Business Research Methods

Term Assignment
On
“Cyberbullying”
POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN MANAGEMENT
(Term-III; Batch 2019-21)
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Richa Misra
Associate Professor- Business Research Methods

Submitted by

ANJALI SINGH PGFC1906

PRANJAL GUPTA PGFC1923
RASHMEET ARORA PGFC1926
SAMARTH MEHROTRA PGFC1931
SURBHI GUPTA PGFC1941

JAIPURIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

A-32 A, Sector 62, Institutional Area, Noida- 201309 (U.P.)

FEBRUARY 04, 2020

1
 Table of contents
Particulars Page No.

Introduction 3

Literature Review 3

Objectives 4

Data collection and sample 4

Demographic profile 5

Testing and Analysis 6-21

Conclusions 22

Suggestions 23

Limitations of the study 23

Bibliography 24

2
Introduction
“When the thought of bullying arises, many people think of physical altercations or face-to-
face harassment. Cyberbullying is a relatively new term that takes on a whole new form of
bullying. Cyberbullying is a form of bullying that occurs through electronic technology
including texting, email, messaging online, over social networking sites, or through any other
electronic device (Services) (US Department of Health and Human Services).”
“While cyberbullying has been going on through text messages, emails, and chat rooms for
quite some time, the number of cases has begun to rise as the use of social networking sites
by adolescents becomes more prevalent (Sengupta, 2010). Studies have shown that 90% of
adolescents report using the Internet on a regular basis and about 70% report having at least
one user profile on a social networking site (Patton, 2014).”

Literature review:
“The term “cyberbullying” is used broadly, both in colloquial and formal use. First coined in
1999, there is no general consensus on a definition, although different versions usually
include the use of digital technology to inflict harm repeatedly or to bully (Englander,
Doneerstein, Kowalski, Lin, & Parti, 2017).”Cyberbullying is defined as “wilful and repeated
harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices”.
(Hinduja & Patchin, Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to
Cyberbullying, 2015)””
“Bullying is predominantly considered as a serious issue in western countries (Jaishankar,
2008).In India, bullying is part of certain cultures. Even though school bullying or college
bullying is prevalent in the name of ragging. However, there are new laws regarding ragging
in schools and colleges, bullying per se has not been condoned.”
“A majority of cyberbullying perpetrators and victims are also bullying perpetrators and
victims, respectively. (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010)Cyberbullying interacts with in-school
encounters; it may be triggered by events at school and may result in problems in school.
(Cassidy W, 2012)” “Targets can often identify their perpetrators as peers from school; they
typically know each other in “real life.” (Ybarra ML, 2012) These findings all suggest that
cyberbullying may simply be bullying in another realm.””
“The motivations for cyberbullying may also be different online; qualitative research has
suggested that how youth perceive digital communications may differ from how they
perceive traditional communications. (Vandebosch H, 2008) For example, digital technology
can alter a user’s perception of the conformity of their attitudes to a majority, which can in
turn change their willingness to express extreme or controversial opinions.”
“Kowalski points out that cyberbullying accounts for some of the variance in psychological
harm above and beyond that of traditional bullying. Compared with traditional harassment,
online harassment may be more strongly linked than bullying to substance abuse and
depression. (Mitchell KJ, 2007) One longitudinal study found that cyberbullying victimization
predicted depression and substance abuse 6 months later, although researchers did not
compare it to traditional bullying. (Gámez-Guadix M, 2013) Overall, cyberbullying seems to
have a strong emotional impact that is independent of traditional bullying. (Cross D, 2015)”

3
Objectives:
The main aim of this paper is to analyse and measure the impact of the nuances created with
the increasing use of internet pertinently cyberbullying through internet applications via
email, text messages, websites and cyber communities like WhatsApp and social media sites
like Facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc.

Data Collection and Sample

For establishing some hypothesis, we have considered 7 areas of study relating to
Cyberbullying.
1. Whether age of internet user has any bearing on Cyberbullying exposure?
2. Whether working status of parents has any bearing on parental support received by
the user?
3. Whether gender of the user has any bearing on cyberbullying exposure ?
4. Whether hours of playing online games have some bearing on grades of school
students?
5. Whether exposure to online violent games create frustration among the user?
6. Whether cyberbullying affects behaviour of user?
7. Whether there is any relationship between cyberbullying someone and getting cyber
bullied by someone?
For the purpose of study,
We have a sample of 100 respondents with 37 males and 63 females to study the
cyberbullying impact.
The responses were recorded on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
1 signifies “Never”
2 signifies “Almost Never”
3 signifies “Sometimes”
4 signifies “Almost all the times”
5 signifies “All the time”
We have considered a score between 2.5-5 as assertion towards the asked question and score
between 1-2.49 is considered as negation towards the asked question.
For all the questions Mean value of responses have been considered for testing the
hypothesis.

