View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Peer Attachment and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Peer Attachment and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
Language: English
Authors: Burton, K. Alex, Florell, Dan, Wygant, Dustin B.
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Feb 2013 50(2):103-115.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Middle Schools
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Descriptors: Peer Relationship, Aggression, Attachment Behavior, Bullying, Computer Mediated Communication, Victims, Internet, Grade 6, Grade 7, Grade 8, Student Surveys, Student Attitudes, Adolescent Attitudes, Middle School Students, Early Adolescents, Student Behavior
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
DOI: 10.1002/pits.21663
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: This study examined the effects of normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment on traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and both types of victimization. Cyberbullying departs from traditional forms of bullying in that it is through forms of technology, such as the Internet, which increases situational anonymity. Eight hundred fifty students in Grades 6 through 8 completed a survey that assessed normative beliefs about aggression, peer attachment, and traditional bullying and cyberbullying behaviors, which suggested that students who are involved with traditional bullying are also involved in cyberbullying. Adolescents with higher normative beliefs about aggression are more likely to be traditional bullies, traditional victims, cyberbullies, and cybervictims. Additionally, peer attachment was found to be negatively associated with both types of bullying and victimization. Implications and future directions are discussed. (Contains 2 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 59
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1009833
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQrKCBilLSL5WZSHq9DmgIAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJ3LbTL5g30Rb6A35QIBEICBmjSec1c8sSquv0kq0tbeWQ2D_IH7jOzefU5PBAgFvKmwLkO-6n-td8b5v26C7tpmMb5pUbFhiw9DKG9F-_SoGRKFb8X-kxbo4zyabLeXQGU39emsYvekaksGp-lxDGLrCK1XT4m1qquGv4pGzqYmz4TMtyJiLHQzQrw7azxrdIEitFymqPghJMpzxy22JR9Vz27vRNZ_B-FvnKo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0084696714;pis01feb.13;2018Jul12.07:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0084696714-1">THE ROLE OF PEER ATTACHMENT AND NORMATIVE BELIEFS ABOUT AGGRESSION ON TRADITIONAL BULLYING AND CYBERBULLYING. </title> <p>This study examined the effects of normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment on traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and both types of victimization. Cyberbullying departs from traditional forms of bullying in that it is through forms of technology, such as the Internet, which increases situational anonymity. Eight hundred fifty students in Grades 6 through 8 completed a survey that assessed normative beliefs about aggression, peer attachment, and traditional bullying and cyberbullying behaviors, which suggested that students who are involved with traditional bullying are also involved in cyberbullying. Adolescents with higher normative beliefs about aggression are more likely to be traditional bullies, traditional victims, cyberbullies, and cybervictims. Additionally, peer attachment was found to be negatively associated with both types of bullying and victimization. Implications and future directions are discussed.</p> <p>With the advent of social network sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, and MeetMe, people are finding new ways to evoke change in others, sometimes for the worse. For instance, in 2006, 13‐year‐old Megan Meier committed suicide after a neighbor created a fake Myspace identity of a boy who, after flirting, harassed and broke up with her (Breuer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>] ). In 2008, this culminated with the United State's first cyberbullying trial, in which the perpetrator was prosecuted. This trial drew considerable attention to the phenomenon of cyberbullying, as well as other types of bullying, and has prompted research on its impact and relation to psychosocial factors, such as peer attachment and normative beliefs about aggression.</p> <p>Traditional bullying can take many forms, whether it is through direct physical contact or indirect relationally aggressive routes, such as spreading a hateful rumor about a peer or excluding others from group membership or participation. Traditional bullying has been defined as a systematic and repeated type of aggression involving peers (Marini, Dane, & Bosacki, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref2">31</reflink>] ) and an intentional process of aggression that uses unequal power to inflict harm or gain material for social benefit (Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, & Snell, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>] ). In a comprehensive review of traditional bullying constructs, aggression was a common denominator in most bullying definitions (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Recent technological advances have given rise to novel types of aggressive behaviors, such as cyberbullying (Mason, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>] ). This new type of bullying has received attention from researchers and media alike. Vandebosch and Cleemput ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>] ) identified specific criteria for behaviors to be classified as cyberbullying. First, the actions must be intended to inflict harm and be perceived as hurtful. Second, there must be a pattern of negative behaviors, rather than an isolated incident. Finally, the relationship between the bully and the victim has to be one with a power imbalance (e.g., age, social status, physical appearance). Cyberbullying can arise from different technological means, such as cellular phones and computers, where cyberbullies can utilize text messages, chat rooms, and social networking sites. Common types of cyberbullying include flaming, harassment, cyberstalking, denigration, impersonation, exclusion, trickery, and outing (Willard, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref7">57</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The principle differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying are an increase in the degree of anonymity and the size of the audience. Anonymity, which is the absence of identifiability and accountability (Nogami & Takai, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>] ), has been found to facilitate antisocial behavior (Mathes & Guest, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>] ) and reduce helping behaviors (Solomon, Solomon, & Maiorca, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref10">49</reflink>] ). Juvonen and Gross ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>] ) reported that 27% of children were not “pretty sure” or “totally sure” about the identity of their cyberbully. In other words, more than one fourth of online victims are unable to specifically identify their bully. The increased size of the audience, which can consist of anyone with Internet access, can result in a diffusion of responsibility, as demonstrated by the bystander effect (Latane & Darley, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>] ). In other words, because more people view cyberbullying incidents, onlookers increasingly assume others will help. Thus, anonymity and diffusion of responsibility may not only decrease the likelihood of helping behaviors from onlookers but also increase the likelihood of cyberbullying behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-2">Bully, Victim, Bully‐Victim, and Uninvolved</hd> <p>Bullying comprises several players, including the bully, victim, bully‐victim, and uninvolved. The central component of the act of bullying is an aggressor, or the bully, who intends to inflict harm on a victim. Traditional bullies typically develop and display aggressive behaviors at an early age (Perren & Alsaker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>] ), which explains the high frequency among elementary students (Holt, Finkelhor, & Kantor, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>] ). Perren and Alsaker ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>] ) found that traditional bullies are more aggressive, while being less cooperative and prosocial. At the other end of the spectrum are those who do not participate in bullying activities, who are referred to as the uninvolved. Uninvolved individuals have significantly lower aggression than traditional bullies, bully‐victims, and victims. Furthermore, uninvolved