A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in Emerging Adults

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early
Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in

Emerging Adults
Alexandra Alipan
BSocSc., PGDipPsych.
August 2020
Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements

of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Hawthorn at Swinburne University of
Technology
i
Abstract
Cyberbullying has been associated with various negative

psychological outcomes, though not all people who are victims of
cyberbullying experience severe adverse reactions. Past research has
examined the role coping plays in reducing the harm caused by
cyberbullying, but very little research has focused on individual differences
such as early maladaptive schemas (EMSs) that may contribute to the level
of psychological distress experienced by victims. Therefore, the overall aim
of this research was to use Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory in the
context of cyberbullying to explain the variation in psychological distress
experienced by victims. To do this, a multiphase mixed methods research
design was conducted, where the first step was to: (1) gain a better
understanding as to how emerging adults define cyberbullying and its
associated behaviours (Study 1); and (2) develop and test the psychometric
properties of an instrument designed to measure the specific schema coping
styles proposed by Young et al. (2003), since previous measures were
developed for a therapeutic context and not for the purpose of research
(Study 2). The findings from both these studies were then integrated into
Study 3 to inform a model that examined whether schema coping styles
have a moderating effect on the relationship between EMSs (at the domain
level) and psychological distress.
In Study 1, six focus groups using a semi-structured question
protocol were conducted, where there was a total of 39 participants aged 18
to 25 years. The findings revealed that participants perceived cyberbullying
to be an extension of traditional bullying comprising of similar key
components. However, the operationalisation of the key components of
cyberbullying differed among participants depending on whether they
adopted a perpetrator, victim, or bystander perspective. This study also
found that it means something different to be a target of cyberbullying (i.e.,
ii
an overarching category where a targeted person perceives an intent to
harm) versus a victim of cyberbullying (i.e., a subgroup of targets that not
only perceive an intent to harm but also experience harm). As such, the first
study extended on previous studies by integrating these perspectives and
proposing a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying that includes the
perspectives of perpetrators, targets (targets-only and victims), and
bystanders. The findings from this study enabled a more valid definition
from the victim’s perspective to be used in Study 3 and for targets-only to
be differentiated from, and compared to, victims when testing the theoretical
model in Study 3.
In Study 2, new schema coping scales were developed based on
stages proposed by leading authors in the area of scale development
(DeVellis, 2012; Gregory, 2011). Following the development of the new
scales, data were collected from 102 adults aged between 18 and 68 years
old. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and found five
unidimensional constructs, namely, surrender, avoidance, retaliation and
pleasing (as measures of overcompensation), and adaptive schema coping.
These schema coping scales were also found to be reliable and valid, and
thus suitable measures for inclusion in the structural models tested in Study
3.
Lastly, in Study 3, 271 participants aged 18 to 25 years completed a
self-report questionnaire. One hundred and ninety-four (72%) emerging
adults indicated that they had been a target of cyberbullying behaviours,
where 127 participants (47% of the sample) were identified as targets-only
and 67 participants (25% of the sample) were identified as victims. Coded
open-ended responses of participants’ cyberbullying experiences provided
further support for the findings from Study 1 where most of the targets
perceived there to be an intention to harm, whilst the majority of victims
perceived an intention to harm as well as experienced actual harm. In
addition, victims were found to score higher on the majority of EMSs (at the
iii
domain and subscale level) compared to targets-only and non-targets. All
EMSs, with the exception of the entitlement schema, were positively
associated with psychological distress for all three groups. Moreover,
structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed to test the model based
on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory. The findings indicated that higher
levels of schema activation were associated with higher psychological
distress levels for targets-only and victims, though the coping styles of
targets-only in relation to schema activation have a different effect on
psychological distress compared with that of victims. Whereas certain
schema coping styles buffered the effect of several schema domains on
psychological distress for targets-only, pleasing had an exacerbating effect
on the relationship between the disconnection and rejection domain and
psychological distress for victims. These differences were attributed to the
level of schema activation where victims reported higher schema activation
levels compared to targets-only, though it should be noted the structure of
coping styles differed between these two groups. The findings provide some
support for Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory where it appears schema
activation and schema coping style affect the level of psychological distress
experienced by targets (targets-only and victims) of cyberbullying.
The current research makes numerous theoretical, methodological
and practical contributions. Firstly, a theoretical contribution was the
development of a new multifaceted definition of cyberbullying that included
the perspectives of perpetrators, targets, victims, and bystanders. This
definition of cyberbullying provides a more comprehensive and valid
understanding of how different people perceive and/or experience
cyberbullying, as well as highlights that there are differences between being
a target of cyberbullying and being a victim. Another unique theoretical
contribution of this thesis was that it was one of first studies to utilise
schema theory (Young et al., 2003) in a cyberbullying context. This
research found empirical support for the schema model and also extended
iv
on the model and previous research by being the first study to include all
five schema domains, all 18 schemas, all maladaptive coping styles, and a
new adaptive coping style.
This research has methodological implications for researchers. It is
imperative that mixed methods research designs where the qualitative phase
informs the quantitative phase are conducted to ensure that the definition
and measures used in research are appropriate for the target population. For
researchers using Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, this thesis provides
insight into some of the challenges when using pre-existing schema
questionnaires (e.g., YSQ, YRAI, YCI) in a research context. Furthermore,
this thesis developed alternative measures of schema coping which means
that researchers now have a more parsimonious way of measuring the
coping styles without jeopardising reliability and validity. Lastly, given this
research found that multiple schema domains were activated and related to
psychological distress, all five schema domains or 18 EMSs should be
examined within cyberbullying research moving forward.
An important practical implication of this thesis is that it can help
psychologists become more aware of specific EMSs and how certain coping
styles (e.g., pleasing) may exacerbate the effects of EMSs for victims of
cyberbullying. As such, other treatments like schema therapy (ST) may be a
suitable intervention for some individuals. Finally, the findings from this
thesis also have implications for emerging adults, website administrators,
and both education and employment contexts that involve technology-
mediated communication. It is important for stakeholders to be aware that
cyberbullying is not a simple construct and that it can be defined differently
depending on whether the person is a perpetrator, target, victim, or
bystander.
v
Acknowledgements
Firstly, a big thank you to my supervisors, Associate Professor