4
Demographic Profile of respondents
Gender: Male=37 Female=63

Age: <14 years=19, 14-16years=40, >16years=41

5
Testing and Analysis

Statement 1:
Whether age of internet user has any bearing on Cyberbullying exposure ?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between age of internet user and
the cyberbullying experienced by him/her.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant relationship between age of internet user and
the cyberbullying experienced by him/her.

Step 2: Defining the variables

Here, Independent variable (IV) is Age of the respondent
Scale of IV is Ordinal scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Average of cyberbullying factors
Scale of DV is Interval scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since, IV is categorised in three parts <14 years, 14-16 years, >16 years, we would use
ANOVA test followed by Post-Hoc to check the significance level between two pair of
variables.

Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%

α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%
Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.
If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

6
Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Average cyberbullying exposure report

Age Mean N Std. Deviation

< 14 years 2.5614 19 .68441

14-16 years 2.2935 40 .80555
>16 years 2.6986 41 .48939
Total 2.5105 100 .68683

ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.383 2 1.691 3.787 .026

Within Groups 43.319 97 .447
Total 46.702 99

Duncan

Age N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

14-16 years 40 2.2935

< 14 years 19 2.5614 2.5614
>16 years 41 2.6986
Sig. .128 .433
Conclusive findings:
From the 1st table, we find that users aged below 14 years and above 16 years have more
cyberbullying exposure, since
Mean of <14 years =2.56
Mean of >16 years =2.69
Both are above average of 2.5
Also, p value is .026 which is less than 0.05 therefore H1 is accepted
There is significant relationship between age of internet user and the cyberbullying
experienced by him/her.
Further, from Post-Hoc table we conclude that users aged below 14 years of age and aged
between 14-16 years of age are the pairs that experience significant cyberbullying.

7
Statement 2:
Whether working status of parents has any bearing on parental support received by the
user?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between working status of parents
and parental support received by the user.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant relationship between working status of parents
and parental support received by the user.

Step 2: Defining the variables

Here, Independent variable (IV) is Average of parental support received
Scale of IV is Interval scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Working status of parents
Scale of DV is Nominal scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since, IV has three categories viz Father working, Mother working, Both Working, we
would use ANOVA test followed by Post-Hoc to check the significance level between two
variables.

8
Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%
α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%

Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.

If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Report
Average support

WS Mean N Std. Deviation

Father Working 3.7776 38 .92076
Mother Working 3.7088 26 .87620
Both Working 4.0397 36 .91751
Total 3.8540 100 .91031

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.011 2 1.006 1.219 .300

Within Groups 80.026 97 .825
Total 82.037 99

Duncan
WS N Subset for alpha = 0.05

Mother Working 26 3.7088

Father Working 38 3.7776
Both Working 36 4.0397
Sig. .170

9
Conclusive findings:
From the 1st table, we find that all the users have received great parental support irrespective
of working status of parents.
Mean of “Father working” = 3.77
Mean of “Mother working”= 3.70
Mean of “Both working”= 4.03
All are above average of 2.5
However, p value is .300 which is more than 0.05 therefore H0 is accepted
There is no significant relationship between working status of parents and parental support
received by the user.
Also, from Post-Hoc table affirms the findings of ANOVA.
Hence, null hypothesis is accepted.

Statement 3:
Whether gender of the user has any bearing on cyberbullying exposure ?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference between magnitude of cyberbullying
experienced by males and that of females.
Ho: μ : X1=X2
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant difference between magnitude of
cyberbullying experienced by males and that of females.
H1: μ : X1≠X2
*where
X1: Average of cyberbullying factors by males.
X2: Average of cyberbullying factors by females

10
Step 2: Defining the variables
Here, Independent variable (IV) is Average of cyberbullying factors
Scale of IV is Interval scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Gender of the user
Scale of DV is Nominal scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since, IV has two categories, Males and Females, we would use independent t-test to check
the significance level between two variables.

Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%

α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%

Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.