students have higher academic performance and less rejection at home than traditional bullies and bully‐victims (Veenstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The victim is the recipient of a bully's aggressive behaviors. Victims tend to follow rather than lead, are disaffiliated, give in easily to others, and are often the target of jokes and pranks (Smith, Twemlow, & Hoover, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>] ). Traditional victims are highly cooperative and submissive, low in aggression and sociability, have problems asserting themselves (Perren & Alsaker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>] ), and tend to have lower levels of extraversion than bullies (Mynard & Joseph, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref19">37</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The bully‐victim is another key player in the realm of bullying. These individuals are conceptualized as being both instigators and victims of bullying (Menesini, Modena, & Tani, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref20">34</reflink>] ; Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>] ). The prevalence of traditional bully‐victims has been reported to be less extensive than bullies or victims alone and they are more likely to be boys than girls (Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref22">48</reflink>] ; Veenstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>] ). Dulmus, Sowers, and Theriot ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>] ) found that traditional bully‐victims are bullied at a higher frequency than traditional victims. Similar to traditional bullies, traditional bully‐victims have high levels of aggression (Veenstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref25">53</reflink>] ), which accounts for their participation in bullying. In addition, traditional bully‐victims have higher levels of social isolation, have lower levels of prosocial behaviors, and were found to be the most disliked among peers.</p> <p>A few categories of students involved in bullying have been identified, and although they were not included in the current study, they are worth mentioning. For example, reinforcers act as assistants to a bully and encourage the bullying behaviors. On the other hand, defenders provide support to victims of bullying. Finally, outsiders are those who withdraw by pretending to be unaware of the bullying (Salmivalli, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref26">43</reflink>] ; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref27">44</reflink>] ).</p> <p>There is evidence to suggest that a relationship exists between traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Wade & Beran, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>] ). For example, males are more likely to be traditional bullies and cyberbullies than female counterparts (Li, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>] ). Traditional bullies are likely to be cyberbullies (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>] ), just as traditional victims are likely to be cybervictims (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>] ). Adolescents who have an active social networking site or participate in Internet chat rooms are more likely to be cyberbullied (Mesch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>] ). This indicates that when examining traditional bullying, one must also look at cyberbullying.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-3">Prevalence</hd> <p>Traditional bullying is an ever‐present factor in schools today. Observational studies examining classrooms (Grades 1–6) revealed an average of 2.4 bullying episodes per hour (Atlas & Pepler, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>] ; Craig, Pepler, & Atlas, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>] ). Bradshaw, O'Brennan, & Sawyer ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>] ) and Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O'Brennan ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>] ) found that more than 37% of students had been either a bully or a victim two or more times in the past month, whereas a similar study found that 96.6% of children, at some point in their lifetime, had experienced or observed bullying (Langdon & Preble, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Although the frequency of cyberbullying is not as prevalent as traditional bullying, several studies have concluded that roughly one in four students are involved in cyberbullying (Li, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>] ; Ortega, Calmaestra, & Merchán, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref40">41</reflink>] ), and these numbers are likely to increase in the future (Hinduja & Patchin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>] ). Research suggests that cyberbullying victims are not chosen at random. Cyberbullies target specific individuals, as more than a fourth of chatroom victims report always falling victim to the same individuals (Katzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>] ). Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref43">47</reflink>] ) found that more than half of cyberbullying incidents last 1 or 2 weeks. This demonstrates that, much like bullying, cyberbullies choose their victims and continue the attacks for an extended period. In terms of sex differences, boys are more likely to be perpetrators, whereas girls are more likely to be victims (Wade & Beren, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref44">55</reflink>] ; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>] ) and report the cyberbullying to adults (Li, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref46">28</reflink>] ). Juvonen and Gross ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>] ) found that 90% of children did not tell adults about cyberbullying incidents. Given that forms of bullying entail the use of aggression, one must examine the extent to which students perceive the use of aggressive behaviors as socially acceptable.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-4">Normative Beliefs About Aggression</hd> <p>Attitudes toward aggression in social situations can influence bullying behaviors. Vernberg and Jacobs ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref48">54</reflink>] ) found that both boys and girls who hold more positive views of violence and aggression commit more acts of aggression. In addition, positive attitudes toward bullying have been found to predict involvement in bullying, even when controlling for sex (Boulton, Bucci, Hawker & Hawker, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>] ). Thus, views of aggression are directly related to bullying behaviors.</p> <p>Normative beliefs about aggression have been defined as self‐regulating notions about the propriety of social behaviors. Though the cause‐and‐effect relationship between beliefs about aggression and the use of aggression is unclear, there are significant associations between normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behaviors, which become more pronounced as children get older (Huesmann & Guerra, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>] ). Similarly, Lim and Ang ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>] ) found that normative beliefs about aggression predict aggressive behaviors. Beliefs about aggression influence children's processing of social cues, which renders them more likely to misinterpret casual encounters as hostile and thus respond aggressively (Zelli, Dodge, Lochman, Laird & Group, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref52">59</reflink>] ). Research has not yet explored the relationship between cyberbullying and normative beliefs about aggression; therefore, the current research on traditional bullying is hypothesized to be similar to cyberbullying behaviors. In addition to examining factors that may increase the likelihood of bullying (i.e., normative beliefs about aggression), it is also important to look at protective factors, such as peer attachment.