Stephen Theiler and Dr Jason Skues for all your guidance, input, expertise,
and encouragement throughout this process. I am very grateful for the
Lilydale days for enabling us to cross paths during my undergraduate
Psychology degree. Steve, I feel very lucky that I have been able to learn so
much from you about your research and clinical insights into schema
therapy. Thank you for being so caring and supportive every step of the
way. Jason, you were my first port of call for Psychology questions in
undergrad and your vast knowledge of statistics and ability to translate these
topics to your students in an engaging and clear way made that subject one
of my strongest. I consider those statistics tutorials early on in my
undergraduate degree the foundation for my ability to learn the advanced
statistical techniques used in my PhD. I also thank you both for being very
supportive of me learning new skills, such as those used in my thesis and
also motivating me to engage in other academic experiences along the side.
Another important academic who helped shape me as a researcher is
Dr Lisa Wise. I am truly grateful for your guidance and mentorship
throughout my PhD. Your motto of being comfortable with being
uncomfortable is one that has stuck with me and there are now many
research and teaching activities that I once thought I wouldn’t be able to do,
that I now feel very confident in.
I would also like to thank all of the participants that gave up their
time to participate in a focus group or complete a survey on-campus or via
post. Without you and your invaluable insights this research would not have
been possible!
To my PhD Swinny Family - Louise, Lucy, Luke, Alex, Carly,
Jamie, and Oliver, thank you for making my PhD experience one that I will
never forget. I have developed lifelong friends and each of you were an
vi
incredible support system to me throughout the PhD process. Thank you for
all of the memories and making me cry with laugher and happiness on so
many occasions. #phdlyf. I also want to thank the DT&T lab members
where I was also able to meet and feel supported by so many incredible
postgraduate students.
I also feel very grateful for the support I received from all of my
other friends and family throughout my PhD. You’ve all been there every
step of the way, continuously motivating me and providing a listening ear to
the challenges I faced along the way.
To parents, Maria and Tom; sister, Natasha; brother-in law, Adrian;
and grandparents, baba Cia and dedo Angelo and baba Vasa and dedo Chris
- you are the people who showed me what hard work and resilience looks
like. Thank you for all of your sacrifices, unwavering support, and
unconditional love throughout this process.
Lastly, to my soon to be husband Reuben, I am extremely lucky to
have you by my side throughout this whole process. I would not have been
able to complete this work without you cheering me on from the sidelines,
your patience, positive attitude, belief in my abilities, and reminders on why
I wanted to undertake a PhD related to cyberbullying when I needed it most.
vii
Declaration
This is to certify that this thesis:
i. contains no material which has been accepted for the aware to the
candidate of any other degree or diploma, except where due
reference is made in the text of the examinable outcome;
ii. to the best of my knowledge contains no material published or
written by another person except where due reference is made in the
text of the examinable outcomes; and
iii. where work is based on joint research or publications, discloses the
relative contributions of the receptive workers or authors.
Signature: …………………………………………………………………
viii
Table of Contents
A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive

Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in Emerging Adults .............. i
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
Declaration ................................................................................................................................ viii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xvi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xviii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xxi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND THESIS OUTLINE ........................................................ 1

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1
Focus of the Thesis ................................................................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Thesis ........................................................................................................... 5
Significance of Thesis ........................................................................................................... 6
Scope of the Thesis ................................................................................................................ 8
Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW OF CYBERBULLYING AMONG EMERGING

