Perception of Cyberbullying Among Students: The Study of A Developing Country

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/363154827
Perception of cyberbullying among students: the study of a developing

country
Article in Journal of Aggression · August 2022

DOI: 10.1108/JACPR-06-2022-0726
CITATIONS READS
2 275
3 authors:
Andrew Tetteh Fred Awaah

Lagos State University University of Professional Studies
3 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 195 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Dorcas Adomaa Addo

University of Professional Studies
2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teaching methods View project
Breaking Barriers to Learning View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fred Awaah on 04 October 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Perception of cyberbullying among
students: the study of a developing
country
Andrew Tetteh, Fred Awaah and Dorcas Addo
Abstract Andrew Tetteh, Fred Awaah

Purpose – This study aims to investigate students’ perceptions regarding the causes and effects of and Dorcas Addo all are
cyberbullying among university students. The study also establishes whether or not there would be based at the Department of
statistically significant differences among cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and Business Administration,
bystanders in their thoughts on the causes and effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives from a University of Professional
developing country perspective.
Studies, Accra, Ghana.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses quantitative approach and cross-sectional
survey design to collect primary data from 1,374 undergraduate students sampled from selected
public universities in Ghana. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance analyses were carried
out using statistical package for the social sciences.
Findings – The study reports popularity among friends, extortion, retaliation, stress, trauma and low self-
esteem as causes of cyberbullying. Also, cyberbullying resulted in difficulty trusting people, low self-
esteem and increased stress. The study also found statistically significant differences among
cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes
and effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives.
Practical implications – The study’s findings imply that cyberbullying has some fairly significant
negative effects on students’ lives in Ghana and must be taken more seriously. Conditions must be
created to ensure that perpetrators and victims are given the support needed to curb this menace.
Detailed remediating measures are provided in the study.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the existing literature by studying cyberbullying
perceptions among students from a relatively bully-tolerant culture.
Keywords Cyberbullying, Online, Students’ perception, Ghana, Higher education,
Developing economies, Cyberbullying causes, Cyberbullying classifications, Cyberbullying effects
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Over the past years, many parts of the world have identified cyberbullying as a menace and
an insidious threat to the psychological well-being of all involved. This assertion is
evidenced by the increased research into the causes of this menace and its effect on the
Received 21 June 2022
perpetrator and the victim under various circumstances and jurisdictions (Olweus, 2012; Revised 19 July 2022
Nixon, 2014; Tian et al., 2018). Olweus (2012) defines cyberbullying as bullying via Accepted 8 August 2022
electronic means such as mobile/cell phones or the internet. Carter et al. (2020) report that The authors would want to
parent-child attachment mediated the associations between parental firm control and two appreciate the special
assistance of Mr Solomon
types of bullying experiences: physical and verbal bullying. Padmanabhanunni and Yeboah, Mr Emmanuel Ekwam,
Gerhardt (2018) also found that aggression reduction interventions for children from Ms Emmanuella Heloo and Mr
Jessie Foli for their insightful
disadvantaged areas need to consider the role of gender and family-related factors. The contributions.
works of Carter et al. (2020) and Padmanabhanunni and Gerhardt (2018) are precursors Funding: The authors received
that bullying and its cyber-related forms need remediating attention. It is also worth stating no funding.
DOI 10.1108/JACPR-06-2022-0726 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j
that students are not immune to the causes and effects of this phenomenon (Sam et al.,
2019).
Research shows that most students have either been victimised or have bullied another
student (Matos et al., 2018). Studies have found that most of these victims resort to
cyberbullying others as a coping mechanism and an escape from the constant bullying they
endured over the internet (Matos et al., 2018). Texting and social media have also been the
main avenues through which cyberbullying is perpetrated (Whittaker and Kowalski, 2015).
Studies have also been conducted into various classifications of involvement in
cyberbullying, how they differ from one another and the implications for further research
(Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2015; Kowalski and Limber, 2013). These classifications
underpin this study.
Within university settings, cyberbullying may pose some hidden academic crimes. For
instance, “popular” students may threaten weaker ones if their assignments, quizzes and
examinations are not written. These may worsen academic corruption in the African higher
education literature (Awaah, 2019; Awaah and Abdulai, 2020). This assertion is particularly
disturbing given the recent evidence of students’ difficulty (Awaah et al., 2020; Awaah,
2020; Awaah et al., 2021a, 2021b). It is also imperative that cyberbullying is reduced as
online resources have been documented to improve academic motivation and
engagement, among other benefits, especially during the pandemic when most classes
were conducted online (Stanciu et al., 2012; Fonseca and Garcı́a-Peñalvo, 2019; Garcı́a-
Peñalvo et al., 2020).
Although research on cyberbullying is important, studies within the Ghanaian higher
education space seem limited to traditional bullying, with few studies conducted on
cyberbullying (Sam et al., 2019). This is further problematised by the scant literature on
cyberbullying, its causes and effects from the lived experiences of university students in
Ghana. These observations require investigations from the Ghanaian perspective to identify
the causes and perceived effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives in tertiary
institutions in Ghana using the classifications provided by Kowalski and Limber (2013).
According to Sam et al. (2019), most Ghanaians do not view bullying as a social peril, but
as a means to toughen adolescents for the realities of life. Ghanaian adults recall the
bullying experiences in high school and usually laugh over them. This same apathetic
attitude is shown towards issues of cyberbullying, possibly causing the relatively scarce
literature on the subject. However, considering findings in other jurisdictions (Nixon, 2014;
Tian et al., 2018), there is the possibility that the effects recorded in other parts of the world
apply to our environment, creating the need for research into the causes, effects and
growing risk of cyberbullying and remediating measures.
To achieve the study’s aim, we seek to answer the following questions:
Q1. What are students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying among
university students in Ghana?
Q2. What are students’ perceptions regarding the effects of cyberbullying on the social
lives of university students in Ghana?
Q3. Will there be a statistically significant difference among cyberbullying victims,
perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes of
cyberbullying?
Q4. Will there be a statistically significant difference among cyberbullying victims,
perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the effects of
cyberbullying on students’ social lives?
These questions are addressed using quantitative research method, where cross-sectional
survey data were obtained and analysed using descriptive statistics and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) techniques in statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS).
j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

