International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 55

Cyber-Bullying, Personality and

Coping among Pre-Adolescents
Constantinos M. Kokkinos, Department of Primary Education, School of Education Sciences,
Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupoli, Greece
Nafsika Antoniadou, Department of Primary Education, School of Education Sciences,
Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupoli, Greece
Eleni Dalara, Department of Primary Education, School of Education Sciences, Democritus
University of Thrace, Alexandroupoli, Greece
Anastasia Koufogazou, Department of Primary Education, School of Education Sciences,
Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupoli, Greece
Angeliki Papatziki, Department of Primary Education, School of Education Sciences,
Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupoli, Greece

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to investigate the association of personality (Five Factor Model), coping and
cyber-bullying/victimization experiences among 300 Greek pre-adolescent students attending the upper two
primary school grades. Boys reported more frequent involvement in cyber-bullying incidents, while there were
no significant gender differences in terms of cyber-victimization. In terms of participant roles, non-involved
students scored higher in Conscientiousness, and cyber-bully/victims in Emotional Instability. The latter
also tended to use maladaptive coping strategies more frequently, while cyber-bullies reported using more
aggression and resignation to cope with interpersonal conflicts. Multiple regression analyses indicated that
low conscientious boys who use passive avoidance and aggression were more likely to cyber-bully, while
those who use aggression, passive avoidance and situation control to cope with interpersonal stressors were
more likely to be cyber-victimized. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords: Aggression, Big Five, Coping, Cyber-Bullying, Internet, Online Victimization

INTRODUCTION a new form, cyber-bullying (CB), has emerged

Bullying constitutes a widespread phenomenon
which can be damaging for students’ mental
health and academic achievement. It has re-
ceived enormous research attention, but recently
due to the widespread use of information and
communication technologies (ICT). Although
there is no agreement on the definition of CB,
Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, and
Tippett define it as “an aggressive, intentional