ADULTHOOD ............................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 13
The Definition of Cyberbullying ..................................................................................... 15
Repetition. ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Intent to harm. .................................................................................................................................. 22
Power imbalance. ............................................................................................................................ 24
Measurement of Cyberbullying ....................................................................................... 27
Cyberbullying During Emerging Adulthood ............................................................... 31
Cyberbullying and Psychological Outcomes ............................................................... 34
Coping with Cyberbullying ............................................................................................... 39
Cyberbullying and Individual Differences .................................................................. 42
ix
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON CYBERBULLYING, EARLY MALADAPTIVE

SCHEMAS, COPING STYLES, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES AMONG
EMERGING ADULTHOOD ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 45
The Origins of Early Maladaptive Schemas ................................................................. 46
Young et al.’s (2003) Early Maladaptive Schemas .................................................... 48
Measuring Early Maladaptive Schemas ........................................................................ 50
The Structure of Early Maladaptive Schemas ............................................................ 51
Conceptual models. ......................................................................................................................... 51
Empirically derived models. ....................................................................................................... 54
The Relationship between Early Maladaptive Schemas and Psychological
Distress ................................................................................................................................... 58
Schema Coping Styles ......................................................................................................... 62
Young et al.’s (2003) Schema Theory in the Context of Cyberbullying .............. 66
Threat/ stressful situation. .......................................................................................................... 67
Schema activation. ........................................................................................................................... 67
Coping style. ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Psychological distress. ................................................................................................................... 69
Proposed Model for Empirical Testing ......................................................................... 70
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 71
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS ................................................................... 74

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 74
Thesis Worldview ................................................................................................................ 74
Methodological Approach ................................................................................................. 76
Time orientation. ............................................................................................................................. 78
Priority. ................................................................................................................................................ 80
Point of interface. ............................................................................................................................. 83
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 91
CHAPTER 5 PHASE 1, STUDY 1: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF CYBERBULLYING

DURING EMERGING ADULTHOOD ....................................................................................... 92
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 92
Aim of the Study ................................................................................................................... 92
Conduct of Studies ............................................................................................................... 93
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 93
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 93
Materials ................................................................................................................................. 93
Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 94
x
Recruitment procedures. .............................................................................................................. 94
Data collection procedures. ......................................................................................................... 95
Ethical considerations. .................................................................................................................. 95
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 97
Thematic analysis. ........................................................................................................................... 97
Validation strategies. ...................................................................................................................... 97
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 101

RQ 1: How do emerging adults define cyberbullying? ......................................... 101
Perpetrator’s Perspective .............................................................................................. 103
Victim’s Perspective ......................................................................................................... 105
Bystander’s Perspective ................................................................................................. 107
Target’s response. ........................................................................................................................ 108
Empathy for the target. .............................................................................................................. 109
Behaviour alone intentional and aggressive. .................................................................... 109
RQ 2: What are some examples of cyberbullying from a sample of emerging
adults? .................................................................................................................................. 111
Cyberbullying exists “across the board.” .................................................................. 112
Technological mediums. ............................................................................................................ 112
Types of cyberbullying. .............................................................................................................. 115
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 122

Overview of Discussion ................................................................................................... 122
Research Question One ................................................................................................... 122
A perpetrator’s perspective. .................................................................................................... 123
A target’s perspective. ................................................................................................................ 124
A bystander’s perspective. ........................................................................................................ 125
Research Question Two .................................................................................................. 127
Implications ........................................................................................................................ 132
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 135
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 136
CHAPTER 6 PHASE 1, STUDY 2: DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A NEW

MEASURE OF SCHEMA COPING STYLES: A PILOT STUDY .......................................... 138
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 138
Aim of the study ................................................................................................................. 138
Step 1: Defining the Test ................................................................................................. 139
Step 2: Generating and Constructing the Items ...................................................... 143
Step 3: Selecting a Scaling Method .............................................................................. 144
Step 4: Determining Scale Instructions ..................................................................... 147
Step 5: Administering and Testing the Items .......................................................... 148
xi
Conduct of the study ........................................................................................................ 148
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 149

Participants ........................................................................................................................ 149
Measures .............................................................................................................................. 149
Schema Coping Style Inventory (SCSI). ............................................................................... 149
Young Compensatory Inventory (YCI; Young, 1998a). ................................................ 150
Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI; Young & Rygh, 1994). ............................ 151
Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form (YSQ-S3; Young, 2005). ....................... 152
Brief-COPE (Carver, 1997). ...................................................................................................... 154
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). ........ 154
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 155
Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................................... 157
Exploratory factor analysis. ..................................................................................................... 157
Reliability and validity. .............................................................................................................. 161
Step 6 and 7: Evaluating the items and Optimising the Scale length ............... 161
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 162

Data screening and cleaning ......................................................................................... 162
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) .............................................................................. 163
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ........................................................................... 168
Reliability Analysis .......................................................................................................... 175
Item reliability and internal consistency. .......................................................................... 175
Validity Analysis ................................................................................................................ 175
Convergent validity. ..................................................................................................................... 176
Discriminant validity. .................................................................................................................. 176
Criterion-related validity. ......................................................................................................... 177
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 182