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-5">Peer Attachment</hd> <p>Research concerning peer attachment and traditional bullying behaviors is limited. Most studies involving peers examine peer relationships, such as deviant affiliations and peer rejections (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref53">50</reflink>] ). Past research has shown a significant connection among peer relationships, bullying behaviors, and victimization. For example, compared with those uninvolved in bullying, bullies have more friends in their peer group, whereas victims have fewer friends (Perren & Alsaker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>] ). Furthermore, victims are generally less accepted by peers, compared with uninvolved individuals (Bacchini, Affuso, & Trotta, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>] ). However, having more friends does not constitute quality friendships or peer attachment. To account for this deficit, one must examine social integration and inclusion to establish a stronger link between bullying and peer attachment. Peer attachment occurs when a student internalizes the knowledge that a peer will be available and responsive during times of distress (Nickerson & Nagle, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>] ). This differs from peer friendship in that peer attachment has more depth.</p> <p>Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>] ) found that those with emotional problems and difficulties with social integration had the highest risk of victimization. Consequently, because social integration is directly related to peer relationships, these problems place students at a higher risk of being a bully‐victim than those who manage relationships effectively (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>] ). Those who have behavior problems are less socially included and, thus, perceive their social integration to be weaker (DeMonchy, Pijl, & Zandberg, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In adolescents, those with high peer attachment are the least aggressive and most sympathetic to their peers (Laible et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref60">24</reflink>] ). Similarly, an association between attachment to peers and decreased delinquency has been documented in an acculturation study (Wong, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>] ). Because of the strong relationship between aggression and poor peer relations (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>] ), children who are interpersonally rejected often become ostracized and attempt to adjust by acting aggressively (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>] ). These same children may eventually become accustomed to aggression, developing a more favorable attitude toward it. Subsequently, this attitude, which predicts bullying involvement (Boulton et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>] ), may cause the child to become a bully. Keeping the link between traditional bullying and cyberbullying in mind, it can be hypothesized that those with strong peer attachments will be less involved in bullying activities than will those with weak attachments.</p> <p>The relationship between peer attachment and victimization is unclear. Little research has been conducted in the way of peer attachment and victims, with more research geared toward protective factors. For example, low school connectedness and negative perceptions of relationships with classmates render an individual more likely to be victimized (Bacchini, Esposito & Affuso, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>] ; Sukkyung et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>] ). Consequently, individuals with less social support (i.e., school connectedness, peer attachment, etc.) are expected to be more victimized.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-6">The Current Study</hd> <p>An overview of the literature reveals a strong relationship between normative beliefs about aggression and traditional bullying. As a result, it is important to first examine the similarities and overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying groups. Additionally, peer attachment acts as a social buffer to traditional bullying and victimization. Based on the traditional bullying research, it was expected that a similar relationship would be found with cyberbullying. Therefore, the current study was conducted to examine the effects of normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment for traditional bullying and cyberbullying on bullies, victims, bully‐victims, and the uninvolved.</p> <p>To investigate the co‐occurrence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying, it was hypothesized that traditional bullies would have higher rates of cyberbullying than would traditional victims and those uninvolved in traditional bullying (Hypothesis 1). Traditional victims were expected to have higher rates of cybervictimization than traditional bullies (Hypothesis 2). Traditional uninvolved individuals were expected to have lower rates of cyberbullying and cybervictimization than all other traditional groups (Hypothesis 3). Additionally, traditional bully‐victims were hypothesized to have higher rates of cyberbullying and cybervictimization than all other traditional groups (Hypothesis 4).</p> <p>Based on the bullying literature, it was predicted that traditional bullies and traditional bully‐victims would have significantly higher normative beliefs about aggression than would the traditional victim and traditional uninvolved groups (Hypothesis 5). Similarly, cyberbullies and cyberbully‐victims were hypothesized to have significantly higher normative beliefs about aggression than cybervictims and those uninvolved in cyberbullying (Hypothesis 6).</p> <p>Concerning peer attachment, traditional uninvolved students were expected to have significantly higher peer attachment than traditional bullies, traditional victims, and traditional bully‐victims (Hypothesis 7). Those uninvolved in cyberbullying were hypothesized to have significantly higher peer attachment than cyberbullies, cyberbully‐victims, and cybervictims (Hypothesis 8).</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-7">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0084696714-8">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included 851 middle‐school students in Grades 6 through 8. Subjects ranged from 10 to 16 years of age (M = 12.93, SD = 0.92 years) and included 337 males and 501 females. Ninety‐one percent were “White or Caucasian,” 2.5% were “African American,” 1.4% were “Hispanic or Latino,” 1.2% were “American Indian or Alaskan Native,” 1% were “Asian,” and 2.4% were “other.” Just over half (51.2%) were on a free/reduced lunch program. Demographic information was gathered from a questionnaire and included the traditional bullying and cyberbullying scales, the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, and the Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-9">Materials and Procedure</hd> <hd id="AN0084696714-10">Procedure</hd> <p>University institutional review board approval, school district, parental consent, and student assent were obtained prior to data collection. Participants completed a questionnaire containing all scales for the purposes of this study. On the day of the testing session, participants met at a designated area to complete the questionnaire and were placed at tables with at least two seats separating each student to reduce response acquiescence and information sharing. The investigator remained present for the entire session to answer any questions. On completion of the instruments, students returned to their classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-11">Traditional Bullying and Victimization</hd> <p>The bullying scale contained seven statements, such as “I physically hurt someone” and “I spread rumors about someone,” to measure the student as the bully, and seven items, such as “Someone threatened me” and “Someone physically hurt me,” to measure the student as the victim. Participants rated the statements, which assessed prevalence and frequency of the behavior, on a 5‐point scale (1 = never, 2 = once or twice this year, 3 = a few times this year, 4 = about one time every week, 5 = about a few times every week). A higher score on this scale indicated a higher frequency of bullying. This measure was adapted from a previous study by Jolliffe and Farrington ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>] ). The scale demonstrated good reliability, yielding a Cronbach's alpha of.813.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-12">Cyberbullying and Victimization</hd> <p>Participants completed a cyberbullying measure, which assessed the student as the cyberbully and the student as the cybervictim. Participants rated nine statements, such as “I sent or posted cruel and untrue things about someone” and “I kept on sending someone rude or insulting messages,” to measure the student as the cyberbully. In addition, nine statements, such as “Someone purposely left me out of an online group” and “Someone entered or used my email, website, or computer without my permission,” measured the student as the cybervictim. Participants rated the statements, which assessed the prevalence and frequency of the behavior, on a 5‐point scale (1 = never, 2 = once or twice this year, 3 = a few times this year, 4 = about one time every week, 5 = about a few times every week). Higher scores on this measure were related to a higher frequency of perpetration and victimization of cyberbullying. The principal investigator created this measure by modifying the Traditional Bullying and Victimization scale based on the classification of cyberbullying methods by Willard ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref68">57</reflink>] ). This scale had good internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach's alpha of.894 for the cyberbullying score and.903 for the cybervictimization score.