DOI: 10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100104

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
56 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013
act carried out by a group or an individual, us-
ing electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and
over time against a victim who cannot easily
defend him or herself” (2008, p.376). Common
means of CB are e-mails and social networking
websites (Price & Dalgleish, 2010), while with
regards to its frequency, international research
indicates increasing prevalence rates (Steffgen
& Konig, 2009). Several researchers have pro-
posed various forms of CB, with regards to the
type of behavior (Willard, 2007) or the mean
used (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett,
2006), while similarly to traditional bullying,
CB participants can be categorized as pure bul-
lies, pure victims, those adopting a double role
(bully-victims), as well as bystanders (Slonje,
Smith, & Frisén, 2012).
Although most pre-adolescents and adoles-
cents make daily and even heavy use of ICT,
they are not equally involved in cyber-bullying/
victimization (CB/V) incidents. Ιn terms of
participants’ socio-demographic characteris-
tics, research findings indicate that, although
both sexes are equally involved in CB, girls
are more likely to participate as bullies or as
victims (Tokunaga, 2010), while regarding
participants’ age, they are mostly junior high
school freshmen (13 to 14 years old) (Price &
Dalgleish, 2010). As far as the social-economic
circumstances (SEC) are concerned, findings
are controversial. Although, evidence suggests
that young people from high income families,
are more likely to have Internet access and
consequently join more often in CB (Shiraldi,
2008), children from low SEC families, use the
Internet more dangerously, due to their parents’
lack of knowledge and rule setting (Livingstone
& Helsper, 2008).
As there has been relatively little writing
and effort devoted directly to understanding
the role of personality and coping of early
adolescents involved in CB/V, this literature
review depends upon studies and theories that
are implicitly relevant, which provide the back-
ground to link together participants’ personality,
coping, and CB/V involvement.
Personality is related to aggressive behav-
ior and to problematic peer relations among
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
children and adolescents (Jensen-Campbell,
Adams, Perry, Workman, Furdella, & Egan,
2002). The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a widely
accepted construct, describing personality varia-
tion along five dimensions (i.e., the Big Five):
Extraversion (E), Openness to experience (O),
Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and
Agreeableness (A). The FFM has traditionally
been used in research assessing adult person-
ality and has proven robust and stable over
time (McCrae & Costa, 1990). Although there
still are some unresolved issues concerning
the predictive validity of Big Five measures
for understanding children’s adjustment and
functioning, an increasing number of studies in
middle childhood and early adolescence have
demonstrated that the broad five dimensions are
useful predictors of important developmental
outcomes (e.g., Kokkinos, Panayiotou, Chara-
lambous, Antoniadou, & Davazoglou, 2010).
Research regarding the personality charac-
teristics of those involved in CB/V suggests that
cyber-bullies are likely to be impulsive, with
aggressive tendencies (Kildow, 2008), and more
anti-social personality traits (Fanti, Demetriou,
& Hawa, 2012; Van Baardewijk, Stegge, Bush-
man, & Vermeiren, 2009). Furthermore, they
are more likely to exhibit decreased empathy
compared to non-involved students (Steffgen
& Konig, 2009), and are also characterized by
high levels of narcissistic exploitativeness and
normative beliefs regarding aggression (Ang,
Tan, & Mansor, 2011). Adolescents with low
levels of E, A and N, have increased probabili-
ties of Internet misuse and low self-reported
well-being (Van der Aa, Overbeek, Engels,
Scholte, Meerkerk, & Van den Eijnden, 2009).
Limited though are the findings regarding the
personality of cyber-victims and cyber-bully/
victims. Campfield (2008), for example, showed
that students who had been victimized through
the Internet had lower self-esteem, compared
to the control group, while other studies have
indicated that chat room victims have higher
scores in N (Corcoran, Connolly, & O’Moore,
2008).
However, students who face negative
encounters through the Internet will not al-
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 57
ways become cyber-victims due to the coping
strategies they use. Indeed, those who survive
negative experiences are more capable of us-
ing adaptive coping. However, research into
coping with CB has only begun in the last few
years, and there is no adequate understanding
of the factors related to the coping used by early
adolescents in this context.
Coping refers to conscious and intentional
efforts individuals use to regulate aspects of
themselves (i.e., emotion, cognition, behavior,
physiology) or their environment, in order to
reduce stress. Research on coping in children
and youth has evolved from research with adults.
Issues like the actual content and context of
the stressful event, as well as the individual’s
construction of the controllability of the event
along with socio-cultural factors, learning
histories, and personal resources may impact
the selected coping strategies in response to
stressors (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman,
Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). A number of
studies support the idea that a child’s response
to a particular stressor is linked to stable char-
acteristics (i.e. personality), as well as stress
mobilization processes in which stressors elicit
corresponding coping reactions, potentially in
highly specific ways (Dubow, Pargament, Box-
er, & Tarakeshwar, 2000). Despite this potential
for specificity, researchers have identified sev-
eral roughly replicable higher-order categories
of coping responses, divided across two more
broad classifications including approach or en-
gagement coping (i.e. primary and/or secondary
control, emotion and/or problem-focused, active
coping) vs. avoidance or disengagement coping
(i.e. distancing, acting out, venting) (Newman,
2008). Further divisions may also apply. In ad-
dition, an individual may use coping strategies
from two different, even opposite categories
at the same time (i.e. problem-focused and
emotion-focused).
In the case of CB, research differentiates
between offline and online coping strategies.
Some studies also include technical coping
or directly addressing the bully as a possible
strategy (Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012).
Cyber-victims’ offline coping strategies usu-
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
ally involve situation control, seeking social
support (problem-focused coping), rumina-
tion, aggression, and resignation (maladaptive
coping), while regarding online strategies they
frequently choose to block messages from sus-
pected bullies, and/or permanently block bullies
from their account (Price & Dalgleish, 2010).
Cyber-victims seek social support from friends
or adults more rarely compared to victims of
school bullying (Šléglová & Černá, 2011),
since they reckon that adults won’t be able to
help them (Kildow, 2008), or will restrict their
ICT use (Li, 2010). Regarding maladaptive
coping, a small percentage of cyber-victims,
especially in younger ages (Price & Dalgleish,
2010) chooses to retaliate (Surat, 2010), while
some others adopt passive strategies, and do not
speak out, either because they don’t consider
the behavior as victimization (Kowalski, 2008),
or they fear that this will worsen the situation
(Li, 2010). Others choose to ignore or justify
the bullying by considering it a normal part
of life, in an attempt to feel less emotionally
distressed (Parris, et al., 2012). Bullies on the
other hand, are often unaware of the emotional
impact of their behavior (Kowalski, 2008), and
are likely to believe that victims deserve the
bullying (Surat, 2010).
Coping in children and adolescents depends
on individual differences such as personality
(Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). However,
although research on the role of personality
traits and coping in CB is limited, research by
Lodge and Frydenberg (2007) indicates that
students who report the fewest experiences of
CB are characterized by an optimistic, relaxed
and energetic coping style, while other research
suggests that cyber-victims are generally being