RQ 1: What is the factor structure of the surrender, avoidance,
overcompensation (pleasing and retaliation), and adaptive schema coping
scales? ................................................................................................................................... 182
RQ 2: Are these new schema coping scales reliable? ............................................ 183
RQ 3: Do these new schema coping scales demonstrate construct and
criterion-related validity? ............................................................................................. 184
Implications ........................................................................................................................ 187
Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................ 188
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 189
CHAPTER 7 PHASE 2, STUDY 3: AN INVESTIGATION OF CYBERBULLYING

BEHAVIOURS, EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMAS, COPING STYLES, AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES IN EMERGING ADULTS ................................................ 191
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 191
xii
Aim of the Study ................................................................................................................ 192
Conduct of Studies ............................................................................................................ 192
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 193

Participants ........................................................................................................................ 193
Measures .............................................................................................................................. 193
Adapted Florence CyberBullying-CyberVictimisation Scales (FCBCVSs; Palladino,
Nocentini, & Menesini, 2015). ................................................................................................. 193
Mixed response item of cyberbullying ................................................................................ 194
Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form (YSQ-SF3; Young, 2006). .................... 195
Schema Coping Style Inventory (SCSI; Developed and pilot tested in Study 2).195
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) ............................. 196
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 197
Statistical Issues ................................................................................................................ 197
Univariate and multivariate outliers. ............................................................................ 197
Missing data. ................................................................................................................................. 197
Normality. ....................................................................................................................................... 200
Sample size and power. .......................................................................................................... 200
Overview of Data Analyses ............................................................................................ 202
Categorisation and Recategorisation of Participants into Cyberbullying Groups
.............................................................................................................................................................. 203
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). ........................................................................... 204
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 210

Data Screening and Assumption Testing .................................................................. 210
RQ 1: Prevalence of Cyberbullying Behaviours in Emerging Adults ............... 212
Descriptive Statistics Based on Re-specified Variables ....................................... 222
RQ 2: The Relationship Between Early Maladaptive Schemas and
Psychological Distress ..................................................................................................... 226
Victims group ................................................................................................................................. 226
Target group ................................................................................................................................... 227
Non-target group .......................................................................................................................... 228
RQ 3: Structural Moderation Model ............................................................................ 233
Moderation Results for the Victim Group ................................................................. 234
Disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) ........................................................................... 237
Impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2) ....................................................... 239
Impaired limits (Domain 3) ..................................................................................................... 240
Other-directedness (Domain 4) ............................................................................................. 240
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) ........................................................................... 241
Moderation Results for the Target-Only Group ...................................................... 241
Disconnection and rejection (Domain 1). .......................................................................... 245
Impaired limits (Domain 3) ..................................................................................................... 251
Other-directedness (Domain 4). ............................................................................................ 252
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) ........................................................................... 254
xiii
Moderation Results for the Non-Target Group ....................................................... 257
Disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) ........................................................................... 259
Impaired limited (Domain 3) .................................................................................................. 260
Other-directedness (Domain 4). ............................................................................................ 262
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5). .......................................................................... 263
Summary of the Results .................................................................................................. 263
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 265

RQ 1: What is the prevalence of cyberbullying in a sample of Australian
emerging adults? ............................................................................................................... 265
RQ 2: To what extent does EMS activation (at the domain and subscale level)
relate to psychological distress for victims, targets-only, and non-targets? 269
RQ 3: To what extent do the schema coping styles moderate the relationship
between EMS activation (at the domain level) and psychological distress for
victims, targets-only, and non-targets? ..................................................................... 272
Victim group. .................................................................................................................................. 272
Target-only group ........................................................................................................................ 274
Non-target group .......................................................................................................................... 275
Implications ........................................................................................................................ 275
Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................ 277
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 279
CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 282

Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................ 283
Methodological Implications ........................................................................................ 284
Practical Implications ..................................................................................................... 287
Emerging adults ............................................................................................................................ 287
Practitioners ................................................................................................................................... 287
Website administrators ............................................................................................................. 288
Educational and employment contexts ............................................................................... 289
Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................ 290
References ................................................................................................................................ 292
Appendix A: Study 1 SUHREC Ethical Approval ........................................................... 340
Appendix B: Study 1 Research Flyer ................................................................................ 341
Appendix C: Study 1 Consent Information Statement (CIS) ..................................... 342
Appendix D: Study 1 Interview Guide and Focus Group Questions ...................... 345
Appendix E: Study 2 SUHREC Ethical Approval ............................................................ 346
Appendix F: Study 2 Information Flyer .......................................................................... 347
xiv
Appendix G: Study 2 Consent Information Statement (CIS) .................................... 348
Appendix H: Study 2 Debriefing Statement ................................................................... 350
Appendix I: Study 2 Questionnaire .................................................................................. 351
Appendix J: Study 3 SUHREC Ethical Approval ............................................................. 375
Appendix K: Study 3 Information Flyer .......................................................................... 376
Appendix L: Study 3 Consent Information Statement (CIS) ..................................... 377
Appendix M: Study 3 Debriefing Statement .................................................................. 379
Appendix N: Study 3 Questionnaire ................................................................................. 380
Appendix O: Study 3 Measurement Models .................................................................. 403