If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

11
Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Group Statistics

Gen N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

COMPUTE Male 37 2.5399 .70091 .11523

Average_Factors=(Experience_resp
ect_to_cyberbullying_Factors1 +
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullyin
g_Factors2 +
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullyin
Female 63 2.4932 .68351 .08611
g_Factors3 +
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullyin
g_Factors4 +
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullyin
g_Factors

Independent Samples Test

Levene t-test for Equality of Means

's Test
for
Equalit
y of
Varianc
es

F Si t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%

g. (2- Differe Error Confidence
taile nce Differe Interval of
d) nce the
Difference

Low Upp
er er

Equal
varian
.0 .8 .3 .74 .236 .330
COMPUTE ces 98 .04663 .14290
32 58 26 5 96 22
Average_Factors=(Experience_respect_to_cyber assum
bullying_Factors1 + ed
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullying_Factors2 + Equal
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullying_Factors3 + varian
-
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullying_Factors4 + ces .3 74.0 .74 .333
.04663 .14385 .239
Experience_respect_to_cyberbullying_Factors not 24 33 7 26
99
assum
ed

12
Conclusive findings:
From 1st table we find that,
X1>X2= 2.53>2.49
S.D.1>S.D.2=.70>.68
Therefore, we calculate coefficient of variation =(SD/MEAN)*100
C.V.1=.276
C.V.2=.273
Since, C.V 2< C.V.1, Females have experienced cyberbullying more consistently as
compared to males.
However, p-value is .74>.05. Therefore, null hypothesis is accepted.
We conclude that there is no significant difference between magnitude of cyberbullying
experienced by males and that of females.

Statement 4:
Whether hours of playing online games have some bearing on grades of school
students?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between hours of playing online
games and grades received by students in school.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant relationship between hours of playing online
games and grades received by students in school.
Step 2: Defining the variables
Here, Independent variable (IV) is hours of playing games online.
Scale of IV is Ordinal scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Average of grades received by students in school
Scale of DV is Interval scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since, IV is categorised in four parts No access, less than 1 hour, 1-2 hours, >3 hours.
We would use ANOVA test followed by Post-Hoc to check the significance level between
two pairs of variables.

13
Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%
α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%
Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.
If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Report
Average of bad grade received in exam in school or in a class

Hours_of_playing_online_video_game_in Mean N Std. Deviation

_a_day

> 3 hours 2.91 34 1.138

1-2 hours 3.03 38 .972
less than an hour 3.14 22 .941
no access 1.33 6 .516
Total 2.91 100 1.074

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 16.557 3 5.519 5.427 .002

Within Groups 97.633 96 1.017
Total 114.190 99

Duncan

Hours_of_playing_online_video N Subset for alpha = 0.05

_game_in_a_day 1 2

no access 6 1.33
> 3 hours 34 2.91
1-2 hours 38 3.03
less than an hour 22 3.14
Sig. 1.000 .571

14
Conclusive findings:
From the 1st table we find that all the students except those having exposure to playing online
games have received bad grades in school.
Mean of no access = 1.33
Mean of less than 1 hour = 3.14
Mean of 1-2 hours = 3.03
Mean of > 3 hours = 2.91
All are above average of 2.5
Also, p-value is .002 implying that there is significant relationship between hours of playing
online games and grades received by students in school.
Hence alternate hypothesis is accepted.
Further, Post-Hoc test findings reveal that users having access to online games for less than
an hour, 1-2 hours and more than 3 hours are the pairs having significant relationship
between hours of playing games online and receiving bad grades in school exams
respectively.

Statement 5:
Whether exposure to online violent games create frustration among the user?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between exposure to playing
violent online games and frustration levels experienced by the user.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant relationship between exposure to playing
violent online games and frustration levels experienced by the user.

Step 2: Defining the variables

Here, Independent variable (IV) is exposure to violent online games.
Scale of IV is Ordinal Scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Average of frustration levels experienced by users
Scale of DV is Interval scale

15
Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.
Since, IV is categorised in four parts viz No, Little, Moderate, Severe.
we would use ANOVA test followed by Post-Hoc to check the significance level between
two variables.

Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%

α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%
Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.
If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Report
Average_Frustration

Exposure_to_violent_online_games Mean N Std. Deviation

No 2.6608 38 .80121
Little 2.7548 29 .80856
Moderate 2.8838 22 .42618
Severe 2.7980 11 1.07015
Total 2.7522 100 .76572

ANOVA
Average_Frustration

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .722 3 .241 .403 .751

Within Groups 57.324 96 .597
Total 58.046 99

16
 Average_Frustration

Duncan

Exposure_to_violent_online_games N Subset for alpha = 0.05

No 38 2.6608
Little 29 2.7548
Severe 11 2.7980
Moderate 22 2.8838
Sig. .410

Conclusive Findings:
From the 1st table we find that exposure to violent online games has no direct relationship
with frustration and anger levels of the user. Although, means of all the users are above
average but there is not much difference among them.