described as ‘weak’ (high depression and low
self-esteem) and have tendencies to choose
maladaptive coping (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).
Findings from traditional bullying research
indicate that E and C predict more active and
problem-focused coping, while N more mal-
adaptive and emotion-focused (Connor-Smith
& Flachsbart, 2007). Furthermore, A was found
to be associated with high levels of perceived
social support, low levels of withdrawal, and use
58 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013
of problem-focused strategies (Connor-Smith &
Flachsbart, 2007). Subsequently, McCrae and
John (1992) noted that O may lead to greater
use of problem-focused strategies. Gender and
age of CB/V participants may have an impact
on coping. Particularly, female cyber-victims
are more likely to inform adults about the inci-
dents (Li, 2006), and to adopt more submissive
coping strategies (Eroglu, Cetin, Guler, Peker,
& Pepsoy, 2011), while younger students are
more likely to seek help from adults and speak
about their problem more frequently (Šléglová
& Černá, 2011).
Overall, existing literature indicates an
increasing prevalence of CB incidences among
students while, at the same time, it reveals
the complexity of the factors relating to their
participation. Thus, the purpose of the present
study was to investigate the relationship between
CB/V experiences, students’ personality traits,
and coping. The study was conducted with early
adolescents (5th and 6th primary school graders),
an age group that has been scarcely investigated
although considered at risk for CB participation
(Kowalski, 2008). Pre-adolescents differ from
children at earlier stages in that they begin to
shift from parental controls to those of the peer
group, and they become “increasingly respon-
sible for the stress they experience” (Strom,
Bernard, & Strom, 1987, p. 212).
Therefore, the present study will provide
evidence regarding the role of personality and
coping, so as to better understand the potentially
complex mechanisms that may underlie early
adolescents’ involvement in CB/V. It is expected
that the findings of the present study will guide
future prevention efforts and will assist parents,
teachers and school psychologists to better deal
with those involved. In addition, the present
study will contribute at a national level, since
very few studies have been conducted specifi-
cally on CB, although Greece gradually follows
the similar pattern of technology use to other
European countries and will inevitably have
to face the same dangers (Hasebrink, Living-
stone, & Haddon, 2008). It should be noted
that research in the field of CB/V in Greece
is significantly limited, although evidence
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
indicates comparably worrying rates of CB as
in other European countries (Antoniadou &
Kokkinos, 2013a). Furthermore, most studies
are descriptive in nature and fairly unsystematic
in terms of theoretical background and meth-
odological design.
Specifically, it was expected that gender
and SEC would have a differentiating effect
on students’ participation in CB/V (H1). In
particular, girls were expected to be more fre-
quently involved in CB/V, whereas students’
SEC was expected to be negatively associated
with CB/V. In terms of students’ personality, it
was expected that bullies would score higher on
N, and lower on E and A, compared to the non-
involved students, while cyber-victims would
score higher on N (H2). Regarding coping, it
was expected that cyber-victims and cyber-
bully/victims would report more maladaptive
coping, whereas cyber-bullies, would use ag-
gression coping since they have been found to
hold positive attitudes towards it (H3). Finally,
in terms of the association between personality
and coping, it was expected that E, C, A, and O
would be positively associated with the use of
problem-focused coping, while N was expected
to be positively correlated with maladaptive and
emotion-focused coping, and negatively with
problem-focused coping (H4).
METHOD
Participants
A convenience sample of 300 students at-
tending the 5th (105; 35%) and the 6th (195;
65%) grades in five public elementary schools
(aged between 10 to 12 years, Μ = 11.07, SD
= .63), participated voluntarily in the study.
Students were almost equally distributed in
terms of gender (49% girls) and attended rural
and urban schools in the regions of Thessaly
(20%), Thrace (30.7%), Eastern, and Central
Macedonia (49.3%), Greece. In terms of their
SEC, 8.3% (25 students) came from low, 20%
(60 students) from middle, and 48% (144 stu-
dents) from high SEC families. Seventy one
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 59
(71) students (23.7%) didn’t provide sufficient
data for their family SEC.
Measures
Students were asked to complete an anonymous
self-report questionnaire. All the instruments
used in the study were translated into Greek
using the back translation method, and main-
tained the original scoring system.
Cyber-Bullying/Victimization
Τhe Cyber-bullying/victimization Experiences
Questionnaire (CBVEQ; Antoniadou & Kok-
kinos, 2011) assessed direct and indirect CB/V
experiences with the use of cell-phones or the
Internet, and consisted of two 12-item scales,
for CB and CV respectively. Participants were
asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the
frequency of each behavior (ranging from
1=never to 5=every day) during the last 30 days.
The CBVEQ has been constructed based on a
comprehensive review of both the relevant lit-
erature and the existing measures (e.g., Hinduja
& Patchin, 2009; Smith et al., 2006) due to the
inexistence of similar measures in the Greek
language. The scale has been previously used
with both adult and youth samples and has been
checked for its factorial validity, using both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses,
which verified its structure and indicated the
unidimensionality of each scale (Kokkinos &
Antoniadou, 2013; Antoniadou & Kokkinos,
2013b). Previous studies that have employed
the CBVEQ have shown excellent reliability
for both scales (.91 respectively) (Antoniadou
& Kokkinos, 2013b). Reliability analyses of
the present data revealed adequate Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients for each subscale (Table 1).
Personality
The Greek translation of the Big Five Ques-
tionnaire for Children (BFQ-C; Barbaranelli,
Caprara, Rabasca, & Pastorelli, 2003; Kokkinos
& Kipritsi, 2012) was used to assess students’
personality. The BFQ-C measures Big Five
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
personality factors in children as young as
8 years old, and consists of 65 items, 13 for
each of the five factors: Energy/ Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Instability (EI), and Intellect/Openness. Items
were scored on a 5-point scale (1 = Almost
never, 5 = Almost always). The scale’s factor
structure has been validated with samples from
the Netherlands and Italy (Barbaranelli, Fida,
Paciello, Giunta, & Caprara, 2008; Muris,
Meesters, & Diederen, 2005). Cronbach’s alphas
coefficients were reported satisfactory ranging
from .82 to .95 (e.g., Barbaranelli, et al., 2003;
Barbaranelli et al., 2008).
Results regarding the factor structure
of the Greek translation of the BFQ-C have
been reported in a previous study (Kokkinos
& Kipritsi, 2012) and were to the expected
direction. In that study, reliability coefficients
ranged from .77 to .87, whereas in terms of the
BFC-Q’s concurrent validity with children’s
self-reported strengths and difficulties the
correlations were as expected. That is, E, A,
C and O were positively correlated with pro-
social, and negatively with difficult behaviors
(i.e. conduct problems, emotional symptoms,
hyperactivity-inattention and peer problems)
measured with the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). For
the present study, the a priori scales were used
for further analyses, all of which had adequate
internal reliability coefficients (ranging from
.67 to .80) (Table 1).
Coping
Coping was measured with the Greek transla-
tion of the German Coping Questionnaire for
Children and Adolescents (GCQ-CA; Hampel,
Petermann, & Dickow, 2001; Kokkinos, Pana-
gopoulou, Tsolakidou, & Tzeliou, 2012).The
scale consists of 36 items representing nine
4-item clusters of coping strategies grouped
into three dimensions, namely problem-focused
(situation control, positive self-instructions and
social support), emotion-focused (minimization
and distraction/recreation) and maladaptive
60 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for CB, CV, personality traits and cop-
ing strategies

