 11th grade had the highest rate
of casualties (18.2%). While students who play the role of both (actors and
victims) are found at most in class 8.

Self Esteem

Brighi et al (2012); Yang et al (2013); Kowalski et al (2014); Chen

and Lwin (2016); You and Lim (2016) reported that the perpetrators and
victims had low self-esteem on cyberbullying behavior. That is, low self-
esteem has an influence on the child's ability to adjust to new situations that
can cause children to be involved as perpetrators and victims.

Lonely

Brighi, Guarini, Melotti, Galli and Genta (2012) reported men and
women feeling high loneliness with friends and friends. This means that
loneliness is an internal representation of social acceptance and rejection
expressed by individuals. Meanwhile, Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder and
Lattanner (2014) reported that perpetrators and victims had a positive
relationship to cyberbullying behavior, meaning that the higher the level of
loneliness would involve teenagers being perpetrators and victims of
cyberbullying.

Technology capabilities and activities

Walrave and Heirman (2011) report relating to the use of technology,

showing that perpetrators are heavy internet users, while victims and
perpetrators claim to have great internet expertise. Hemphill, Tollit,
 6

Herrenkohl, Toumbourou, and Catalano (2012) report that cyber bullying can
depend on various forms of power where some students who are traditionally
victims of traditional bullying use their superiority in technological skills (not
physical domination) to oppress others on line. Kowalski et al (2014) reported
the frequency of positive internet usage on perpetrators and victims means that
the higher the high frequency usage shows the tendency of involvement to be
perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying.
Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) reported that this was similar to the
perpetrators of cyberbullying on the use of technology which is also relatively
strong risk to victims of cyberbullying and speculates that social media
platforms have a stronger effect on the frequency of technology use on
perpetrators and victims. According to Guo (2016) reported on perpetrators and
victims generally are those who are often involved in internet activities widely
and also show intensive internet use and are able to improve their skills and
skills online independently.

Value and perception

Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) report that the inactivity of moral self-
regulation (moral disengagement) on victims and perpetrators is positively
related to cyberbullying behavior. Kowalski et al (2014) reported on the values
and perceptions of perpetrators can justify their own actions by making slander
against victims, so that victims may believe that they deserve the status of their
victims. and the justification then changes the text of the victim's knowledge in
social interaction. Gou, (2016) reported that race factors were insignificant to
the perpetrators but the victims were negatively correlated.
 7

Personality

Kowalski et al (2014); and Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) report that

narcissism is positively related and indicates that teenagers tend to be victims
and perpetrators of cyberbullying. Meanwhile, Guo (2016) reports on the
perpetrators and victims of having antisocial personality or psychopathic traits
such as hostility, narcissism, anxiety, phobias and positive impulsivity.

Emotional Intelligence

Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and Heerde (2014) report that emotional

control is a protective factor for victims of cyberbullying, namely in seventh
grade students who have controlled their emotions up to the ninth grade this
gives an opportunity of 30%. This means that having the skills to control
emotions in cyberspace may be very important considering the speed of
information that can be given is the ability not to reply with anger, fear or
sadness when bullied so that it can control one's emotions and reduce
reinforcement in the perpetrators. Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) report that
emotional management is negatively correlated with cyberbullying behavior,
meaning that a person tends to be a victim and perpetrator of cyberbullying.
Lee and Shin (2017) found that the empathy variable cognitively refers to
a person's ability to understand and process the emotions of others cognitively.
This contributes to reducing the likelihood of cyberbullying while the affective
empathy variable refers to indirect emotional sharing and understanding of
feelings. other people's emotionality doesn't have that effect. Kowalski et al
(2014) report individuals who have higher levels of cognitive and affective
empathy tend to be less frequently involved in cyberbullying. Kowalski et al
(2014) also found empathy positively correlated with the offender and
negatively correlated with victims of cyberbullying.
 8

Experience of perpetrators and victims

Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and Heerde (2014) report the possibility of a

cyberbullying experience in the future can reduce academic performance and
commitment to school. You and Lim (2016) reported the experience of
traditional bullying before at school was found to be a predictor of
cyberbullying. That is, perpetrators of violence in school offline or traditionally
can use cellphones connected to the internet to disturb and dominate others. In
this case, oppression in cyberspace can be seen as an extended version of
violence in school.
External factors
Influence of friends

Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and Heerde (2014) report that interacting or

engaging with friends who have anti-social behavior and conflicting families is
likely to increase victims of cyberbullying. Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and
Heerde (2014) also found how difficult self-acceptance was for students who
were victimized to change their status in the group to be accepted again.
Kowalski et al (2014) reported that the influence of friends is negatively
correlated, meaning that individuals have the tendency to be perpetrators and
victims of cyberbullying.

Family environment

Brighi et al (2012) reported that boys and girls had relationships with poor
families indicating they were involved as victims of cyberbullying.
Chen, Ho and Lwin (2016) reported on a sample of countries on the
interaction of parents as perpetrators of cyberbullying that said that in the
western countries have a stronger negative relationship than in Asian countries.
That is, children who often interact with their parents in western countries tend
to be easier to oppress others than children in Asian countries and also say that
 9

the interaction of parents in rural areas may be less effective than urban areas
in protecting children. child from oppression in cyberspace. The results also
show that, interaction between parents and children has a negative relationship
with oppression in cyberspace. Thus parents can increase interaction with
children, be more involved in their lives and manage the use of children's
technology to prevent oppression in cyberspace.
Guo (2016) reports that staying at home with single parents and being in a
poor family environment can make individuals involved in cyberbullying
behavior that makes them perpetrators and victims.