Also, from ANOVA table we find that p-value is .751>.05, Hence it is not significant either.
We conclude that there is no significant relationship between exposure to playing violent
online games and frustration levels experienced by the user.
Null Hypothesis accepted.
Further, Post-Hoc table affirms our findings.

Statement 6:
Whether cyberbullying affects behaviour of user?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between cyberbullying experienced
by the user and behavioural changes noticed in the user with respect to frustration and anger
levels.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is significant relationship between cyberbullying
experienced by the user and behavioural changes noticed in the user with respect to
frustration and anger levels.

17
Step 2: Defining the variables
Here, Independent variable (IV) is Average of Cyberbullying factors.
Scale of IV is Interval Scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is Average of frustration levels and strain levels experienced
by the users.(Behaviour)
Scale of DV is Interval scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since both IV and DV are quantitative in nature, we would apply regression test to check the
relationship between the two variables and impact of IV on DV.

Step 4: We have assumed the level of significance to be 5%

α = .05
Therefore, confidence level becomes 95%
Step 5: Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.
If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

Step 6: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Model Summary

Mod R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics

el Square Square the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F
Estimate Change Change Change

1 .378a .143 .134 .59725 .143 16.321 1 98 .000

18
 Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.859 .227 8.176 .000

COMPUTE
Average_Factors=(Experien
ce_respect_to_cyberbullying
_Factors1 +
Experience_respect_to_cyb
1 erbullying_Factors2 +
.353 .087 .378 4.040 .000
Experience_respect_to_cyb
erbullying_Factors3 +
Experience_respect_to_cyb
erbullying_Factors4 +
Experience_respect_to_cyb
erbullying_Factors

Conclusive findings:
From 1st table we find that R square value is 14.3% implying 14.3% is the impact of
cyberbullying experiences with respect to frustration and anger levels on behavioural changes
noticed in the user.
From 2nd table we derive regression equation as:
Y= Ao + ß*X1
Where,
Y= Behavioural change
Ao= constant intercept
X1= Average of cyberbullying factors
ß= magnitude of impact of X1
Therefore Y= 1.859 + .353 X1
If the cyberbullying exposure of user increases by 1% then the user would experience
increase in behavioural changes by 35.3%.
Also, p-value is .000<.05 and is significant. Therefore, alternate hypothesis is accepted.
We conclude that there is significant relationship between cyberbullying experienced by the
user and behavioural changes noticed in the user with respect to frustration and anger levels.

19
Statement 7:
Whether there is any relationship between cyberbullying someone and getting cyber
bullied by someone?

Step 1: Setting null and alternate Hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant relationship between cyberbullying someone
and getting cyberbullied by someone.
Alternate Hypothesis(H1): There is no significant relationship between cyberbullying
someone and getting cyberbullied by someone

Step 2: Defining the variables

Here, Independent variable (IV) is Getting cyberbullied by someone
Scale of IV is Nominal Scale
And, Dependent variable (DV) is cyberbullying someone
Scale of DV is Nominal scale

Step 3: Determine the appropriate statistical test.

Since both IV and DV are Nominal scale, we would use Chi-Square test to establish a
relationship between the two variables.
Step 4 : Set the decision rule using ‘p’ value.
If P<= α, then accept H1, otherwise accept Ho
Where P<=.05

Step 5: Calculations and Reports generated through SPSS

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 16.290a 16 .433

Likelihood Ratio 12.643 16 .699
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.842 1 .175
N of Valid Cases 100

20
Conclusive findings:
From the above table, we find that p-value is .433>.05 and is not significant.
Therefore, Null Hypothesis is accepted and we conclude that there is no significant
relationship between cyberbullying someone and getting cyberbullied by someone.

21
Conclusion:
“With the increasing use of modern technologies such as internet and mobile phones the
prevalence of bullying is increased by school and college students.(Jaishankar & Shariff,
2008).”
“As per another study over 37% reported being bullied either face-to-face or online, with
under 31% reporting bullying incidents to adults. (Janet Hicks, 2018) Restorative justice is
required which seeks to bring together stakeholders to resolve conflicts and build
relationships rather than respond to student misbehaviour through punitive approaches. (Aditi
Das, 2019) Behavioural and emotional reactions have relationship with gender and school
level. Computer self-efficacy and internet use has a significant influence on cyberbullying
experiences. (Akbulut, 2019)”
“It is commonly reported that boys are more likely to be involved in bullying others than are
girls. (Pepler, 2013)”