M SD Cronbach’s Alpha
CB 1.11 .27 .86
CV 1.17 .33 .87
E 3.76 .51 .67
A 3.83 .55 .75
C 3.91 .61 .80
EI 2.58 .64 .76
O 3.85 .54 .70
Min 1.90 .87 .66
D/R 2.67 .89 .65
SS 2.40 1.02 .58
PA 1.98 .99 .77
Rum 1.86 1.07 .83
Res 1.09 1.06 .62
Agg 1.03 .99 .80
PSI 2.57 .93 .82
SC 2.72 .86 .79
Note. CB= Cyber-bullying; CV= Cyber-victimization; E= Extraversion; A= Agreeableness; C= Conscientiousness;
EI= Emotional Instability; O= Openness to experience; Min= Minimization; D/R= Distraction/recreation; SS= Social
support; PA= Passive avoidance; Rum= Rumination; Res= Resignation; Agg= Aggression; PSI= Positive self-instructions;
SC= Situation control.

coping (passive avoidance, rumination, res- Procedure

ignation and aggression). Answers are given
on a 5-point scale (0=not at all, 4=always),
indicating how often they use each coping
response when they are faced with perceived
interpersonal stressors, such as an argument
with a peer at school.
Hampel and Petermann (2005) reported
Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .62 to .82 for
interpersonal stressors. In the present study,
factor analysis generated nine factors with ei-
genvalues over 1, which approximated the nine
coping strategies, all of which had acceptable
internal consistencies (alphas ranged from .60
to .83) (Table 1). Internal consistency was also
adequate in a previous study using the Greek
translation with coefficients ranging from .52
to .80 (Kokkinos, et al., 2012).
A week prior to the main study, parental consent
forms were administered to the students. A 3-day
period was allowed for the return of the signed
forms (none of the parents denied participation),
and then dates were scheduled for the survey
administration. On the day of the administra-
tion, students were informed about the purpose
of the study and were asked in case they did
not want to participate (only three denied par-
ticipation). Surveys were group administered
during a classroom session by three research
assistants. Students were provided with verbal
instructions on how to complete the survey and
they were also assured about the anonymity and
confidentiality of their responses.

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 61
Analysis Plan
Data was analyzed using the IBM Statistical
Pack for Social Sciences (SPSS) 19. One-way
ANOVAs were conducted to examine mean dif-
ferences of all the dependent variables in terms
of gender, SEC, and cyber-bully/victim roles.
Correlational analyses explored associations
among the variables, and finally, two three-
step hierarchical regressions were run in order
to identify the best predictors for CB and CV.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Mean and standard deviations for the whole
sample for CB/V, the five BFQ-C personality
factors, and coping subscales are shown in
Table 1.
Cyber-Bully/Victim Groups
Students were classified into 4 groups accord-
ing to the participant role in a CB incidents
on the basis of their CB/V total scores. Scores
falling in the upper and lower quartiles of the
distribution of both CB and CV scores were
indicative of high and low CB and CV respec-
tively: Cyber-bully/victims (high on both CB
and CV), cyber-victims (high on CV and low
on CB), cyber-bullies (high on CB and low on
CV), and non-involved (low on both CB and
CV). In all, there were 57 (19%) cyber-bully/
victims, 18 (6%) cyber-victims, 34 (11.3%)
cyber-bullies, and 148 (49.3%) non-involved
students. Forty three students (14.3%) did not
meet the criteria for classification into any
group and were excluded from further analyses.
Group Differences
One-way ANOVAs showed that males scored
higher than females in CB, F(1,298) = 5.61,
p <.05, whereas females scored higher in A,
F(1,298) = 5.31, p <.05 and C, F(1,298) =
1.70, p <.05. No significant differences were
observed for SEC.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Cyber-bully/victims had higher scores in
EI, F(3,253)=1.65, p=.00, than cyber-bullies
and non-involved students, and higher scores
than non-involved students in two maladap-
tive coping strategies, namely minimization,
F(3,253)=6.78, p=.00, and passive avoidance,
F(3,253)=8.03, p=.00. Cyber-bullies on the
other hand, differed in terms of the use of res-
ignation, F(3,253)=6.24, p=.00, and aggression,
F(3,253)=8.6, p=.00, compared to non-involved
students. The latter had significantly higher
scores in C than cyber-bullies and cyber-bully/
victims, F(3,253)=9.39, p=.00, and significantly
lower rumination scores than cyber-victims
and cyber-bully/victims F(3,253)=5.95, p<.01.
Correlational Analyses
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed
to assess the relationship among the variables.
However, it should be noted that the effect sizes
of the correlations were considered small to
moderate. Coefficients ranged between r=.12
and r=.66 (Table 2). The greatest correlation was
between CB and CV, r=.66, while the lowest
were between resignation and social support
r=.12, positive self-instructions, r= -.12, and
E, r= -.12. Passive avoidance was negatively
associated with A, r=-12, as well as self-control
and C, r=.12. Both CB and CV had low posi-
tive correlations with four maladaptive coping
strategies that is, passive avoidance, r=.23, and
r=.22 respectively, rumination, r=.15, and r=.16,
resignation, r=.26, and r=.22, and aggression,
r=.30, and r=.27. In addition, CB and CV were
positively correlated with minimization, r=.13,
and r=.17, and in terms of personality traits,
they had negative low correlation with C, r=
-.27, and r=-.21, and low positive correlation
with EI, r=.18, and r=.21. In addition, CB was
negatively correlated with A, r=-.19, and O,
r=-.14, whereas CV correlated positively with
situation control, r=.13.
Regression Analyses
Two three-step hierarchical stepwise multiple
regressions were run using CB and CV as the
62 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013

Table 2. Correlations between cyber-bullying, cyber-victimization, personality and coping

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. CB

2. CV .66**

3. E .03 .06

4. A -.19** -.05 .44**

5. C -.27** -.21** .27** .56**

6. EI .18** .21** .10 -.16** -.34**

7. O -.14* -.10 .44** .47** .62** -.19**

8. MIN .13* .17** .17** .09 -.03 .10 -.06

9. D/R .03 .01 .27** .15** .10 -.01 .17** .38**

10. SS .10 .09 .30** .25** .05 .09 .08 .15* .10

11. PA .23** .22** .05 -.12* -.25** .23** -.19** .29** .15** .35**

12. RUM .15** .16** .15** .15* -.06 .30** -.01 .24** .04 .36** .35**

13. RES .26** .22** -.12* -.15* -.23** .28** -.22** .15* -.01 .12* .38** .39**

14. AGG .30** .27** -.03 -.26** -.34** .52** -.20** .16** -.00 .10 .34** .39** .51**

15. PSI -.02 .08 .34** .27** .23** .00 .26** .28** .38** .29** .16** .24** -.12* -.03

16. SC .06 .13* .28** .20** .12* -.03 .15* .21** .34** .36** .17** .29** -.03 -.00 .45**

Note. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; CB= Cyber-bullying; CV= Cyber-victimization; E= Extraversion; A= Agreeableness;
C= Conscientiousness; EI= Emotional Instability; O= Openness to experience; Min= Minimization; D/R= Distraction/
recreation; SS= Social support; PA= Passive avoidance; Rum= Rumination; Res= Resignation; Agg= Aggression; PSI=
Positive self-instructions; SC= Situation control.