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-13">Peer Attachment</hd> <p>Participants completed the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>] ), which assesses the degree of mutual trust, quality of communication, and extent of anger and alienation. The Parental Attachment subscales were not analyzed in the current study. Participants rated 25 statements, such as “My friends accept me as I am,” “My friends understand me,” and “My friends care about how I am” on a 5‐point scale (1 = almost never or never true, 2 = not very often true, 3 = sometimes true, 4 = often true, 5 = almost always or always true). Higher scores on this scale reflects higher degrees of peer attachment. Armsden and Greenberg ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>] ) reported a 3‐week test–retest reliability of.86 for the IPPA peer measure. They also reported an overall alpha coefficient of.92, which was consistent with the alpha of.92 that we found in our sample.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-14">Normative Beliefs About Aggression</hd> <p>Participants completed the Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale (NOBAGS; Huesmann & Guerra, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>] ), which contains 20 items assessing retaliation and general beliefs about aggression, nearly half of which are reverse coded. Two subscales comprise this measure, 12 items for Approval of Retaliation and 8 items for General Approval of Aggression. Participants answered questions such as “Suppose a boy says something bad to a girl; do you think it's wrong for the girl to scream at him?” and “In general, is it wrong to hit other people?” Participants chose from a four‐item response scale (4 = it's perfectly ok, 3 = it's sort of ok, 2 = it's sort of wrong, 1 = it's really wrong), with a higher score on this measure indicating more overall support for aggression. Huesmann and Guerra ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>] ) found this scale to have an overall reliability coefficient of.86; consistent reliability across gender, race, and grade; and 1‐year stabilities of.31 among first and fourth graders. In our study, the NOBAGS had an overall internal consistency of.86.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-15">Bully, Victim, Bully‐Victim, and Uninvolved Groups</hd> <p>Using a method similar to that of Veenstra et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref73">53</reflink>] ) and Demaray and Malecki ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>] ), groups were designated by using a frequency of scores for both traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Students were designated as “bullies” if their score on the traditional (traditional bullies, n = 53) or cyberbullying (cyberbullies, n = 75) scales were at or above the 75<sups>th</sups> percentile and if they scored at or below the 50<sups>th</sups> percentile for the respective victimization scale. Those who were designated as “victims” scored at or above the 75<sups>th</sups> percentile on a victimization scale, while scoring at or below the 50<sups>th</sups> percentile on the traditional bullying (traditional victims, n = 67) or cyberbullying (cybervictims, n = 42) scale. “Bully‐victims” were those who score at or above the 75<sups>th</sups> percentile on both the bullying and victimization scales (traditional bully‐victims, n = 104; cyberbully‐victims, n = 142). Those designated as “uninvolved” were students who scored at or below the 50<sups>th</sups> percentile on victimization and bullying measures (traditional uninvolved, n = 140; cyber uninvolved, n = 279).</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-16">Results</hd> <hd id="AN0084696714-17">Analysis of Variance</hd> <p>An analysis of variance was conducted to test the first four hypotheses. The means and standard deviations can be found in Tables [NaN] and [NaN] . With regard to the cyberbullying group, significant differences in traditional bullying were found among groups, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>, 535) = 78.30, p <.001, as well as for traditional victimization, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>, 535) = 90.63, p <.001. For the traditional bullying group, significant differences in cyberbullying, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>, 361) = 52.88, p <.001, and cybervictimization, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>, 361) = 48.30, p <.001, were found among groups.</p> <p>Relationship Between Normative Beliefs of Aggression and Peer Attachment With Cyberbullying Category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>Cyberbullying Category</th><th /><th /></tr><tr><th /><th valign="bottom">Uninvolved (n = 279)</th><th valign="bottom">Victims (n = 42)</th><th valign="bottom">Bullies (n = 75)</th><th valign="bottom">Bully‐Victims (n = 142)</th><th>ANOVA</th><th>Effect Size</th></tr><tr><th /><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>F(3, 535)</th><th>p</th><th>η<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><td>NOBAGS</td><td align="char" char=".">12.00<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">9.80</td><td align="char" char=".">12.52<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">8.61</td><td align="char" char=".">19.51<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">13.18</td><td align="char" char=".">22.06<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">11.13</td><td align="char" char=".">32.86</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.18</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td align="char" char=".">100.48<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">17.77</td><td align="char" char=".">97.17<sub>ab</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">20.61</td><td align="char" char=".">95.13<sub>ab</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">20.85</td><td align="char" char=".">94.08<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">17.98</td><td align="char" char=".">4.39</td><td align="char" char=".">.005</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Traditional Bullying</td><td align="char" char=".">9.96<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">3.36</td><td align="char" char=".">10.86<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">3.06</td><td align="char" char=".">14.71<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">5.29</td><td align="char" char=".">16.39<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">5.61</td><td align="char" char=".">78.30</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td></tr><tr><td>Traditional Victimization</td><td align="char" char=".">11.35<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">5.08</td><td align="char" char=".">22.40<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">8.01</td><td align="char" char=".">13.17<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">6.28</td><td align="char" char=".">19.61<sub>c</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">6.17</td><td align="char" char=".">90.63</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.51</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Note</item> <item>4 NOBAGS = Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale; PA = peer attachment. Means with different subscripts are significantly different (Tukey's honestly significant difference).