Measurement Models: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models ........................... 403
One-factor congeneric models ................................................................................................ 403
Independent cluster measurement model: SCSI ............................................................. 413
Higher order schema domain models .................................................................................. 415
List of Publications and Conferences .............................................................................. 422

Publications ........................................................................................................................ 422
Conference Presentations .............................................................................................. 422
xv
List of Tables
Table 1. Examples of Seven Types of Cyberbullying Behaviours During

Emerging Adulthood as Described by Focus Group Participants .............. 117
Table 2. SCSI Final Factor Structure with Factor Loadings for Each Item
.................................................................................................................... 167
Table 3. CFA Inter-correlations between Surrender, Avoidance,
Retaliation, Pleasing, and Adaptive Coping Styles. ................................... 172
Table 4. Factor Pattern and Structure Coefficients for SCSI Factors...... 174
Table 5. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between SCSI scales,
YRAI, YCI, and Brief-COPE subscales. ................................................... 179
YRAI, YCI, YSQ-SF3 schema domains, and DASS-21. .......................... 180
YRAI, YCI, and YSQ-SF3 schema subscales. .......................................... 181
Table 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVA results for
Victims, Targets-only, and Non-Targets .................................................... 223
Table 9. Pearson’s Correlations for Early Maladaptive Schemas, Schema
Domains, Schema Coping Styles, and Psychological Distress for the Victim
Group.......................................................................................................... 230
Domains, Schema Coping Styles, and Psychological Distress for the Target-
Only Group................................................................................................. 231
Domains, Schema Coping Styles, and Psychological Distress for the Non-
Target Group. ............................................................................................. 232
Table 12. Overview of the Warning Produced in the Moderation Models
and how the Structural Models were Tested. ............................................. 234
Table 13. Moderation Model Results for the Victim Group. .................. 235
Table 14. Moderation Model Results for the Target-Only Group........... 242
xvi
Table 15. Moderation Model Results for the Non-Target Group. ........... 257
Table 16. Summary of the Main Findings ............................................... 264
Table 17. One-Factor Congeneric Models for the 18 Early Maladaptive
Schemas for the Victim Group. .................................................................. 404
Schemas for the Target-Only Group. ......................................................... 408
Schemas for the Non-Target Group. .......................................................... 411
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Young et al.'s (2003) schema model ............................................ 67