dependent variables. The most relevant predict- DISCUSSION

ing variables (personality factors) were entered
in the model last to establish the extent to which
CB and CV can be predicted by gender, SEC,
and coping that were entered in the model first.
Significant results are presented in Table 3.
Cyber-bullying was predicted by gender
(boys, β = -.12, p < .05), aggression (β = .23,
p = .00), passive avoidance (β = .14, p < .05),
and C (β = -.15, p < .05). Altogether, these
variables accounted for 16% of the variance,
with the best predictor being aggression (10.3%
of the total variance).
Cyber-victimization was predicted by ag-
gression (β = .22, p < .001), situation control
(β = .14, p < .05) and passive avoidance (β =
.14, p < .05). All variables accounted for 11%
of the total variance, with aggression explaining
the highest percentage (7.2%). The amount of
variance explained by passive avoidance was
trivial (1.2%). Interestingly, personality factors
did not predict students’ CV.
The main purpose of this study was to investigate
the relationship between CB/V experiences, big
five personality factors and coping, in a sample
of Greek pre-adolescents.
Regarding students’ demographic char-
acteristics, contrary to hypothesis (H1), boys
participated more frequently in CB than girls
(Tokunaga, 2010), a finding that was further sup-
ported by the results of the regression analysis
for CB. There were no significant differences
in terms of age (Price & Dalgleish, 2010). Find-
ings from similar studies have been generally
inconsistent regarding the prevalence of male
and female participation in CB/V incidences
(Campbell, 2007). Students’ SEC were expected
to be negatively related to CB participation, but
this was not confirmed.
Most of the participants were not involved
in CB/V incidents, whereas the most common
participant role was that of the cyber-bully/

Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 63
Table 3. Stepwise regression analysis predicting cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization (only
significant results)
Predictors
Step 1
Gender
Step 2
Aggression
Passive avoidance
Situation control
Step 3
Consciousness
Note: *** p<.00, ** p<.01, * p< .05
victim, a finding that could be attributed to the
nature of the Internet, which provides users the
opportunity to retaliate anonymously, from the
safety of their own home (Slonje, Smith, &
Frisén, 2012). Furthermore, due to the limited
non-verbal cues that the Internet provides,
students may participate in the incidences
without being aware of the significance of their
behavior and the effect it has on others (Suler,
2004). Participants’ younger age as well as their
limited Internet use and social skills may have
also played a role, since according to research
(Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Ólafsson
2011), young students may have a more limited
understanding of the nature of the Internet and
engage in harmful actions while perceiving them
as playful. Also, effective coping regarding
online threats may not be developed yet at this
age, leading students to the use of retaliation
as a response to CB. As already mentioned,
pre-adolescents are just commencing to take
responsibility for the negative experiences they
face (Strom et al., 1987). Given that they are
more reluctant to share problems with adults
regarding ICT use than those regarding the
physical world (Kildow, 2008; Li, 2010), it
may be assumed that younger students use more
maladaptive coping when dealing with CB and
therefore adopt the dual role more frequently.
Finally, previous studies which have explored
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Cyber-Bullying Cyber-Victimization
R 2
Β t R 2
β t
.02 -.12 -2.01*
.12 .23 3.39*** .07 .22 3.27***
.14 .14 2.04* .11 .14 2.01*
.09 .14 2.14*
.16 -.15 -2.30
CB/V experiences in similar ages, have not
directly examined the dual bully-victim role
and therefore, it is possible that role although
existed, it was not further investigated.
In terms of the big five factors, cyber-bullies
reported high EI (i.e. neuroticism), but contrary
to the hypothesis (H2), no differences were
found in terms of E and A. Regression analysis
indicated though that C negatively predicted CB
participation. Furthermore, it was expected that
cyber-victims and cyber bully/victims would
have lower levels of E and A, which has also
been found in students who make frequent and
dangerous use of the Internet (Van der Aa et
al., 2009). This hypothesis was not confirmed
either. These findings may indicate that CB
and CV experiences are not related to students’
personality in the same way personality traits
are related to school bullying experiences.
School bullying literature indicates that stu-
dents who have high scores in A and E usually
have good social skills and peer relationships
and avoid getting involved in aggressive acts,
but tend to support the victims (Tani, Freen-
man, Schneider & Fregoso, 2003). Moreover,
extraverted students tend to have high scores
in empathy, a skill crucial for maintaining good
social relationships, while low E bully-victims
do not possess this skill (Campbell, 2002).
Nevertheless, since the Internet has several
64 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013
characteristics that differentiate communication
and social relations comparing to those taking
place in the physical world, it may be assumed
that in the case of ICT, social relations such as
CV may not be directly related to the students’
personality, but may be a result of other factors,
such as their coping strategies. This is also il-
lustrated in the limited significant findings of
previous studies regarding the personality traits
of cyber-victims and bully/victims (O’Μoore,
Minton, & McGuckin, under review). Contrary
to CV, CB was related to personality factors;
not only cyber-bullies had high EI scores, but
furthermore, CB was negatively predicted by
C, a trait in which non-involved children had
the highest scores. This could indicate that neu-
rotic tendencies and lack of consciousness may
explain students’ participation as cyber-bullies.
Unsurprisingly, high EI combined with low
C has been found to predict threat appraisals
and high stress exposure (Grant & Langan-
Fox, 2006; Vollrath & Torgersen -in Carver &
Connor-Smith, 2010). These findings are also
in line with evidence stemming from the school
bullying research which indicates that students
with low C scores have significant social and
behavior problems (Ehrler & Evans, 1999), as
well as difficulties in self control and behavior
regulation (Campbell, 2002). Furthermore, stu-
dents with low C, when combined with high EI,
tend to externalize their negative feelings with
anti-social behavior (Burt & Donnellan, 2007).
Nevertheless, cyber bully/victims did not differ
significantly compared to other participants in
terms of their C scores, but N appears to be a
consistent predictive factor for anti-social be-
havior regardless the setting (physical or cyber).
Regarding coping, it was expected that all
participants, irrespective of their role, would
report more maladaptive coping (H3). Indeed,
all participants had higher scores in maladaptive
coping compared to those not involved, but the
highest scores were among cyber-bullies and
bully/victims. Specifically, bully-victims had
the highest score in minimization, passive avoid-
ance and rumination, thus verifying previous
findings with traditional bully/victims who have
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
been characterized as the most dysfunctional
type of bullies (Fanti, Frick, & Georgiou, 2009;
Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2004). It may be
that students, who are victimized through the
Internet, use maladaptive coping to face their
experiences, which may lead them to adopt
both roles. It would be expected that cyber-
bully/victims would also have high scores in
aggression coping (Price & Dalgleish, 2010),
but this was not confirmed. It must be noted
though, that students were not asked to report
their specific coping when faced with CB, but
their reactions when they are generally faced
with an interpersonal stressor. Therefore, ag-
gressive coping in a physical setting may be
perceived by students differently, compared to
aggressive coping in the cyber setting. Never-
theless, aggression and passive avoidance (i.e.
maladaptive coping) were significant predictors
for both CB and CV, while CV was also pre-
dicted by situation control (i.e. problem focused
coping). Maladaptive coping strategies have
been found to be associated with engagement
in school bullying and victimization (Olafsen &
Viemero, 2000) and, as suggested in a study by
Kokkinos et al. (2012), the use of maladaptive
coping to face school bullying and victimization
may be moderated by students’ self-efficacy
beliefs. Students with low levels of social and
emotional self-efficacy who participate in CB
and CV may not be capable of managing their
social relations and feelings and may not per-
ceive themselves in control of social situations
and thus may use maladaptive coping in order
to minimize the risk of social failure by hiding
their social and emotional skills deficits. This
however, is a hypothesis that should be tested in
future studies on cyber-bullying. Interestingly
though, CV was found to be positively predicted
by adaptive coping (i.e. situation control), a
finding which may suggest that cyber-victims
try to be in control, through situation control
coping, so as to modify and thus minimize the
stressful effects of CB. Finally, cyber-bullies
scored higher on aggression, but cyber-victims
did not differ significantly in terms of their cop-
ing, and therefore H3 was partially confirmed.
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 65
Regarding the relationship between per-
sonality and coping, EI was correlated with
emotion-focused coping as expected, but no
other significant correlations were found (H4).
This could be attributed to the influence that
personality exerts on coping. Although both
personality and coping play a significant role
in influencing behavior, personality affects the
frequency of exposure to stressors, the type of
the experienced stressors and their appraisals
(Vollrath- in Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010).
Therefore, conscientious individuals avoid im-
pulsive actions, whereas people with neurotic
tendencies appraise events as highly threatening
(Suls & Martin, 2005) and may use emotion-
focused coping (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010).
IMPLICATIONS
This study contributes to the existing literature
by providing further evidence for the partici-
pation of younger students in CB/V incidents.
Findings can be useful for the design of preven-
tion programs since they indicate that efforts
should be carried out in elementary school,
before students start engaging in aggressive
acts through ICT. Since CB/V incidents make
use of ICT, parents and teachers should edu-
cate young students regarding proper ICT use,
especially during the first encounters. Teachers
can have informed discussions with students
regarding the nature of the Internet, the proper
and ethic online conduct and safety, the time
limits students should set for themselves, as well
as the effective reactions to potential threats
(Keith & Martin, 2005; Campbell, 2007). In
collaboration with school psychologists they