School climate

Brighi et al (2012) reported that being a victim can cause students to

develop negative attitudes, towards school feelings and perceptions which in
turn can expose potential victims to enhance their experience of social exclusion
and a poor school climate which may indicate that school employees are less
inclined to respond to incidents active bullying. Christian et al (2013) reported
that classrooms containing students with lower pro-victim attitudes collectively
meant that the dominant experienced oppression in cyberspace.

Meanwhile, Kowalski et al. (2014) reported that the school climate was
negatively correlated, this indicated the tendency of individuals to be
perpetrators or victims of cyberbullying. Meanwhile, Hemphill, Tollit,
Kotevski and Heerde (2014) reported the only risk factor indicators at the
school level or at stop temporarily from school this is not related to being a
victim of cyberbullying. Meaning that, students who have been temporarily
stopped from school are not victims of cyberbullying after they return to school
and also that students who are temporarily stopped have plenty of time to do
online, but do not show any indication they are victims of cyberbullying.
 10

Guo (2016) reports on environmental and school climate aspects,

including school commitment, feeling safe and unsafe, a sense of belonging to
school or other school characteristics this can place individuals on the
development trajectory towards engaging in cyberbullying as perpetrators and
victims.

Anonymous

Barlett (2015) reports that boys and girls have a high anonymity, which
can enable cyberbullying to behave in the future. Barlett (2015) also thinks of
internet users who show proof of tracking IP addresses and how folder history
operates, maybe cyberbullying behavior can increase and vice versa. At the
same time, Barlett, Gentile and Chew (2016) reported anonymity felt by
perpetrators related to cyberbullying behavior. In particular, more and more
people feel that they are anonymous online, unwittingly they tend to oppress
others. This shows that, anonymously supports positive feelings about
cyberbullying behavior, which leads to the manifestation of these attitudes in
behaving.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the literature review conducted, it is known that from
several previous studies obtained influential factors that are diverse and have their
respective gaps. Therefore, in this literature review, two factors influence
cyberbullying, namely (1) internal factors including sex, age, self-esteem, loneliness,
technological abilities and activities, values and perceptions, personality, emotional
intelligence and experience of perpetrators and victims while (2) external factors
include the influence of friends, family environment, school climate and anonymity
that are quite appropriate to the culture in Indonesia. With this literature review, it is
expected that the public can predict and anticipate cyberbullying behavior that arises.
It is even hoped that cooperation from various parties ranging from family, friends,
 11

schools, and government to raise awareness about cyberbullying and provide positive
support to perpetrators, victims and witnesses so that the incident does not continue
and immediately end it.

REFERENCES

Barlett, C. P. (2015). Predicting adolescent’s cyberbullying behavior: A longitudinal

risk analysis.Journal of Adolescence, 41,76–85.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Adoles
cence.2015.02.006

Barlett, C. P., Gentile, D. A., & Chew, C. (2016). Predicting cyberbullying from
anonymity. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(2), 171–180.https://doi.
org/10.1037/ppm0000055

Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., & Genta, M. L. (2012). Predictors of
victimisation across direct bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,17(3–4),375–388.https://doi.org/10.
1080/13632752.2012.704684

Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. N. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my
bones, but how can pixels hurt me?: Students’ experiences with cyber-bullying.
School Psychology International,30(4), 383–402.https://doi.org/10.1177/0143
034309106948

Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2016). A meta-analysis of factors predicting
cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media
effects approach. New Media and Society,19(8),1194–1213.https://doi.org/10.
1177/1461444816634037

Christian Elledge, L., Williford, A., Boulton, A. J., DePaolis, K. J., Little, T. D., &
Salmivalli, C. (2013). Individual and Contextual Predictors of Cyberbullying: The
Influence of Children’s Provictim Attitudes and Teachers’ Ability to Intervene.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 698–710.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-013-9920-x

Guo, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and

victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 53(4), 432–453. https://doi. org/10.1002
/pits.21914
 12

Hemphill, S. A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J.
W., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional
bullying perpetration in Australian secondary school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59–65.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.
019

Hemphill, S. A., Tollit, M., Kotevski, A., & Heerde, J. A. (2014). Predictors of
Traditional and Cyber-Bullying Victimization: A Longitudinal Study of
Australian Secondary School Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(15),
2567–2590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553636

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors

related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816

Kowalski,R.M.,& Limber,S.P.,& Agatston P.W.(2008).Cyberbullying: Bullying in the

digital age.United Kingdom. Blackwell Publishing

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014).

Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying
research among youth. Psychological Bulletin,140(4),1073–1137. https:// doi.org/
10.1037/a0035618

Lee, C., & Shin, N. (2017). Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of

cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Computers in Human
Behavior, 68, 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047

Mehari, K. R., Farrell, A. D., & Le, A.-T. H. (2014). Cyberbullying Among
Adolescents. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a
0037521 T4 -Measures in Search of a Construct M4 -Citavi

Rogers V. (2010). Cyberbullying: Activities to help children and teens to stay safe in a
texting, twittering, social networking world. London and Philadelphia. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers

Smith P.K. (2012). Cyberbullying and Cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B.

Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (eds.), Handbook of School violence
and school safety: International research and practice (pp 93-103). New York,
NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
 13

Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and

perpetration. Children and Society, 25(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-
0860.2009.00260.x

Yang, S. J., Stewart, R., Kim, J. M., Kim, S. W., Shin, I. S., Dewey, M. E., Yoon, J. S.
(2013). Differences in predictors of traditional and cyber-bullying: A 2-year
longitudinal study in Korean school children. European Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 22(5), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-012-0374-6

You, S., & Lim, S. A. (2016). Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration:

Evidence from Korean middle school students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 89, 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.019

View publication stats