Figure 2. The proposed moderation model based on Young et al.’s (2003)
schema theory............................................................................................... 70
Figure 3. Multiphase mixed methods model applied to the current study
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) ................................................................... 82
Figure 4. Flowchart of the basic procedures involved in Phase 1 (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2007) ................................................................................... 89
Figure 5. Flowchart of the basic procedures involved in Phase 2 (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2007) ................................................................................... 90
Figure 6. Thematic map of emerging adults’ perceptions of the
cyberbullying definition ............................................................................. 103
Figure 7. Thematic map of examples of cyberbullying in emerging
adulthood .................................................................................................... 112
Figure 8. Overview of five schema domains and the 18 early maladaptive
schemas grouped within each domain........................................................ 153
Figure 9. Independent cluster measurement model of the five schema
coping scales .............................................................................................. 171
Figure 10. Overview of the Study 3 results section .................................. 203
Figure 11. Percentage of single episodes cyberbullying behaviours
experienced by victims and targets-only .................................................... 220
Figure 12. Percentage of repeated episodes of cyberbullying behaviours (3
times or more) experienced by victims and targets-only. .......................... 221
Figure 13. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Pleasing on
psychological distress for the victim group.. ............................................. 238
Figure 14. The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels
of pleasing for the victim group. ................................................................ 239
xviii
Figure 15. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender
on psychological distress for the target-only group.. ................................. 246
of surrender for the target-only group. ....................................................... 246
Figure 17. Moderation model of Domain 1 x Pleasing on psychological
distress for the target-only group. .............................................................. 247
of pleasing for the target-only group. ......................................................... 248
Figure 19. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance
of avoidance for the target-only group. ...................................................... 249
Figure 21. Moderation model of Impaired Autonomy and Performance x
Avoidance on psychological distress for the target-only group.. ............... 250
Figure 22. The relationship between the latent variables of impaired
autonomy and performance (Domain 2) and psychological distress at high
and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group. .............................. 251
Figure 23. Moderation model of Self-Sacrifice x Avoidance on
psychological distress for the target-only group.. ...................................... 253
Figure 24. The relationship between the latent variables of self-sacrifice and
psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-
only group. ................................................................................................. 254
Figure 25. Moderation model of Overvigilance and Inhibition x Avoidance
Figure 26. The relationship between the latent variables of overvigilance
and inhibition (Domain 5) and psychological distress at high and low levels
of avoidance for the target-only group. ...................................................... 256
xix
Figure 27. Moderation model of Insufficient Self-Control x Avoidance on
psychological distress for the non-target group.. ....................................... 261
Figure 28. The relationship between the latent variables of insufficient self-
control and psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for
the non-target group. .................................................................................. 262
xx
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Explanation
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis & Melisaratos,
BSI
1983)
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI Comparative Fit Index
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (Lovibond &
DASS
Lovibond, 1995)
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
EMS(s) Early Maladaptive Schema
FA Factor Analysis
Florence Cyberbullying Cybervictimisation Scale
FCBCVS
(Palladino et al., 2015)
GSI General Severity Index
IM Instant Messenger
MAR Missing at Random
MCAR Missing Completely at Random
MI Multiple Indices
ML Maximum Likelihood
MR Multiple Regression
MVA Missing Values Analysis
NMAR Not Missing at Random
OUA Open Universities Australia
PA Path Analysis
REP Research Experience Program
RMSEA Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation
SCL-90-R Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1983)
xxi
SCSI Schema Coping Styles Inventory
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SNS Social Network Site
SRMR Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual
ST Schema Therapy
Swinburne University of Technology Human Research
SUHESC
Ethics Subcommittee
TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
TMSC Transactional Model of Stress Coping
WLSMV Weighted Least Squares Mean Variance
WRMR Weighted Root Mean Square Residual
YCI Young Compensatory Inventory (Young, 1998a)
Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory (Young & Rygh,
YRAI
1994)
YSQ Young Schema Questionnaire
xxii
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND THESIS OUTLINE
Overview
The overall aim of this thesis was to address the gap in the
cyberbullying literature as to why some victims of cyberbullying experience
more severe adverse reactions than others in response to cyberbullying
behaviours. To address this overall research objective, this thesis employed
a multiphase mixed methods research design which contained two phases of
research. In the first phase of the research, two studies (Study 1 and Study
2) were conducted concurrently. The aim of Study 1 was to gain a better
understanding of how emerging adults define cyberbullying and examples
of cyberbullying behaviours during this age group. The aim of Study 2 was
to develop new measures of how individuals specifically cope with early
maladaptive schema (EMSs) and test the psychometric properties (i.e.,
factor structure, reliability, and validity) of these scales. The findings from
the first phase (Study 1 and Study 2) were then integrated into the second
phase (Study 3) and informed: (1) the selection and adaption of a
cyberbullying definition and list of cyberbullying behaviours that were
consistent with emerging adults’ views; (2) the decision to conduct analyses
separately for targets-only and victims; and (3) a measure of schema coping
styles to be integrated into the structural model. To this end, the aim of
Study 3 was to answer the overall research objective by applying Young,
Klosko, and Weishaar’s (2003) schema theory to the context of
cyberbullying. This study had three specific aims. The first aim of this study
was to determine the prevalence of cyberbullying during emerging
adulthood. The second aim was to examine the relationships between EMSs
(at the domain and subscale level) and psychological distress for victims,
targets-only, and non-targets. Lastly, the third aim of this study was to
2
evaluate whether schema coping styles moderate the relationships between

EMSs (at the domain level) and psychological distress for victims, targets-
only, and non-targets.
Focus of the Thesis

Research on cyberbullying is rapidly growing and is reflective of a
global concern about this phenomenon. Yet in spite of a growing body of
research, there is no unequivocal definition of cyberbullying (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). It is generally agreed
upon that the concept of cyberbullying is considered an extension of
traditional bullying in which intention to harm, power imbalance, and
repetition are core features. However, there are issues when transferring the
characteristics of traditional bullying to a technology-mediated interaction.
Although there are some conceptual differences between the two
definitions, most of the research on the definition of cyberbullying has
utilised an adapted version of the traditional bullying definition. In spite of
the considerable research on the definition of cyberbullying, these
definitions have primarily been proposed by researchers where the key
components of such definitions assume a perpetrator’s perspective.
However, past research has reported that lay definitions of cyberbullying
often differ from researchers’ definitions, which has implications for how
data from research participants is interpreted. As such, there is a need for
researchers to clarify how people define cyberbullying and its associated
behaviours.
Due to the problems surrounding the definition of cyberbullying,
researchers have also experienced difficulties operationalising the term and
thus providing accurate estimates of the prevalence of cyberbullying
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Self-report questionnaires have
primarily been employed and tend to use closed-ended response formats
such as dichotomous choices and Likert scales, which means that
3
respondents are constrained to response options that are provided without