can provide parents with knowledge through
school meetings and informative events, regard-
ing this new phenomenon, and suggest ways in
which they can help preventing it. Even if CB/V
is unrelated to school, its negative social and
emotional effects may distract students from
their educational activities (Campfield, 2008).
Furthermore, research consistently indicates
that participation in CB/V is positively related
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
to school bullying and victimization experiences
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). School restrictions
regarding ICT usage could minimize CB/V at
school (Stacey, 2009), while discussions regard-
ing CB/V consequences are deemed necessary,
since some students may not understand the
seriousness of their actions and unwillingly
cause harm (Willard, 2007).
The worrying percentage of cyber-bully/
victims found in this study warrants the attention
of all adults involved, since it could indicate
that students do not consider such incidences
as threatening or damaging, or regard them
as jokes or as normal part of life. In this case,
attention should be given to the development
of empathic feelings towards the victims,
along with the aforementioned understanding
regarding the consequences of Internet behavior
in real life. Furthermore, ICT may embolden
victimized students (cyber, traditional or both),
who lack the social skills or fear consequences,
to proceed with ease to the desired retaliation
due to the anonymity and indirectness that the
Internet provides. Therefore, a vicious cycle of
school-cyber bullying and victimization may
be created. In such cases, parents, teachers and
school psychologists could work towards edu-
cating students not only regarding the dangers
ICT, but also regarding proper coping.
Findings of this study regarding the pre-
diction of CV are rather encouraging, since,
contrary to CB, CV was predicted exclusively
by coping and not by personality traits. This
is rather optimistic, since it indicates that CV
can be prevented, if students are equipped
with proper coping strategies. Since students
involved in CB/V incidents, used more mal-
adaptive coping, it is vital that they are taught
problem-focused coping in such stressful
situations. Strategies like situation control and
positive self-instruction could benefit students,
as well as social support, which according to
studies (e.g., Li, 2007; Campfield, 2008), stu-
dents rarely use.
In the case of CB, as in school bullying,
it is important to take into consideration the
66 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013
personal characteristics of the aggressors while
planning intervention programs. For example,
individuals with high EI and low C could ben-
efit from anger management and development
of sensitivity strategies (Campfield, 2008),
while empathy training could be beneficiary
since the physical distance and anonymity of
the Internet, may not allow students to observe
the detrimental consequences of their actions
on the victim (Suler, 2004). However, when
dealing with bullying and victimization in any
context, physical or cyber, various situational
factors should not be underestimated (Tani et
al., 2003).
Limitations and Future Research
This study is not without limitations. Although
CB/V has been scarcely investigated in Greece,
findings should be interpreted with caution,
since the sample was convenient and consisted
only of 5th and the 6th grade elementary school
students. Generalization of the results should
not extend this age group. Future studies could
examine CB/V experiences in a larger and more
diverse sample. Regarding the assessment, self-
report questionnaires with a sizable number of
statements were used. Besides, biases that could
stem from the use of self-report measures, as
well as the length of the questionnaire might be
tiring for some students and led them to provide
random or hasty replies. Specifically, regarding
the coping strategies reported by students, it
should be remembered that a cross-sectional
study is merely a snapshot of a dynamic process.
Multiple assessments are necessary to detect a
pattern of coping.
Future studies could use combined qualita-
tive and quantitative means of data collection,
which would provide with more insight regard-
ing participants’ motives, views and character-
istics, and also avoid the problems which arise
from the use of questionnaires alone.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
REFERENCES
Ang, R. P., Tan, K., & Mansor, A. T. (2011). Nor-
mative beliefs about aggression as a mediator of
narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2619–2634.
doi:10.1177/0886260510388286 PMID:21156699
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2011). The
cyber-bullying/victimization experiences question-
naire (CBVEQ).Unpublished Questionnaire.
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2013a). A review
of cyber-bullying research in Greece. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/02673843.2013.778207
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2013b, May).
Cyber-bullying: Prevalence and risk factors in pre-
adolescence and adolescence. In Proceedings of
the 14th Panhellenic Conference of Psychological
Research, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., &
Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measur-
ing the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 645–664. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(02)00051-X
Barbaranelli, C., Fida, R., Paciello, M., Giunta, L.
D., & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Assessing personality
in early adolescence through self-report and other-
ratings a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the
BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
876–886. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.014
Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). Personality
correlates of aggressive and non-aggressive antisocial
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
53–63. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.022
Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequenc-
es of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359,
331–336. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8
PMID:11830216
Campbell, M. A. (2007). Cyber bullying and young
people: Treatment principles not simplistic advice.
QUT Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://
eprints.qut.edu.au/14903/1/14903.pdf
Campfield, D. C. (2008). Cyber bullying and vic-
timization: Psychosocial characteristics of bullies,
victims and bully/victims (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 67
Carver, S. C., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality
and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679–
704. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
PMID:19572784
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H.,
Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Cop-
ing with stress during childhood and adolescents:
Problems, progress, and potential in theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87 PMID:11271757
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Rela-
tions between personality and coping: A meta-anal-
ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 1080–1107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080
PMID:18072856
Corcoran, L., Connolly, I., & O’Moore, M. (2008,
November). Cyberbullying: A new dimension to
an old problem. In Proceedings of the Psychologi-
cal Society of Ireland Annual Conference, County
Carlow, Ireland.
Dubow, E. F., Pargament, K. I., Boxer, P., & Tarakesh-
war, N. (2000). Initial investigation of Jewish
early adolescents’ ethnic identity, stress and coping.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 418–441.
doi:10.1177/0272431600020004003
Ehrel, D. J., & Evans, J. G. (1999). Extending big-five
theory into childhood: A preliminary investigation
into the relationship etween big-five personality traits
nd behavior problems in children. Psychology in
the Schools, 36, 451–458. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6807(199911)36:6<451::AID-PITS1>3.0.CO;2-E
Eroglu, Y., Cetin, B., Guler, N., Peker, A., & Pepsoy,
S. (2011, July). From cybervictimization to coping
ways of stress: Gender as moderator. In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Education
and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012).
A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: Examining
risk and protective factors. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9, 168–181. doi:10.10
80/17405629.2011.643169
Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009).
Linking callous-unemotional traits to instrumental
and non-instrumental forms of aggression. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31,
285–298. doi:10.1007/s10862-008-9111-3
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 38,
581–586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
PMID:9255702
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Grant, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2006). Occupational
stress, coping and strain: The combined/interac-
tive effect of the Big Five traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 41, 719–732. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2006.03.008
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender
effects on coping in children and adolescents. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 73–83. doi:10.1007/