The subsequent sections of the study include literature review, methodology, results and
discussion, conclusion and implications of the findings, limitations and future research
direction.
2. Literature review
2.1 Concept of cyberbullying
The concept of cyberbullying describes a bullying that takes place using electronic or
digital resources like computers, tablets and cell phones (Olweus, 2012). Literature shows
that cyberbullying usually happens through short message service, apps or online in social
media, forums or games where individuals can view, participate or share content (Gualco
et al., 2022). Practically, cyberbullying has to do with positing or sharing negative, harmful,
false or petty content on another person; or sharing private information about others that
can potentially cause embarrassment (Gualco et al., 2022). Thus, cyberbullying can be
termed as an illegal or criminal conduct perpetrated to humiliate victims.
Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying has severe effect on the victims because once
published online, it spreads very fast to reach over millions of people and usually they
cannot be deleted, rendering the victims helpless (Nixon, 2014). Cyberbullying is, therefore,
an act of aggressive behaviour intended to denigrate victims because of the lack of
physical contact (Genta et al., 2013). It is globally pervasive. For instance, Gualco et al.
(2022) report a current United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund poll of
170,000 young people that indicated the frequency of online bullying in 30 countries: one in
three has been the victim of cyberbullying in a lifetime. Additionally, one in five of these
young people skipped the school due to online bullying. It implies that cyberbullying is a
widespread phenomenon that requires contextual research to find remediating solutions.
2.2 Bandura’s theory of triadic reciprocal determinism and cyberbullying

This is a theory set forth by a psychologist, Albert Bandura in 1973. The theory states that a
person’s behaviour affects and is affected by personal factors and the social environment.
The theory is reflected in Triadic Reciprocal Causation, which states that a person’s
behaviour is determined by three factors:
1. personal factors (cognitive, affective and biological);

2. the environment; and
3. the existing behaviour.

These factors have the tendency to influence individuals to engage in cyberbullying. Hence,
the subsequent sub-sections explain each factor and how they can stimulate the
aggressive act of bullying via electronic devices.
2.2.1 Personal factors. According to Bandura (1973), personal factors include age and sex/
gender, among others. In related studies, Olweus (1993) found a positive correlation
between age and bullying, while other studies found that younger individuals were more
likely to engage in physical bullying than any other type (Brame et al., 2001).
Concerning gender, studies have identified males as being more aggressive than females
(Bandura, 1973). This is attributed it to the various norms and behaviours that society
expects from the various genders (Bandura, 1973). Conventionally, bravery, independence
and fierceness are characteristics of males, while females are expected to be weak, patient
and tolerant. It implies that males are more likely to engage in cyberbullying than females.
Nevertheless, per its nature, perpetrators of cyberbullying may not necessarily be
aggressive since it is not a traditional bullying that requires physical energy or toughness.

2.2.2 Environment factors. Bandura (1973) posits that the environment comprises the
various physical and social stimuli that influence the individual’s behaviour. Usually, children
are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour if they believe it is acceptable in the
society in which they live. Social custom or the environment affected individuals. Students
have a greater propensity to engage in cyberbullying when living in environments or
societies that do not care about such behaviours. As earlier mentioned, Ghanaian societies
view bullying as a necessary rite of passage (Sam et al., 2019). Per Bandura’s theory, this
should result in higher instances of bullying and cyberbullying in Ghanaian universities.
2.2.3 Existing behaviour. Regarding existing behaviour, Bandura (1973) asserts that the current
behaviour of the individual influences their interactions with the environment. The environment
reacts to these behaviours, and this can result in the formation of new behaviours. For example, a
kid dislikes school (behaviour) may act out in school (environment). The kid is sent to detention.
This, in turn, eliminates the kid’s tendency to act out; thus, the environment (i.e. the school) has
influenced the kid’s behaviour. It follows that what a student is often exposed to influences his/her
behaviour; therefore, witnessing cyberbullying can make him/her to engage in that act (Figure 1).
This theory is relevant to this study since it postulates that human behaviour is created from
the interactions of the three components: personal factors, the environment and existing
behaviour. Therefore, the causes of cyberbullying as human behaviour are caused by the
interactions within the environment. Also, it means that negative stimuli like cyberbullying
can adversely impact the individual’s behaviour.
2.3 Causes of cyberbullying

Wegge et al. (2016) in their paper “Popularity Through Online Harm: The Longitudinal
Associations Between Cyberbullying and Sociometric Status in Early Adolescence” identify
that cyberbullying relates to subsequent increases in the perceived popularity of the
perpetrators). A two-wave panel conducted their study with an eight-month time interval.
The participants were an entire grade of 154 secondary school pupils aged 12–14.
Additionally, Hoff and Mitchell (2009), in their paper Cyberbullying: Causes, Effects and
Remedies, reveal that cyberbullying emerges most commonly from relationship problems
(breakups, envy, intolerance and ganging up); victims experience powerfully adverse
effects (especially on their social well-being); and the reactive behaviour from schools and
students is generally inappropriate, absent or ineffective. Conversely, Ismail et al. (2016)
report that the relationship between the participants’ graduateness skills and attributes and
their career adaptability is significantly stronger when their self-esteem is high than when
their self-esteem is low. The finding suggests self-esteem influences emerging adults’ self-
perceived graduateness skills and career adaptability. This may imply that people with high
self-esteem may not easily yield to cyberbullying.
2.4 Effects of cyberbullying

Sam et al. (2019) reveal that almost all their 878 participants had experienced
cyberbullying before. However, the effect on their psychological well-being was small.
Figure 1 Bandura’s theory of triadic reciprocal determinism

Agbeko and Kwaa-Aidoo (2018) also indicate that cyberbullying caused respondents to
close down their social media accounts while others stopped using computers and
mobile devices altogether. Additionally, Šléglova and Cerna (2011) earlier establish that
cyberbullying experiences led to changes in the victims’ behaviour and that these could
be positive in the form of behavioural changes in cyberspace. This was mainly due to
victims creating a cognitive pattern of bullies, which consequently helped them
recognise aggressive people. Bullying also provoked feelings of caution and brought
about the restriction in the use of risky online sources of threats as victims tried to prevent
its recurrence. Critical effects occurred in almost all of the respondents’ cases in the form
of lower self-esteem, loneliness, disillusionment and distrust of people: the more extreme
effects were self-harm and increased aggression towards friends and family.
2.5 Cyberbullying roles and the causes of cyberbullying