being able to elaborate on their experiences, views or interpretations (Li,
2007; Menesini et al., 2011). Alternatively, using a qualitative or a mixed
methods research design, with qualitative data informing quantitative
instruments, may provide a better way of capturing the meaning of
cyberbullying in order to ensure that findings related to cyberbullying are
meaningful and useful.
Much of the research on cyberbullying has also primarily focused on
adolescents, despite the fact that emerging adults (i.e., 18-25 years of age)
are known to be large users of technology (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber,
2007; Arıcak, 2009; Boulton, Lloyd, Down, & Marx, 2012; Campbell,
Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012). The transition to emerging adulthood
from adolescence is also considered a challenging time in identity
development and this could add to the stress of cyberbullying. Yet,
surprisingly, cyberbullying during emerging adulthood has received little
attention in the literature, despite one in five college students reporting
being cyberbullied (e.g., Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Reese, 2012;
MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010). In other words, it is argued here that
cyberbullying among emerging adults appears to be a serious problem that
is currently being ignored and requires further research. Due to the limited
focus on emerging adults and limitations surrounding the current
cyberbullying definition and measures, it is imperative that researchers find
out from emerging adults what cyberbullying is so that the term can be
operationalised in a way that is consistent with emerging adults’
interpretations.
Prior research on emerging adult cyberbullying victims has reported
a range of negative outcomes, such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal
ideation and self-harm (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Juvonen & Gross, 2008;
Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). However, while cyberbullying has been
associated with various negative psychological and social problems, not all
4
people who are victims of cyberbullying experience negative outcomes.

Although past research has examined some of the ways in which individuals
cope with being cyberbullied, this has not fully explained the variation in
psychological distress experienced by victims. Other variables or individual
differences, such as EMSs may provide a better explanation as to why there
are differences in psychological distress and in particular why some victims
of cyberbullying experience more severe negative reactions than others.
According to Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, EMSs develop due to
toxic experiences during childhood and adolescence (e.g., trauma,
victimisation, abuse) and become stable and dysfunctional structures by
emerging adulthood. EMSs can be triggered when exposed to stressful
events (e.g., cyberbullying) that resonate with the relevant schema and this
can contribute to psychological distress. Young et al. also proposed that
even though maladaptive schemas may be typically powerful in predicting
psychological distress, this relationship may depend on the coping style
employed, with certain coping styles either buffering or exacerbating the
effects experienced. However, a major limitation of the research in this area
has been the lack of emphasis on coping styles associated with maladaptive
schemas, despite the fact that how well one copes with maladaptive schemas
determines to what extent he or she experiences psychological symptoms.
Young et al. (2003) proposed that there are three coping styles that
individuals specifically use in response to the activation of maladaptive
schemas, namely, surrender, avoidance, and overcompensation. Young and
Rygh (1994) created a 40-item Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI)
to measure schema avoidance, and Young (1998a) developed a 48-item
Young Compensatory Inventory (YCI), which measured schema
overcompensation. However, there are a number of limitations when these
therapeutically-driven scales are applied to a research context. There is also
no psychometric tool to measure schema surrender, despite the fact that it is
one of the three coping styles proposed by Young et al. (2003). It is also
5
important to note that Young et al.’s schema coping styles only include
responses considered to be maladaptive, as they were designed to assess
individuals in clinical settings. Inclusion of adaptive schema coping styles
and responses would be valuable since there is limited research on EMSs
among non-clinical populations. This would also allow comparisons of
maladaptive versus adaptive coping style usage for individuals with
activation of particular schemas. To address the gaps in schema theory, a
schema coping style inventory that specifically assesses surrender,
avoidance, overcompensation, and adaptive coping was developed and
validated in a sample of non-clinical adults.
Purpose of the Thesis

The purpose of the first study was to clarify and gain a more in-
depth understanding into emerging adults’ opinions, views, and experiences
of cyberbullying to help inform the definition of cyberbullying and measure
of cyberbullying behaviours used in the final study (Study 3). Thirty-nine
emerging adults aged 18 to 25 years old participated in one of six focus
groups. The first study was guided by the following two research questions:
1. How do emerging adults define cyberbullying?
2. What are some examples of cyberbullying from a sample of
emerging adults?
The purpose of the second study was to develop and test the
psychometric properties (i.e., factor structure, reliability, and validity) of an
instrument designed to measure the specific schema coping styles proposed
by Young et al. (2003) so this could be implemented into the structural
model tested in the final study (Study 3). One hundred and two adults aged
18 years and over participated in this study by completing a self-report
questionnaire. The second study was guided by the following three research
questions:
6
1. What is the factor structure of the surrender, avoidance,

overcompensation, and adaptive schema coping scales?
2. Are these new schema coping scales reliable?
3. Do these new schema coping scales demonstrate construct and
criterion-related validity?
The purpose of Study 3 was to understand why some individuals

experience more severe adverse reactions than others in response to
cyberbullying behaviours. Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory was used as
a theoretical framework which informed the structural model tested. Two
hundred and seventy-one participants aged 18 to 25 years old participated in
this study by completing a self-report questionnaire. The third study was
guided by the following three research questions:
1. What is the prevalence of cyberbullying in a sample of
Australian emerging adults?
2. To what extent does EMS activation (at the domain and subscale
level) relate to psychological distress for victims, targets-only,
and non-targets?
3. To what extent do the schema coping styles moderate the
relationship between EMS activation (at the domain level) and
psychological distress for victims, targets-only, and non-targets?
Significance of Thesis
An important contribution of this thesis was the development of a
new multifaceted definition of cyberbullying that included the perspectives
of perpetrators, targets, victims, and bystanders. This was informed by focus
group data where emerging adults perceived current definitions of
cyberbullying to be too simplistic and instead dependent on the point of
view adopted. Past definitions and measures of cyberbullying have intended
to outline and capture an objective account of the phenomenon, though have
7
often defined cyberbullying from exclusively a perpetrator’s perspective.