s10964-005-3207-9
Hampel, P., Petermann, F., & Dickow, B. (2001).
The German coping questionnaire by Janke and
Erdmann adapted for children and adolescents.
Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008).
Comparing children’s online opportunities and risks
across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU
kids online. London, UK: EU.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond
the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyber-
bullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Cyberbullying
and self-esteem. The Journal of School Health, 80,
614–621. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x
PMID:21087257
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G.,
Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K. (2002).
Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in
early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting
aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(3),
224–251. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2002.2348
Keith, S., & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyberbullying:
Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world. Re-
claiming Children & Youth, 13, 224–228.
Kildow, N. M. (2008). Cyberbullying: When peer bul-
lying moves from the classroom to the home (Master’s
thesis). Retrieved from http://minds.wisconsin.edu/
handle/1793/42723
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., & Markos, A.
(revised version submitted). Cyber-bullying: An
Investigation of the Psychological Profile of Uni-
versity Student Participants. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (2012). Psychosocial
functioning among preadolescents: Associations
with personality and attachment style. Unpublished
manuscript.
68 International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013
Kokkinos, C. M., Panagopoulou, P., Tsolakidou, I.,
& Tzeliou, E. (2012, May). Bullying/victimization
in pre-adolescent students: The role of Coping and
self-efficiency. In Proceedings of the 13th Panhel-
lenic Conference of Psychological Research, Athens,
Greece.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2004). Predicting
bullying and victimization among early adolescents:
Associations with disruptive behavior disorders.
Aggressive Behavior, 30, 520–533. doi:10.1002/
ab.20055
Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., Charalambous, K.,
Antoniadou, N., & Davazoglou, A. (2010). Greek
EPQ-J: Further support for a three-factor model
of personality in children and adolescents. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 259–269.
doi:10.1177/0734282909351023
Kowalski, R. M. (2008). Cyber bullying: Recogniz-
ing and treating victim and aggressor. Psychiatric
Times, 25. Retrieved from www.psychiatrictimes.
com/display/article/10168/1336550
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of
gender differences. School Psychology International,
27, 1–14. doi:10.1177/0143034306064547
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research
on cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Hu-
man Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2005.10.005
Li, Q. (2010). Cyberbullying in high schools: A
study of student’s behaviors and beliefs about
this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggres-
sion, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 372–392.
doi:10.1080/10926771003788979
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafs-
son, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The
perspective of European children. Full findings.
London, UK: EU Kids Online.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental
mediation and children’s Internet use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 581–599.
doi:10.1080/08838150802437396
Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2007). Cyber-bullying
in Australian schools: Profiles of adolescent coping
and insights for school practitioners. The Australian
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 24,
45–58.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1990). Personality
in adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An intro-
duction to the five-factor model and its ap-
plications. Journal of Personality, 60, 174–
214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
PMID:1635039
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Diederen, R. (2005).
Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 1757–1769. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.018
Newman, R. S. (2008). Adaptive and non-
adaptive help seeking with peer harassment:
An integrative perspective of coping and self-
regulation. Educational Psychologist, 43, 1–15.
doi:10.1080/00461520701756206
O’Moore, M., Minton, S., & McGuckin, C. (under
review). Bullying, cyber-bullying, gender, and
personality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Olafsen, R. N., & Viemero, V. (2000). Bully/victim
problems and coping with stress in school among
10- to 12-year-old pupils in Aland, Finland. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 26, 57–65. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2337(2000)26:1<57::AID-AB5>3.0.CO;2-I
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012).
High school students’ perceptions of coping with
cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44, 284–306.
doi:10.1177/0044118X11398881
Price, M., & Dalgleish, J. (2010). Cyberbullying:
Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as de-
scribed by Australian young people. Youth Studies
Australia, 29, 51–59.
Shiraldi, K. (2008). Cyber-bullying: The new gen-
eration of mean. Journal of Behavioural Science,
2, 17–24.
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007).
The development of coping. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 119–144. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085705 PMID:16903804
Šléglová, V., & Černá, A. (2011). Cyberbullying in
adolescent victims: Perception and coping. Cyber-
psychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 5, 1–33.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisen, A. (2012). Processes
of cyberbullying, and feelings of remorse by bullies.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
9, 244–259. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.643670
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(4), 55-69, October-December 2013 69
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S.,
Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying:
Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and
Allied Disciplines, 49, 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2007.01846.x PMID:18363945
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett,
N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbullying, its
forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship
between age and gender in cyberbullying. Retrieved
from http://www.antibullyingalliance.org.uk/pdf/
CyberbullyingreportFINAL230106.pdf
Stacey, E. (2009). Research into cyberbullying:
Student perspectives on cybersafe learning environ-
ments. Informatics in Education, 8, 115–130.
Steffgen, G., & Konig, A. (2009). Cyber bullying:
The role of traditional bullying and empathy. In B.
Sapeo, L. Haddon, E. Mante-Meijer, L. Fortunati,
T. Turk, & E. Loos (Eds.), The good, the bad and
the challenging conference proceedings (pp. 1041-
1047). Brussels: Cost office.
Strom, R. D., Bernard, H. W., & Strom, S. K. (1987).
Human development and learning. New York, NY:
Human Sciences Press.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition ef-
fect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
doi:10.1089/1094931041291295 PMID:15257832
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the gar-
den-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure,
mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal
of Personality, 73, 1485–1510. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2005.00356.x PMID:16274443
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Surat, P. (2010, August). Unaware violence: Case
studies of cyber bullying in Thai adolescents. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Reproductive Health and Social Sciences Research,
Thailand.
Tani, F., Freenman, P. S., Schneider, B. H., & Fregoso,
M. (2003). Bullying and the big five: A study of
childhood personality and participant roles in bul-
lying incidents. School Psychology International,
24, 131–146. doi:10.1177/0143034303024002001
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from
school: A critical review and synthesis of research
on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2009.11.014
Van Baardewijk, Y., Stegge, H., Bushman, B. J., &
Vermeiren, R. (2009). Psychopathic traits, victim
distress and aggression in children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,
50, 718–725. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02023.x
PMID:19207626
Van der Aa, N., Overbeek, G., Engels, R., Scholte,
R., Meerkerk, G. J., & Van den Eijnden, R. (2009).
Daily and compulsive internet use and well-being in
adolescence: A diathesis-stress model based on big
five personality traits. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 38, 765–776. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9298-3
PMID:19636779
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyber-
threats: Responding to the challenge of online social
aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.