Campbell et al. (2013) sought to ascertain from Australian students who reported
cyberbullying others in school years 6 to 12 (10–19 years of age) their perceptions of their
mental health, the harm they caused and the impact their actions had on their victims. The
study found that most cyberbullied students did not think that their bullying was harsh or
impacted their victims. These students in the study also reported more social difficulties and
higher scores on stress, depression and anxiety scales than those not involved in bullying.
2.6 Cyberbullying roles and the effects of cyberbullying

Kowalski and Limber (2013) examined the relationship between children’s and adolescents’
experiences with cyberbullying and traditional bullying and psychological health, physical
health and academic performance. Nine hundred thirty-one students in grades 6 through
12 completed an anonymous survey examining their experiences with cyberbullying and
traditional bullying. They further categorised participants as belonging to one of four
groups: cyber victims, cyberbullies, cyberbullies/victims and those not involved in
cyberbullying. A similar categorisation was done with traditional bullying. Their study
demonstrated that the bully/victim groups (particularly the cyberbully/victim group) had the
most negative scores on most psychological, physical, health and academic performance
measures. The study also found a substantial, although not perfect, overlap between
involvement in traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Additionally, the physical,
psychological and academic correlates of the two types of bullying resembled one another.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
In exploring the phenomenon of cyberbullying among tertiary students in Ghana, this study
used a quantitative research approach and cross-sectional survey design. The quantitative
approach is suitable for explaining a phenomenon that requires numeric data and statistical
analysis Kumar (2005). This approach also helps to determine the relationship between the
variables and make statistical conclusions to aid generalisations (Creswell, 2014).
Meanwhile, the cross-sectional survey design is appropriate since the data was collected in
a single moment of time through a survey method. Based on the research questions, a
quantitative approach and a survey design are most appropriate; hence, we chose them. It
is worth adding that most existing studies (Sam et al., 2019; Gualco et al., 2022, etc.) used
a quantitative approach, so it offers us the opportunity to compare our findings with prior
findings in other jurisdictions.

3.2 Population and sampling
The study’s population comprised all university students in Ghana. This study was carried
out with a total of 2,000 respondents. Of these, 1,374 students responded to the
questionnaires from three public universities. This included diploma, degree and master’s
students. The researchers adopted random and convenient sampling techniques. The
simple random technique provided an equal chance for all students to be selected.
However, the convenient sampling technique was used because only respondents who
were able, available and willing to provide the needed information were selected. The
universities were randomly selected, and the students [respondents] were conveniently
chosen after the purpose of the study was explained to them. To further meet other ethical
considerations, the consent of the respondents were first sought and permission was
obtained from their faculty or departmental heads before engaging them.
3.3 Instrumentation and data collection

The study was conducted using data from a quantitative survey instrument – Cyberbullying
among Tertiary Students Questionnaire (CTSQ). The CTSQ had four sections. Section A
comprised eight questions that collected the respondents’ demographic data. Section B’s
second section comprised statements on the types of cyberbullying that respondents had
experienced or otherwise. The statements were placed on a four-point Likert scale of
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). We adapted
eight types of cyberbullying (Flaming, Harassment, Cyberstalking, Denigration,
Masquerade, Outing and Trickery, Exclusion and Catfishing) from existing literature
(Bauman, 2014).
Section C sought to solicit what respondents considered the causes of cyberbullying in
Ghana. This section comprised six statements adapted by the researchers from existing
literature (Matos et al., 2018). These statements were placed on a four-point Likert scale of
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). Section D sought
to solicit responses on the perceived effects of cyberbullying on respondents’ social lives.
This section is also comprising eight statements adapted by the researchers from existing
literature (Rivituso, 2014; Zalaquett and Chatters, 2014). These statements were placed on
a four-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly
Disagree (SD).
To guarantee that the instrument measured what it meant to measure, we enlisted the
assistance of specialists in bullying, cyberbullying and the Ghanaian higher education
sector. The purpose of enlisting bullying and cyberbullying experts was to help guarantee
that the contents of the questionnaire matched the study’s objectives. Expertise in school
management was also used to enhance the content validity and verify that the instrument
was consistent with research and practice in the field. Cronbach’s alpha was also used to
verify the instrument’s reliability. The results ranged from 0.75 to 0.85, above the acceptable
value of 0.70 (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2008).
3.4 Data analysis

The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA techniques in SPSS
(Version 26). In the data coding process, “strongly disagree” was coded as 1, “disagree” =
2, “agree” = 3 and “strongly agree” = 4. These scores made it possible to compute a total
score for each cause and effect. Subsequently, the researchers computed total scores for
every cause listed and every effect listed. Therefore, the higher the mean, the higher the
group’s agreement with the causes or effects of cyberbullying. The descriptive statistics
analyses were carried out to answer research questions (a) and (b), while ANOVA analysis
was conducted to address research questions (c) and (d).

4. Results
4.1 Demographic descriptive
The respondents came from a variety of educational backgrounds. The majority were
undergraduate students, who accounted for 80.8% of all participants. Furthermore, 705
were male, representing the majority (51.3%). Further, 1,285 respondents reported
cyberbullying awareness, demonstrating that most of our respondents had some prior
understanding of cyberbullying. The respondents indicated different engagement levels,
ranging from being rarely engaged in cyberbullying to being frequently involved.
Furthermore, 484 respondents, representing 35.2%, reported being victims of cyberbullying
(Table 1).
4.2 Students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying

The first objective was to identify students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying
among Ghanaian university students on university campuses. The response rate was set on a
scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). In total, 74.9% (strongly agree – 29.8% and
Table 1 Demographics of respondents