“The misuse and abuse of technology such as internet and mobile phones have surfaced and
various cases of cyber bullying have emerged in India.”
“In this present research work, an attempt is made to analyse the impacts of bullying using
internet and mobile phones among students in a selected geographical area.”
Findings reveal that:
• There is a direct and positive relationship between perpetrators and victims of
cyberbullying.
• There is inverse relationship between age and cyberbullying experiences and
respondents age below 16 years of age are more vulnerable to cyberbullying
• Working status of parents has no direct relationship with the parental support received
by the respondent in case of any distress or otherwise, which may or may not be
conclusive and requires further study on the matter concerned.
• Both males and females are vulnerable to cyberbullying, females have experienced
more consistent cyberbullying nuances.
• There is direct and inverse relationship between long exposure to playing online
games and students receiving poor grades in school examinations.
• There is no direct relationship between exposure to violent online games and
frustration levels, which may or may not be conclusive and requires further study on
the matter concerned.
• There is direct and positive relationship between exposure to cyberbullying
experienced and change in the behavioural patterns of users with respect to increase in
frustration and anger levels.

22
Suggestions:
• “Discussions with teens about cyber bullying, explaining.them that it's wrong and it
_can have serious consequences could improve the situation. Tell them not to send
_negative or offensive messages even if someone else started them.”

• “Encourage adolescents to tell the adult if they are cyberbullied. Tell them if they are the
_offenders they will not be punished, and inform them that it is not their fault that they
_are bullied.”

• “Teens should keep cyber bullying messages as proof that the cyber bullying is occurring.
_The teens’ parents may want to talk to the parents of the perpetrator of cyberbullying, to
_the bully’s Internet or cell phone provider, and/or to the police about the messages,
_especially if they are threatening or sexual in nature.””

• “Try to block the individual from sending offensive messages.”

• “Never ever disclose your passwords to anyone to avoid misuse of your social media
_accounts.”

• Inform teens that they should never share personal information online to any stranger or
_to meet someone they only know online.

Limitations of the study:

“All samples are non-random and as such, generalisations to other survey results cannot be
made. Nor can generalisations be made to the entire population of victims or perpetrators of
cyber bullying.”
“An unknown number of individuals may not define themselves as cyber bullying victims or
perpetrators, or if they do so, they may be unwilling to come forward and speak openly about
their experiences.”
The scope of the study is limited only to specific strata. This study has been conducted
without much deliberation with the subject experts but it takes into account findings of
various published research on the subject matter. Further, this study is a direction for future
studies on the same subject.

23
Bibliography
Aditi Das, J. M. (2019). Online school conflicts: expanding the scope of restorative practices with a
virtual peace room. Contemporary Justice Review, 351-370.

Akbulut, B. E. (2019). Reactions to cyberbullying among high school and university students. The
Social Science Journal, 10-20.

Cassidy W, B. K. (2012). Educators and cyberbullying in schools. Under the radar, 33(5), 520-532.

Cross D, L. L. (2015). A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of
cyber and traditional bullying victimisation. Int J Public Health, 60(2), 207-217.

Englander, E., Doneerstein, E., Kowalski, R., Lin, C. A., & Parti, K. (2017). Defining Cyberbulling.
(AAppublications, Ed.) Pediatrics(official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics),
S148, 140.

Gámez-Guadix M, O. I. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression,

substance use, and problematic internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent,
53(4), 446-452.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2010). Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicid. Archives of Suicide Research,
14(3), 206-221.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2015). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to
Cyberbullying (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Jaishankar, K. &. (2008). Cyber bullying: A transnational perspective. Crimes of the Internet, 66-83.

Janet Hicks, L. J.-A. (2018). Middle School Bullying: Student Reported Perceptions and Prevalence.
ournal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 195-208.

Mitchell KJ, W. J. (2007). Trends in youth reports of sexual solicitations, harassment and unwanted
exposure to pornography on the Internet. Journal of Adolescent, 40(2), 116-126.

Patton, D. U. (2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 548-553.

Pepler, J. C. (2013, July 4). Cyberbullying: Prevalence, Stability, and Risk Factors During Adolescence.
Retrieved from https://doi.org: https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573513491212

Sengupta, A. &. (2010). Are social networking sites a source of online harassment. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33(2), 284-290.

Services, U. D. (n.d.). Retrieved from Stopbullying.gov.

Vandebosch H, V. C. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative research into the perceptions of

youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.

Ybarra ML, B. D. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying
victimization. Journal of Adolescent, 53-58.

24