</item> </ulist> <p>Relationship Between Normative Beliefs of Aggression and Peer Attachment With Traditional Bullying Category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th /><th>Traditional Bullying Category</th><th /><th /></tr><tr><th /><th valign="bottom">Uninvolved (n = 140)</th><th valign="bottom">Victims (n = 67)</th><th valign="bottom">Bullies (n = 53)</th><th valign="bottom">Bully‐Victims (n = 104)</th><th>ANOVA</th><th>Effect Size</th></tr><tr><th /><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>F(3, 361)</th><th>p</th><th>η<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><td>NOBAGS</td><td align="char" char=".">9.45<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">7.24</td><td align="char" char=".">10.63<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">7.89</td><td align="char" char=".">25.00<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">10.7</td><td align="char" char=".">24.71<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">11.11</td><td align="char" char=".">80.42</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.67</td></tr><tr><td>PA</td><td align="char" char=".">105.89<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">15.38</td><td align="char" char=".">92.03<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">22.51</td><td align="char" char=".">96.15<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">19.31</td><td align="char" char=".">92.27<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">16.78</td><td align="char" char=".">15.38</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td></tr><tr><td>Cyberbullying</td><td align="char" char=".">9.33<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">1.40</td><td align="char" char=".">9.88<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">1.55</td><td align="char" char=".">13.31<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">5.94</td><td align="char" char=".">16.62<sub>c</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">7.58</td><td align="char" char=".">52.88</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td></tr><tr><td>Cybervictimization</td><td align="char" char=".">9.46<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">15.40<sub>b</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">8.67</td><td align="char" char=".">11.46<sub>a</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">4.05</td><td align="char" char=".">18.20<sub>c</sub></td><td align="char" char=".">7.90</td><td align="char" char=".">48.30</td><td align="char" char="."><.001</td><td align="char" char=".">.40</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Note</item> <item>6 NOBAGS = Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale; PA = peer attachment. Means with different subscripts are significantly different (Tukey's honestly significant difference).</item> </ulist> <p>We calculated the means and standard deviations among groups to test hypotheses 5 through 8, which can be found in Tables [NaN] and [NaN] . With regard to cyberbullying, significant differences in peer attachment were found among the four groups, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>, 534) = 4.39, p =.005, as well as normative beliefs about aggression, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>, 535) = 32.86, p <.001. Regarding the four traditional bullying groups, peer attachment differences were also significant among the groups, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>, 361) = 80.422, p >.001, as well as normative beliefs about aggression, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>, 360) = 15.384, p >.001.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-18">Post Hoc Analysis</hd> <p>To further investigate the relationship between the groups, Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) post hoc analysis was conducted and is presented in Tables [NaN] and [NaN] . Providing some support for Hypothesis 1, traditional bullies were found to have significantly higher rates of cyberbullying than those uninvolved with traditional bullying. Traditional victims had significantly higher rates of cybervictimization than traditional bullies, which supported Hypothesis 2. The traditional uninvolved group had lower rates of cyberbullying than traditional bullies and traditional bully‐victims, but not traditional victims. The traditional uninvolved group also had lower rates of cybervictimization than traditional victims and traditional bully‐victims, but not traditional bullies, which partly supported Hypothesis 3. Finally, traditional bully‐victims had significantly higher rates of cyberbullying and cybervictimization than all other traditional groups, which supported Hypothesis 4.</p> <p>The traditional bullying groups yielded similar results to the cyberbullying groups, with a few exceptions. In this case, the traditional bullies and traditional bully‐victims were found to have significantly higher normative beliefs about aggression than the traditional uninvolved and traditional victim, which confirmed Hypothesis 5.</p> <p>The results indicated that cyberbullies and cyberbully‐victims had significantly higher normative beliefs about aggression than the cybervictims and those uninvolved in cyberbullying, which confirmed Hypothesis 6. In terms of peer attachment, the traditional uninvolved group was significantly higher than the traditional victims, traditional bully‐victims, and the traditional bullies, which confirmed Hypothesis 7. Finally, those uninvolved in cyberbullying were found to have significantly higher peer attachment than cyberbully‐victims, providing some support for Hypothesis 8.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study examined normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment for traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The results show that cyberbullies and cyberbully‐victims have higher rates of traditional bullying than cybervictims or those uninvolved in cyberbullying. This suggests that those involved in cyberbullying are also involved in traditional bullying, which is supported by past research (Gradinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>] ; Katzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>] ; Li, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>] ; Wade & Beran, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>] ). The cybervictims had the highest prevalence of traditional victimization, indicating that a cybervictim is likely to also be a traditional victim. Similar results were found with the traditional bullying groups as well. For example, traditional bullies and traditional bully‐victims perpetrated higher rates of cyberbullying than did the uninvolved and victim groups. Traditional victims and traditional bully‐victims were found to have higher rates of cybervictimization than the uninvolved or traditional bullying groups. This is evidence that a crossover between involvement in cyberbullying and traditional bullying occurs across both modalities. In other words, a student who is a victim or bully in one context (i.e., online or offline) is likely to be involved in another context.</p> <p>The findings indicate that traditional bullying and cyberbullying have a similar relationship to normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment. With regard to traditional bullying, the victim and uninvolved groups had significantly lower normative beliefs about aggression than bullies and bully‐victims, as hypothesized. This may be due to those who participate in bullying behaviors perceiving aggressive responses as more normative among peers than those who are victimized or uninvolved.</p> <p>A unique feature of this study was that it examined normative beliefs about aggression in relation to cyberbullying. It was hypothesized that with regard to cyberbullying, bullies, and bully‐victims would have significantly higher normative beliefs about aggression than victims and uninvolved students, which was supported by the results. This suggests that those who are engaging in cyberbullying favor aggressive behaviors or at least view them as being normative.</p> <p>This study hypothesized that due to the empirical link between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, normative beliefs about aggression would influence both types of bullying in a similar manner. When examining the two types of bullying, we found exactly that. Traditional bullying and cyberbullying groups demonstrated that victim and uninvolved groups had lower normative beliefs about aggression than bullies and bully‐victims. This provides support for past research showing that those higher with normative beliefs about aggression were more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors (Huesmann & Guerra, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>] ; Lim & Ang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref89">30</reflink>] ). Additionally, the results further illustrated a connection between traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Katzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>] ; Li, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>] ; Mesch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The current findings demonstrate that attitudes about aggression are consistent with reported behaviors, even across modalities. In light of this influence, normative beliefs about aggression should be at the center of preventative therapies and programs that are designed to assess, intervene, and alter attitudes and normative beliefs concerning aggression. Such programs have