Variable Frequency (%)
Gender
Do not want to tell 30 2.2
Female 639 46.5
Male 705 51.3
Total 1,374 100.0
Age group
Between 18–20 years 529 38.5
Total 1,374 100.0
Educational background
Degree students 1110 80.8
Diploma students 186 13.5
Graduate students (Master) 78 5.7
Total 1,374 100.0
Cyberbullying awareness
No 89 6.5
Yes 1,285 93.5
Total 1,374 100.0
Frequency of involvement or awareness of the occurrence of cyberbullying
Frequently 213 15.5
Rarely 547 39.8
Sometimes 525 38.2
Missing cases 89 6.5
Total 1,374 100.0
Personally involved in cyberbullying
No 539 43.2
Yes 781 56.8
Total 1,374 100.0
Type of involvement
Victim 484 35.2
Perpetrator 213 15.5
Both 84 6.1
None 593 43.2
Total 1,374 100.0

agree – 45.1%) of the respondents believed that popularity among friends led students to
cyberbully. Regarding extortion, 78.4% (strongly agree – 33.8% and agree – 44.6%) of the
respondents asserted that it led to students engaging in cyberbullying. In total, 76.3%
(strongly agree – 30.7% and agree – 45.6%) of our respondents also believed that students
engaged in cyberbullying as retaliation. Further, 59.1% (strongly agree – 39.4% and agree –
19.7%) of the respondents reported that students engaged in cyberbullying as a coping
mechanism for stress and trauma. Another 60.9% (strongly agree – 21.9% and agree – 39.0%)
of the respondents agreed that low self-esteem among students led to cyberbullying. Finally,
57% (strongly disagree – 22.2% and disagree – 34.8%) of the respondents disagreed that
broken homes led to cyberbullying (Table 2).
4.3 Students’ perceptions regarding the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social life
The second objective was to identify students’ perceptions regarding various effects of
cyberbullying on the social lives of Ghanaian university students. The results are shown in
Table 3 below. In total, 50.9% of the respondents disagreed that cyberbullying led to
difficulty in making friends. Another 62% of the respondents disagreed that cyberbullying
led to losing friends. Furthermore, 65.9% of the respondents believed cyberbullying did not
lead to low self-esteem. In addition, 65.9% of the respondents opposed the assertion that
cyberbullying increased stress levels. However, 53% of the respondents agreed that
cyberbullying led to difficulty trusting people. Regarding depression, 64.9% of the
respondents agreed that it was an effect of cyberbullying. Furthermore, 72% of the
Table 2 Students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying

Variable Measure Frequency (%)
Popularity among friends Strongly disagree 115 8.4

Disagree 229 16.7
Agree 620 45.1
Strongly agree 410 29.8
Total 1,374 100.0
Extorting money from people Strongly disagree 106 7.7
Disagree 191 13.9
Agree 613 44.6
Total 1,374 100.0
Retaliation Strongly disagree 96 7.0
Disagree 230 16.7
Agree 626 45.6
Total 1,374 100.0
Coping mechanism for stress and trauma Strongly disagree 119 8.7
Disagree 442 32.2
Agree 542 39.4
Total 1,374 100.0
Low self-esteem Strongly disagree 127 9.2
Disagree 410 29.8
Agree 536 39.0
Total 1,374 100.0
Broken homes Strongly disagree 305 22.2
Disagree 478 34.8
Agree 390 28.4
Total 1,374 100.0

Table 3 Students’ perceptions regarding the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social
life
Variable Measure Frequency (%)
Do not feel comfortable making friends Strongly disagree 187 13.6

Disagree 512 37.3
Agree 428 31.1
Total 1,374 100.0
Losing friends Strongly disagree 263 19.1
Disagree 590 42.9
Agree 380 27.7
Total 1,374 100.0
Low self-esteem Strongly disagree 335 24.4
Disagree 596 43.4
Agree 300 21.8
Total 1,374 100.0
Increase in stress levels Strongly disagree 323 23.5
Disagree 582 42.4
Agree 330 24.0
Total 1,374 100.0
Difficulty trusting people Strongly disagree 191 13.9
Disagree 455 33.1
Agree 453 33.0
Total 1,374 100.0
Depression Strongly disagree 315 22.9
Disagree 577 42.0
Agree 332 24.2
Total 1,374 100.0
Stopped using social media Strongly disagree 408 29.7
Disagree 581 42.3
Agree 240 17.5
Total 1,374 100.0
Suicidal thoughts Strongly disagree 544 39.6
Disagree 491 35.7
Agree 197 14.3
Total 1,374 100.0
respondents disagreed that cyberbullying led to a halt in the use of social media. Finally,
75.3% of the respondents disagreed that cyberbullying led to suicidal thoughts.
4.4 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the causes of

cyberbullying
The third objective was to establish whether cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-
perpetrators and bystanders differ in their thoughts on the causes of cyberbullying. In line
with this objective, the researchers formulated the null hypothesis that there will be no
statistically significant difference among cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-
perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes of cyberbullying to be tested at
an alpha level of 0.05. Table 4 shows a similar mean among groups. However, with a slightly
higher mean, the “Perpetrator” group showed higher overall levels of agreement with the
causes of cyberbullying.

Table 4 Means, standard deviation and standard error of the roles of cyberbullying
concerning their thoughts on the causes of cyberbullying
Role N Mean SD Std. error
Victim 484 17.1302 3.47508 0.15796

Perpetrator 213 17.1831 3.60415 0.24695
Victim and perpetrator 84 16.9167 3.69046 0.40266
Not involved 593 16.3818 3.61697 0.14866
Total 1,374 16.8026 3.58543 0.09676
The test of homogeneity of variances shows an acceptable p-value of 0.649, showing that the
variances of the groups were not significantly different from each other (Table 5).
The ANOVA results showed a statistically significant difference among cyberbullying
victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes of
cyberbullying [F(3,1369) = 4.935, p = 0.002] (Table 6). The null hypothesis (H01) is,
therefore, rejected.
4.5 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the effects of

cyberbullying on students’ social lives
The fourth objective was to establish whether or not cyberbullying victims, perpetrators,
victim-perpetrators and bystanders differ in their thoughts on the effects of cyberbullying on
students’ social lives. In line with this objective, the researchers formulated the null
hypothesis that there will be no statistically significant difference among cyberbullying
victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the effects of
cyberbullying on students’ social lives tested at an alpha level of 0.05.
Table 7 depicts a similar mean among groups. However, with a higher mean, the “Victim”
group showed higher overall levels of agreement with the effects of cyberbullying on
students’ social lives stated.
The test of homogeneity of variances shows an acceptable p-value of 0.84, showing that the
variances of the groups were not significantly different from each other (Table 8).
The ANOVA results in Table 9 show a statistically significant difference among
cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on
Table 5 Test of homogeneity of variances

Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Causes of Based on mean 0.548 3 1,369 0.649

cyberbullying Based on median 0.526 3 1,369 0.664
Based on median and with adjusted df 0.526 3 1,365.576 0.664
Based on trimmed mean 0.576 3 1,369 0.631
Table 6 ANOVA summary table on the causes of cyberbullying

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 188.712 3 62.904 4.935 0.002

Within groups 17,448.798 1,369 12.746
Total 17,637.511 1,372

Table 7 Means, standard deviation and standard error of the roles of cyberbullying
concerning their thoughts on the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives
Role N Mean SD Std. error
Victim 484 18.6694 5.37287 0.24422

Perpetrator 213 17.6714 5.39173 0.36944
Victim and perpetrator 84 17.7500 5.13639 0.56043
Not involved 593 17.7905 5.56670 0.22879
Total 1,374 18.0794 5.45805 0.14730
Table 8 Test of homogeneity of variances

Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Effects of cyberbullying Based on mean 0.28 3 1,369 0.84

on social life Based on median 0.29 3 1,369 0.83
Based on median and with adjusted df 0.29 3 1,362.82 0.83
Based on trimmed mean 0.28 3 1,369 0.84
Table 9 ANOVA summary table on the effects of cyberbullying on student’s social life
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 262.467 3 87.49 2.95 0.032

Within groups 40,609.880 1,369 29.66
Total 40,872.347 1,372
the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives [F(3,1369) = 2.95, p = 0.032]. The null
hypothesis (H02) is, therefore, rejected.
5. Discussions
5.1 Students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying
The first objective of this study sought to find out students’ perceptions regarding the
causes of cyberbullying among Ghanaian university students. The study’s findings for each
variable are discussed below.
5.1.1 Popularity among friends. The results showed that most of the respondents believed
that popularity among friends led to cyberbullying. Our findings are consistent with the
works of Wegge et al. (2016). In the Wegge et al. (2016) study, they found that
cyberbullying was related to subsequent increases in the perceived popularity of the
perpetrators, incentivising cyberbullying. The consistencies of Wegge et al. (2016) with ours
may result from the studies investigating similar targets (students).
In tertiary institutions, students usually want to be popular without recourse to whether
this is attained through decent or indecent means. For popularity, students tend to exert
energy on other nonproductive activities, including cyberbullying. The finding confirms
the environmental factors related to Bandura’s triadic reciprocal determinism, which
posits that individuals are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour due to
environmental influences.
5.1.2 Extortion. Regarding extortion, most of the respondents asserted that it led to
cyberbullying. Our findings are consistent with the works of Kopecký (2016). Kopecký (2016)

found that in online extortion and cyberbullying conducted through the sharing of videos,
approximately 58% of children switched roles from victim to attacker. This role switch could be
because these children may be seeking revenge or some form of retaliation.
University students’ relationships have evolved to include sharing intimate materials through
private messaging apps (Kopecký, 2014). More often than not, these materials end up in
the hands of malicious actors who then use these materials as leverage to extort money
from the individuals featured in these intimate materials. When these individuals refuse to
meet the demands of these malicious actors, more often than not, the intimate material is
shared online in public spaces.
5.1.3 Retaliation. Most of the respondents agreed that students engaged in cyberbullying
as a retaliation. This finding is supported by the works of Hoff and Mitchell (2009). Hoff and
Mitchell (2009) conducted a study into the causes and effects of cyberbullying as well as
remedies. In their study, students reported that romantic break-ups caused feelings of
rejection and anger that festered into retaliation by cyberbullying. In some cases,
cyberbullying was initiated by one member of the relationship and targeted the other. In
other cases, the new girlfriend or boyfriend was the recipient. There were also cases in
which other friends not involved in the relationship became involved. This finding agrees
with Bandura’s triadic reciprocal determinism, where environmental factors like breakups
influence individuals’ behaviour.
5.1.4 Coping mechanism for stress and trauma. Most of the respondents agreed that
students engaged in cyberbullying as a coping mechanism for stress and trauma. Our
findings are supported by the works of Kircaburun et al. (2020). Kircaburun et al. (2020)
indicated that cyberbullying perpetrators had higher scores on problematic social
media use, dissociative experiences, Cluster B traits, depression and childhood
emotional trauma and lower self-esteem. Further path analysis also demonstrated that,
while adjusting for gender and age, childhood emotional trauma was directly and
indirectly associated with cyberbullying perpetration via Cluster B traits. Moreover,
depression and dissociation were directly associated with problematic social media
use. Bullying in the Ghanaian scene is regarded as a rite of passage (Sam et al., 2019).
Thus, individuals who experience bullying may internalise it leading to antisocial
behaviours later in life.
5.1.5 Low self-esteem. Most of the respondents agreed that low self-esteem led to
cyberbullying. This finding is supported by the works of Fan et al. (2019). Fan et al.
(2019) indicated that after controlling for gender and student status (middle or high
school students), covert narcissism positively predicted both cyberbullying perpetration
and victimisation, whereas overt narcissism had no association with either perpetration or
victimisation. Furthermore, when gender and student status were controlled, self-esteem
mediated the relationships between overt/covert narcissism and cyberbullying
perpetration and victimisation, highlighting the possibility that self-esteem is an
explanatory mechanism for the associations between the two types of narcissism and
cyberbullying.
Moreover, this finding can be linked to the finding on popularity. Students with low self-
esteem and no means to increase their social ranking through healthier means like
academics and sports may resort to cyberbullying.
5.1.6 Broken homes. The majority of the respondents disagreed that broken homes led to
cyberbullying. However, the minority that agreed was significant (43%). Children in broken
homes could experience childhood trauma. Various studies have found that this trauma
cascades into antisocial and destructive behaviours later in life. Childhood Trauma has
been claimed as the strongest predictor of lifetime Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (Kessler et al., 2010).

On the Ghanaian scene, most instances of trauma, especially mental and emotional trauma
that are stealthier and insidious, are often ignored. As such, children often exhibit antisocial
behaviours later in life.
5.2 Students’ perceptions regarding the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social

life
The second objective of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions regarding the
effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives. The study’s findings regarding each
variable are discussed below
5.2.1 Difficulty making friends and losing friends. Most of the respondents disagreed that
cyberbullying led to difficulty in making friends. However, the agreeing minority was
significant (49.1%). The majority of our respondents again disagreed that cyberbullying
resulted in lost friendships. These findings are supported by the works of Foody et al.
(2019). Foody et al.’s (2019) found that those involved in cyberbullying reported worse
friendships than those not involved. This can be attributed to the fact that those involved in
cyberbullying may tend to be rude and sceptical. These attributes are not conducive to
fostering healthy friendships.
5.2.2 Low self-esteem. Most of the respondents believed that cyberbullying did not lead to
low self-esteem. This finding contrasts with the works of Šléglova and Cerna (2011).

Šléglova and Cerna (2011) identified that cyberbullying reduced the victims’ perception of
self-worth, which subsequently affected their self-esteem.
In our finding, although some respondents agreed that cyberbullying could lead to
decreased self-esteem (34.1%), most thought otherwise. We attribute this finding to the
generally apathetic attitude of Ghanaians to bullying. This attitude could be responsible for
the reduced effect of cyberbullying recorded in this study against those already established
in the literature. However, we believe that increased awareness of cyberbullying may be
responsible for the significant minority.
5.2.3 Increase in stress levels. The majority of the respondents disagreed that cyberbullying
led to an increase in stress levels. However, a significant minority agreed (34.1%). This
finding does not reflect higher stress levels in the works of Martı́nez-Monteagudo et al.
(2020). Martı́nez-Monteagudo et al. (2020) found that of the students who are cyberbullying
victims, 72.2% reported high levels of anxiety, 68.1% showed high levels of depression and
75.2% revealed high-stress levels.
This finding can be explained by the fact that victims of cyberbullying may always be on the
lookout for perpetrators. Also, victims may never feel safe in online environments since the
online environments they frequent may be where these cyberbullying activities occur.
5.2.4 Difficulty trusting people. The majority of the respondents agreed that cyberbullying
and Cerna (2011). The
led to difficulty trusting people. This finding contrasts with Šléglova
and Cerna (2011) study found that cyberbullying experiences led to changes in
Šléglova
the victims’ behaviour. Critical impacts included lower self-esteem, loneliness and
disillusionment and distrust of people. This may result from fear of repeated bullying, thus
leading to victims’ preference of being lonely rather than engaging with people. Further,
when people are cyberbullied, it reduces their idea of self-worth. This results in a loss of
self-confidence, leading to lower self-esteem and mistrust of others.
Cyberbullying involving the victim’s private and intimate information may lead to difficulty
trusting people. This is because people who usually have access to such information are
people that the victim trusted with that information. Therefore, their ability to break this trust
and use this information to the victim’s detriment may cause them to become very sceptical
and untrusting.

5.2.5 Depression. A majority of the respondents agreed that cyberbullying led to
depression. This finding is also supported by the works of Martı́nez-Monteagudo et al.
(2020). Martı́nez-Monteagudo et al. (2020) found that of the students who are cyberbullying
victims, 72.2% reported high levels of anxiety, 68.1% showed high levels of depression and
75.2% revealed high-stress levels. One can infer that a constant state of fear, untrust and
scepticism would, in the long run, lead to depression.
5.2.6 Avoiding the use of social media. Most of the respondents disagreed that
cyberbullying led to a halt in social media use. This contrasts the works of Agbeko and
Kwaa-Aidoo (2018). Agbeko and Kwaa-Aidoo (2018) indicated that cyberbullying caused
victims to close down their social media accounts, while some stated that they stopped
using computers and mobile devices altogether. While those who stopped using their
computers may not be the majority. It is still imperative that this menace is stopped before it
spreads further. Closing down social accounts is likely related to victims trying to prevent a
re-occurrence of cyberbullying.
This finding could also be attributed to the Ghanaian attitude towards bullying and
cyberbullying. Most victims would take it in their stride and resume life as usual. Also,
during the pandemic, most classes were conducted online; thus, it would be very difficult
for victims to shun social media.
5.2.7 Suicidal thoughts. Most of the respondents disagreed that cyberbullying led to
suicidal thoughts. This finding contradicts the works of Van Geel et al. (2014). Van Geel
et al. (2014) found that peer victimisation was related to both suicidal ideation and suicide
attempts among children and adolescents. Cyberbullying was more strongly related to
suicidal ideation compared with traditional bullying.
This apparent contrast in findings could be attributed to a stronger resolve among
Ghanaian university students who, over the years, may have developed a thicker skin to the
effects of bullying and cyberbullying after enduring them for a majority of their life.
These findings find semblance in the works of Olweus (2012), who argues that
cyberbullying, when studied in proper context, is a low-prevalence phenomenon which has
not increased over time and has not created many “new” victims and bullies. In that,
cyberbullying is an extension of traditional bullying and several claims that have been made
about the prevalence of cyberbullying are just exaggerations.
5.3 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the causes of

cyberbullying
The third objective was to establish whether or not cyberbullying victims, perpetrators,
victim-perpetrators and bystanders differed in their thoughts on the causes of
cyberbullying. The study found a statistically significant difference among cyberbullying
victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes of
cyberbullying. The “perpetrator” group showed the highest levels of agreement with the
causes listed.
Campbell et al. (2013) found that most cyberbullies did not think that their bullying was
harsh or that they impacted their victims. It is also worth noting that these students in the
Campbell et al. (2013) study also reported more social difficulties and higher scores on
stress, depression and anxiety scales. Therefore, one can assume they would not see the
impact on their victims since they experienced these social difficulties.
5.4 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the effects of

cyberbullying on students’ social lives
The fourth objective was to establish whether or not cyberbullying victims, perpetrators,
victim-perpetrators and bystanders differed in their thoughts on the effects of cyberbullying

on students’ social lives. The study found a statistically significant difference among
cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on
the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives, with the “victim” group showing the
highest levels of agreement with the effects listed.
Our findings are similar to the Kowalski and Limber (2013) study, where they found that the
cyberbully/victim group had the most negative scores on most measures of psychological
health, physical health and academic performance. This checks out because the members of
this group would hypothetically suffer the negative effects of being both a victim and a bully,
while the others are only limited to the negative effects of either or none of the groups. However,
our study found that the “victim” group showed the highest levels of agreement. This disparity
could be attributed to the fact that this study was conducted based on the respondents’ self-
assessment of their situation and not a standardised measurement by the researchers.
Although the researchers sought to mitigate this through the Likert scale, possibly pure victims
of cyberbullying would be more likely to state the negative effects it has on them than the other
groups. The “victim-perpetrator” group may not dwell so much on these negative effects as
they may find some solace in the fact that they also vented out their frustrations on others.
6. Conclusion and implications