been shown to influence attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions of bullying, but not bullying behaviors (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref93">35</reflink>] ). If a school were to alter the climate by being intolerant of traditional bullying and cyberbullying, eventually those behaviors would not be viewed as acceptable. This type of change could gradually minimize aggression and bullying as normative behaviors, which could assist in preventing traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Additionally, programs of this type may encourage students to think about their school norms, and perhaps even question their validity. This may prove to be an effective method of combating both traditional bullying and cyberbullying. As predicted, the uninvolved students had significantly higher peer attachment than traditional bullies, bully‐victims, and victims. This indicates that those uninvolved in traditional bullying are socially insulated to some degree by their peer attachment or simply that being uninvolved enables students to have higher quality relationships with peers. In any case, peer attachment appears to be a mitigating factor in the frequency of bullying involvement. The prediction that those uninvolved in cyberbullying would have higher peer attachment than bullies, victims, and bully‐victims, was only partially supported. The uninvolved group had significantly higher peer attachment than bully‐victims, but not victims or bullies. This may be due to the cyberbully‐victim's experience and involvement with such a high frequency of bullying behaviors. Compared with traditional bully‐victims, cyberbully‐victims may be more involved in bullying behaviors since participation can occur at any place with an Internet connection. Bully‐victims are more likely to have problems with peer relationships and poorer perceptions of their school environment (O'Brennan, Bradshaw & Sawyer, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>] ). Consequently, bully‐victims, compared with other students, may perceive more social distance between close friendships.</p> <p>This study also provided insight into the relationship between both types of bullying and peer attachment. The results indicate that although there are similarities between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, there are also differences. Those uninvolved in traditional bullying had significantly higher peer attachment than bullies, victims, and bully‐victims, which suggests that this type of attachment may act as a social buffer. Furthermore, because those uninvolved in cyberbullying were only higher in peer attachment than cyberbully‐victims, the degree of peer attachment may be mitigated by the anonymous nature of cyberbullying. As mentioned before, the cyberbully‐victims are likely to have lower peer attachment because they are involved in cyberbullying more than others, which may deteriorate peer relationships. This provides evidence for a need for further investigation because cyberbullying does differ in this respect from traditional bullying.</p> <p>School programs may need to be developed to facilitate and encourage peer attachment, which provides social insulation from being victimized by traditional bullies and, perhaps to a lesser degree, cyberbullies. However, the phenomenon of cyberbullying may minimize feelings of peer attachment support, as many online interactions, such as students checking their email and social networking pages, are usually done alone. Students could also be taught to consult friends in their peer group when faced with a traditional bullying or cyberbullying situation, which would decrease the diffusion of responsibility. This type of program may be more effective for cyberbullying due to the decreased immediacy of the situation, whereas traditional bullying requires a response at that moment in time.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-20">Limitations</hd> <p>Though these findings are novel to the field of cyberbullying research, limitations do exist in the current study. First, the bullying scales are all self‐report measures and are consequently subject to socially desirable responses. If this is the case, it is probable the prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying is being suppressed by an undeterminable degree. The Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale had poor 1‐year stabilities, and the age of the population used to standardize this measure was lower than that of our sample. Given that the current study examined children in sixth through eighth grade, the use of this measure may distort the findings.</p> <p>The categories of uninvolved, bully, victim, and bully‐victim utilized for the analyses are arbitrary and do not precisely identify the individuals for their respective role. For example, a student who bullies once a year could be, technically speaking, considered a bully. However, using the current method for designation, this student would be placed in the uninvolved category. The frequency of bullying may also be impacted to a greater degree by alternative personality or social characteristics, that is, variables other than peer attachment and normative beliefs about aggression. This means that the ability to predict bullying is inherently limited by the current measures and additional characteristics and traits should be considered in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0084696714-21">Future Directions</hd> <p>In the future, studies should attempt to further elucidate the role of various types of attachment in cyberbullying. Additional research on parent attachment and school connectedness will provide valuable insight into the impact of overall relationship quality on cyberbullying attitudes and behaviors. Due to the relationship between normative beliefs about aggression and bullying, efforts should be directed toward developing a measure to examine propriety of aggression in regard to online activities. This would contribute to the knowledge base of anonymity and its interaction with behaviors. Furthermore, anonymity may influence views or attitudes of aggression, which is directly related to cyberbullying. The unique nature of cyberbullying is such that one cannot consider or understand this phenomenon without also taking the anonymous nature of it into account.</p> <p>Research of this kind is most important to those at the school level, where educating students on the subject may be the best deterrent. In addition, future directions could examine aggression from a bias in social information‐processing approach of students among this age group. Previous research indicates that those higher in aggression perceive ambiguous social cues of others to be aggressive, which causes them to react aggressively in retaliation (Zelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref95">59</reflink>] ). This reaction could be more enhanced online, where communications through technology are more easily misinterpreted. Exploration of this kind may help to shed light on how the social processing of ambiguous cues impacts social behaviors.</p> <p>In summation, this study has shown that students involved in traditional bullying are likely to also be involved in cyberbullying and vice versa. Additionally, traditional bullying and cyberbullying were positively associated with normative beliefs about aggression, but negatively associated with peer attachment. The findings suggest that future research should examine other types of aggression that may predict cyberbullying involvement and protective factors, such as parental attachment and biased social information processing.</p> <ref id="AN0084696714-22"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref69" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>To explore whether gender differences could potentially change the relationship between peer attachment/normative beliefs about aggression and traditional/cyberbullying, we also conducted these same analyses separately by gender. There were no significant differences in the results for the cyberbullying analyses. In the traditional bullying groups, however, there was one significant difference between the genders. The traditional bully group significantly differed from the victims and the bully‐victims (but not the uninvolved) on peer attachment for females, but not males. Please contact the first author if you would like a complete breakdown of the results separated by gender. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0084696714-23"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibtext>Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. ( 1987 ). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well‐being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427 – 454. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. ( 1998 ). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref55" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Bacchini, D., Affuso, G., & Trotta, T. ( 2008 ). Temperament, ADHD and peer relations among schoolchildren: The mediating role of school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 447 – 459. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref65" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Bacchini, D., Esposito, G., & Affuso, G. ( 2009 ). Social experience and school bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 17 – 32. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref49" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Boulton, M., Bucci, E., Hawker, D., & Hawker, D. ( 1999 ). Swedish and English secondary school pupils’ attitudes towards, and conceptions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involvement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 277 – 284. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bradshaw, C., O'Brennan, L., & Sawyer, A. ( 2008 ). Examining variation in attitudes toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12, 10 – 21. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref36" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Bradshaw, C., Sawyer, A., & O'Brennan, L. ( 2007 ). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361 – 382. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Breuer, H. ( 2009 ). MySpace suicide victim's mom urges parental action. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20275756,00.html">http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20275756,00.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref62" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Card, N., Stucky, B., Sawalani, G., & Little, T. ( 2008 ). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta‐analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185 – 1229. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref34" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Craig, W. M., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. ( 2000 ). Observations of bullying on the playground and in the classroom [Special issue]. School Psychology International, 21, 22 – 36. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref74" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Demaray, M., & Malecki, C. ( 2003 ). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32, 471 – 48. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref59" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>DeMonchy, M., Pijl, S., & Zandberg, T. ( 2004 ). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 317 – 330. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref24" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Dulmus, C., Sowers, K., & Theriot, M. ( 2006 ). Prevalence and bullying experiences of victims and victims who become bullies (bully‐victims) at rural schools. Victims & Offenders, 1, 15 – 31. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref3" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Frey, K., Hirschstein, M., Edstrom, L., & Snell, J. ( 2009 ). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 466 – 481. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref30" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. ( 2009 ). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychology, 217, 205 – 213. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref41" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. ( 2009 ). Bullying: Beyond the schoolyard. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref14" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Holt, M., Finkelhor, D., & Kantor, G. ( 2007 ). Hidden forms of victimization in elementary students involved in bullying. School Psychology Review, 36, 345 – 360. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref50" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Huesmann, L., & Guerra, N. ( 1997 ). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408 – 419. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref57" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Johnson, H., Thompson, M., Wilkinson, S., Walsh, L., Balding, J., & Wright, V. ( 2002 ). Vulnerability to bullying: Teacher‐reported conduct and emotional problems, hyperactivity, peer relationship difficulties, and prosocial behaviour in primary school children. Educational Psychology, 22, 553 – 556. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref67" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. ( 2006 ). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540 – 550. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref58" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. ( 2003 ). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231 – 1237. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref11" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. ( 2008 ). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496 – 505. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref31" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. ( 2009 ). Cyberbullying: Who are the victims? A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization in school. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21, 25 – 36 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref60" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. ( 2000 ). The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 45 – 59. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref37" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Langdon, S., & Preble, W. ( 2008 ). The relationship between levels of perceived respect and bullying in fifth through 12th graders. Adolescence, 43, 485 – 503. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref12" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. ( 1970 ). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help ? New York, NY : Appleton‐Century‐Crofts. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref63" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Leary, M., Twenge, J., & Quinlivan, E. ( 2006 ). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 111 – 132. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref29" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Li, Q. ( 2006 ). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157 – 170. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref39" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Li, Q. ( 2007 ). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777 – 1791. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref51" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Lim, S., & Ang, R. ( 2009 ). Relationship between boys’ normative beliefs about aggression and their physical, verbal, and indirect aggressive behaviors. Adolescence, 44, 635 – 650. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref2" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Marini, Z., Dane, A., & Bosacki, S. ( 2006 ). Direct and indirect bully‐victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551 – 569. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref5" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Mason, K. L. ( 2008 ). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 323 – 348. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref9" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Mathes, E., & Guest, T. ( 1976 ). Anonymity and group antisocial behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 257. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref20" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Menesini, E., Modena, M., & Tani, F. ( 2009 ). Bullying and victimization in adolescence: Concurrent and stable roles and psychological health symptoms. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 115 – 134. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref93" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. ( 2008 ). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta‐analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26 – 42. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref32" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Mesch, G. ( 2009 ). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 387 – 393. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref19" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. ( 1997 ). Bully/victim problems and their association with Eysenck's personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year‐olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 51 – 54. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref56" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Nickerson, A., & Nagle, R. ( 2005 ). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223 – 249. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref8" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Nogami, T., & Takai, J. ( 2008 ). Effects of anonymity on antisocial behavior committed by individuals. Psychological Reports, 102, 119 – 130. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref94" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>O'Brennan, L., Bradshaw, C., & Sawyer, A. ( 2009 ). Examining developmental differences in the social‐emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 100 – 115. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref40" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Ortega, R., Calmaestra, J., & Merchán, J. ( 2008 ). Cyberbullying. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 8, 183 – 192. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref13" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. ( 2006 ). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully‐victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 47, 45 – 57. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref26" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Salmivalli, C. ( 2010 ). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112 – 120. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref27" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. ( 2005 ). Anti‐bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465 – 487. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref17" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Smith, J., Twemlow, S., & Hoover, D. ( 1999 ). Bullies, victims and bystanders: A method of in‐school intervention and possible parental contributions. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 30, 29 – 37. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref4" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Smith, P., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R., & Liefooghe, A. ( 2002 ). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen‐country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119 – 1133. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref43" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. ( 2008 ). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49, 376 – 385. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref21" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Solberg, M., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. ( 2007 ). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils ? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441 – 464. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref10" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Solomon, L., Solomon, H., & Maiorca, J. ( 1982 ). The effects of bystander's anonymity, situational ambiguity, and victim's status on helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 285. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref53" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Spriggs, A., Iannotti, R., Nansel, T., & Haynie, D. ( 2007 ). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283 – 293. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref66" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Sukkyung, Y., Furlong, M., Felix, E., Sharkey, J., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. ( 2008 ). Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 446 – 460. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref6" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. ( 2008 ). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 499 – 503. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref16" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A., De Winter, A., Verhulst, F., & Ormel, J. ( 2005 ). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672 – 682. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref48" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Vernberg, E., & Jacobs, A. ( 1999 ). Peer victimization and attitudes about violence during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 386. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref28" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Wade, A., & Beran, T. ( 2011 ). Cyberbullying: The new era of bullying. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 44 – 61. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref45" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Wang, J., Iannotti, R., & Nansel, T. ( 2009 ). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368 – 375. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref7" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Willard, N. ( 2005 ). Educator's guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://cyberbully.org/docs/cbcteducator.pdf">http://cyberbully.org/docs/cbcteducator.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref61" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>Wong, S. ( 1999 ). Acculturation, peer relations, and delinquent behavior of Chinese‐Canadian youth. Adolescence, 34, 107. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref52" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Zelli, A., Dodge, K., Lochman, J., Laird, R., & Group, C. ( 1999 ). The distinction between beliefs legitimizing aggression and deviant processing of social cues: Testing measurement validity and the hypothesis that biased processing mediates the effects of beliefs on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 150 – 166. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By K. Alex Burton; Dan Florell and Dustin B. Wygant</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1009833
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Peer Attachment and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burton%2C+K%2E+Alex%22">Burton, K. Alex</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Florell%2C+Dan%22">Florell, Dan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wygant%2C+Dustin+B%2E%22">Wygant, Dustin B.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Feb 2013 50(2):103-115.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aggression%22">Aggression</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attachment+Behavior%22">Attachment Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bullying%22">Bullying</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims%22">Victims</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Surveys%22">Student Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescent+Attitudes%22">Adolescent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Inventory+of+Parent+and+Peer+Attachment%22">Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.21663
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined the effects of normative beliefs about aggression and peer attachment on traditional bullying, cyberbullying, and both types of victimization. Cyberbullying departs from traditional forms of bullying in that it is through forms of technology, such as the Internet, which increases situational anonymity. Eight hundred fifty students in Grades 6 through 8 completed a survey that assessed normative beliefs about aggression, peer attachment, and traditional bullying and cyberbullying behaviors, which suggested that students who are involved with traditional bullying are also involved in cyberbullying. Adolescents with higher normative beliefs about aggression are more likely to be traditional bullies, traditional victims, cyberbullies, and cybervictims. Additionally, peer attachment was found to be negatively associated with both types of bullying and victimization. Implications and future directions are discussed. (Contains 2 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 59
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1009833
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1009833
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.21663
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 103
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aggression
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attachment Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bullying
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Victims
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Internet
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 7
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Peer Attachment and Normative Beliefs about Aggression on Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burton, K. Alex
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Florell, Dan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wygant, Dustin B.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1