This quantitative study sought to establish:
䊏 the causes of cyberbullying among Ghanaian university students;
䊏 the effects of cyberbullying on the social lives of students;
䊏 whether cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders differ
in their thoughts on the causes of cyberbullying; and
䊏 whether cyberbullying victims, perpetrators, victim-perpetrators and bystanders differ
in their thoughts on the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social lives.
The results indicated that cyberbullying is caused by seeking popularity among friends,
extortion, retaliation, stress and trauma and low self-esteem. We further found that
cyberbullying resulted in difficulty trusting people, low self-esteem and increased stress.
We found statistically significant differences among cyberbullying victims, perpetrators,
victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the causes of cyberbullying. Again,
we found a statistically significant difference among cyberbullying victims, perpetrators,
victim-perpetrators and bystanders in their thoughts on the effects of cyberbullying on
students’ social lives. These findings for tertiary institutions imply that students are bullied,
affecting their social lives. Universities must implement mitigating measures to ensure
campuses are free of cyberbullying.
Based on our findings, we recommend that universities invest in guidance and counselling
departments units or to aid students in dealing with these issues. These guidance and
counselling departments should be resourced to help students deal with trust-related
matters. We further recommend that universities encourage students to report these
incidents to enhance the control of cyberbullying. Universities should invest in other
extracurricular activities to bring students the desired popularity.
7. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this study contributes to the literature by providing insights into cyberbullying in a
relatively bully-tolerant culture, it ignored psychometric standards. Hence, future study
should focus on using psychometric standards in measuring the effects of cyberbullying.
Again, the study did not investigate what other higher education institutions are doing
regarding the recommendations or interventions above; therefore, future research may
examine that including bystanders and university policy and processes.

References
Agbeko, M. and Kwaa-Aidoo, E.K. (2018), “An exploration of the cyber bullying phenomenon among
teenagers in Southern Ghana”, African Journal of Applied Research (AJAR), Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 119-129.
Awaah, F. (2019), “Sexually transmitted grades and the culture of silence: will female students blow the
whistle?”, COREViP 2019: The Role Of Higher Education Institutions In Promoting The Continental
Education Strategy For Africa (Cesa 16 - 25) Selected Papers, pp. 55-72.
Awaah, F. (2020), “Indigenous (cultural) knowledge related to the concept of politics as a difficult topic in
public administration”, in Okebukola, P.A. (Ed.), Breaking Barriers to Learning: The Culturo-Techno-
Contextual Approach (CTCA), Sterling, Slough and Delhi, pp. 182-192.
Awaah, F. and Abdulai, M. (2020), “Mitigating student-related academic corruption in sub-Sahara
Africa”, African Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 375-387.
Awaah, F., Arkorful, H., Foli, J., Darteh, D.O. and Yeboah, S. (2021a), “Previous knowledge and
difficulties in the study of public administration among undergraduates in African universities”, SN Social
Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-22.
Awaah, F., Okebukola, P., Alfa, A.A., Anagba, K. and Arkorful, H. (2021b), “Developing public
administration education by focusing on difficult key concepts: the case of Nigeria and Ghana”, Social
Sciences & Humanities Open, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 100136.
Awaah, F., Okebukola, P.A., Ebisin, A., Agbanimu, D., Peter, E.O., Ajayi, O.A., Gbeleyi, O.A., Onyewuchi,
F.A., Oladejo, A.I., Adewusi, M.A., Ademola, I. and Lawal, R. (2020), “Influence of gender and career
interest on African university students’ perceived difficult concepts in the study of public administration”,
Teaching Public Administration, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 227-245.
Bandura, A. (1973), Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Bauman, S. (2014), Cyberbullying: What Counsellors Need to Know, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
NJ.
Brame, B., Nagin, D.S. and Tremblay, R.E. (2001), “Developmental trajectories of physical aggression
from school entry to late adolescence”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 503-512.
Campbell, M.A., Slee, P.T., Spears, B., Butler, D. and Kift, S. (2013), “Do cyberbullies suffer too?
Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health”, School
Psychology International, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 613-629.
Carter, M., van der Watt, R. and Esterhuyse, K. (2020), “The relationship between perceived parenting
dimensions, attachment, and pre-adolescent bullying”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 106-118.
Creswell, J.W. (2014), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th
ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fan, C.Y., Chu, X.W., Zhang, M. and Zhou, Z.K. (2019), “Are narcissists more likely to be involved in
cyberbullying? Examining the mediating role of self-esteem”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 34
No. 15, pp. 3127-3150.
Fonseca, D. and Garcı́a-Peñalvo, F.J. (2019), “Interactive and collaborative technological ecosystems for
improving academic motivation and engagement”, Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 423-430.
Foody, M., McGuire, L., Kuldas, S. and O’Higgins Norman, J. (2019), “Friendship quality and gender
differences in association with cyberbullying involvement and psychological wellbeing”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 1723.
Garcı́a-Peñalvo, F.J., Corell, A., Abella-Garcı́a, V. and Grande, M. (2020), “Online assessment in higher
education in the time of COVID-19”, Education in the Knowledge Society, Vol. 21.
Genta, M.L., Brighi, A. and Guarini, A. (2013), Cyberbullismo. Ricerche e Strategie di Intervento, Franco
Angeli, Milan.
Gualco, B., Focardi, M., Defraia, B., Calvello, P. and Rensi, R. (2022), “Cyberbullying victimization among
adolescencts: results of the international self-report delinquency study 3”, International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 125-134.

Hoff, D.L. and Mitchell, S.N. (2009), “Cyberbullying: causes, effects, and remedies”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 652-665.
Ismail, S., Ferreira, N. and Coetzee, M. (2016), “Young emerging adults’ graduateness and career
adaptability: exploring the moderating role of self-esteem”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 1-10.
Kessler, R.C., McLaughlin, K.A., Green, J.G., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Zaslavsky, A.M., Aguilar-
Gaxiola, S., Alhamzawi, A.O., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M., Benjet, C. and Williams, D.R. (2010),
“Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO world mental health surveys”, British
Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 197 No. 5, pp. 378-385.
ly, O. and Griffiths, M.D. (2020), “Childhood emotional trauma and
Kircaburun, K., Demetrovics, Z., Kira
cyberbullying perpetration among emerging adults: a multiple mediation model of the role of problematic
social media use and psychopathology”, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 548-566.
Kopecký, K. (2014), “Cyberbullying and sexting between children and adolescents–comparative study”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 149, pp. 467-471.
Kopecký, K. (2016), “Cyberbullying in a population of Slovak teenagers (quantitative research)”, Human
Affairs, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 117-127.
Kowalski, R.M. and Limber, S.P. (2013), “Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. S13-S20.
Kumar, R. (2005), Research Methodology, Sage, London.
Martı́nez-Monteagudo, M.C., Delgado, B., Dı́az-Herrero, Á. and Garcı́a-Ferna ndez, J.M. (2020),
“Relationship between suicidal thinking, anxiety, depression and stress in university students who are
victims of cyberbullying”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 286, p. 112856.
Matos, A.P., Vieira, C.C., Amado, J., Pessoa, T. and Martins, M.J.D. (2018), “Cyberbullying in Portuguese
schools: prevalence and characteristics”, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 123-137.
Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (2008), Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches:
Nairobi, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi.
Nixon, C.L. (2014), “Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health”, adolescent
health”, Medicine and Therapeutics, Vol. 5, pp. 143-158.
Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do [Understanding Children’s
Worlds], Blackwell, Malden, MA, ISBN, 631192417.
Olweus, D. (2012), “Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon?”, European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 520-538.
Padmanabhanunni, A. and Gerhardt, M. (2018), “Demographic correlates of normative beliefs about
aggression among adolescents from low income communities in South Africa”, Journal of Psychology in
Africa, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 100-104.
Rivituso, J. (2014), “Cyberbullying victimisation among college students: an interpretive phenomenological
analysis”, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 71-76.
Sam, D.L., Bruce, D., Agyemang, C.B., Amponsah, B. and Arkorful, H. (2019), “Cyberbullying
victimisation among high school and university students in Ghana”, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 11,
pp. 1305-1321.
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Göbel, K., Scheithauer, H., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Barkoukis,
_
V., Pyzalski, J., Plichta, P., Del Rey, R. and Casas, J.A. (2015), “A comparison of classification
approaches for cyberbullying and traditional bullying using data from six European countries”, Journal of
School Violence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
, V. and Cerna, A. (2011), “Cyberbullying in adolescent victims: perception and coping”, Cyber
Šléglova
Psychology: journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Stanciu, I.D., Bocos, M. and Andronache, D.C. (2012), “Computer-mediated self-regulation of learning”,
eLearning & Software for Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 322-329.
Tian, L., Yan, Y. and Huebner, E.S. (2018), “Effects of cyberbullying and cyber victimization on early
adolescents’ mental health: differential mediating roles of perceived peer relationship stress”, Cyber
Psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 429-436.

Van Geel, M., Vedder, P. and Tanilon, J. (2014), “Relationship between peer victimisation,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis”, JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 168
No. 5, pp. 435-442.
Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., Eggermont, S. and Pabian, S. (2016), “Popularity through online harm: the
longitudinal associations between cyberbullying and sociometric status in early adolescence”, The
Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 86-107.
Whittaker, E. and Kowalski, R.M. (2015), “Cyberbullying via social media”, Journal of School Violence,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 11-29.
Zalaquett, C.P. and Chatters, S.J. (2014), “Cyberbullying in college: frequency, characteristics, and
practical implications”, SAGE Open, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 2158244014526721.
Corresponding author
Fred Awaah can be contacted at: akaphari@yahoo.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats

Perception of Cyberbullying Among Students: The Study of A Developing Country

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perception of Cyberbullying Among Students: The Study of A Developing Country

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Perception of cyberbullying among students: the study of a developing

Article in Journal of Aggression · August 2022

Andrew Tetteh Fred Awaah

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dorcas Adomaa Addo

Teaching methods View project

Breaking Barriers to Learning View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Abstract Andrew Tetteh, Fred Awaah

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

2.2 Bandura’s theory of triadic reciprocal determinism and cyberbullying

1. personal factors (cognitive, affective and biological);

3. the existing behaviour.

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

2.3 Causes of cyberbullying

2.4 Effects of cyberbullying

Figure 1 Bandura’s theory of triadic reciprocal determinism

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

2.5 Cyberbullying roles and the causes of cyberbullying

2.6 Cyberbullying roles and the effects of cyberbullying

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

3.3 Instrumentation and data collection

3.4 Data analysis

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

4.2 Students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying

Table 1 Demographics of respondents

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

Table 2 Students’ perceptions regarding the causes of cyberbullying

Popularity among friends Strongly disagree 115 8.4

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

Do not feel comfortable making friends Strongly disagree 187 13.6

4.4 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the causes of

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

Victim 484 17.1302 3.47508 0.15796

4.5 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the effects of

Table 5 Test of homogeneity of variances

Causes of Based on mean 0.548 3 1,369 0.649

Table 6 ANOVA summary table on the causes of cyberbullying

Between groups 188.712 3 62.904 4.935 0.002

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

Victim 484 18.6694 5.37287 0.24422

Table 8 Test of homogeneity of variances

Effects of cyberbullying Based on mean 0.28 3 1,369 0.84

Between groups 262.467 3 87.49 2.95 0.032

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

5.2 Students’ perceptions regarding the effects of cyberbullying on students’ social

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

5.3 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the causes of

5.4 Individuals’ roles in cyberbullying and their thoughts on the effects of

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

6. Conclusion and implications

7. Limitations and suggestions for future research

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

j JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH j

View publication stats

You might also like