The inclusion of targets, victims, and bystanders into the definition of
cyberbullying provides a more comprehensive and valid understanding of
how different people perceive and/or experience cyberbullying. It also
meant that a valid definition from the victim’s perspective could be used in
the third study.
A second contribution of this thesis was that it emerged from focus
groups data that there were differences between being a target of a
behaviour and being a victim. It seems that victims require both an intent to
harm and actual harm for a behaviour to be considered cyberbullying, whilst
a target does not require actual harm to be experienced for a behaviour to be
deemed cyberbullying. Yet, past research tends to collapse these two groups
into one, which may result in some of the uniqueness of these groups being
lost. Separating out targets and victims in the third study allowed for
differences between these two groups to be explored.
Another unique contribution of this thesis was that it was one of the
first studies to utilise schema theory (Young et al., 2003) in a cyberbullying
context. This research found empirical support for the schema model and
also extended on the model and previous research by being the first study to
include all five schema domains, all 18 schemas, all maladaptive coping
styles, and a new adaptive coping style. Previous research has typically
focused on the disconnection and rejection domain at the expense of the
four other domains, and at the same time only used a subset of the schemas
associated with that particular domain. However, the current research has
not only included all domains and schemas, each of these were modelled
from the perspective of non-targets, targets, and victims, thus making a
significant contribution to the literature.
Lastly, a fourth contribution of this thesis was the development and
psychometric testing of five new scales designed to measure schema coping
styles. For instance, new avoidance and overcompensation measures were
8
developed due to limitations associated with the pre-existing inventories,

YRAI-40 and YCI-48, which were therapeutically derived and not suitable
in a research context. Overcompensation was also separated into two scales,
namely retaliation and pleasing. A new measure of surrender was also
developed and found to be reliable, valid, and importantly distinct from the
surrender items on the YSQ where they have been sourced from in the past
(see Young et al., 2003). This means that a scale measuring surrender as a
coping style can now be used in conjunction with the YSQ. Lastly, an
adaptive coping style scale was also developed to address the absence of an
existing adaptive scale in the literature.
Scope of the Thesis

The analysis of the qualitative data from Study 1 revealed that
participants defined cyberbullying from the perspective of perpetrators,
targets, and bystanders. Moreover, the target perspective was further divided
into targets-only and victims where the distinction between these two
groups was based on the combination of intention to harm and actual harm
experienced. Although previous research has identified an additional
perpetrator-victim group, this was not identified as a distinct group in this
thesis. Therefore, the subsequent quantitative analyses in this thesis were
conducted separately for victims, targets-only and non-targets, with non-
targets acting as a comparison group.
Structure of the Thesis

In this chapter, the outline, focus, purpose, significance, and scope
of the thesis have been discussed as well as the structure of the thesis
outlined.
Chapter 2 presents several definitions of cyberbullying proposed by
researchers and outlines the challenges associated with defining the term
and its core features (i.e., repetition, intent to harm, and power imbalance).
What cyberbullying means to different populations is also presented, where
9
the perceptions and/or effect on a victim are often regarded as important

qualifying features of cyberbullying. This chapter introduces the concept of
emerging adulthood and the importance of studying the phenomenon of
cyberbullying during this developmental period. The negative effects shown
to be associated with cyberbullying are outlined, though it is noted that
while some victims experience severe negative reactions others are
relatively unaffected. As such, past theory and research on coping with
stressful situations, and specifically with cyberbullying, are explored as this
has been the focus when explaining differences in psychological distress.
However, this chapter concludes by proposing that individual differences,
such as EMSs may better explain the more severe reactions to cyberbullying
experienced by some victims and not others.
Chapter 3 introduces the concept of EMSs associated with Young et
al.’s (2003) schema theory. This chapter begins by outlining the origins of
schemas and defining EMSs. The measurement of EMSs and conceptual
and empirical work conducted on the factor structure of the 18 EMSs and
five higher order schema domains hypothesised by Young et al. are
presented. Next the relationship between EMSs and psychological distress is
outlined as EMSs have been linked to various negative psychological
outcomes and psychological disorders. This chapter also introduces three
coping styles specific to EMS activation. However, limitations associated
with the pre-existing therapeutically derived schema coping measures are
discussed, and the importance of more appropriate measures for a research
context is proposed. The structure of Young et al.’s schema model is
outlined towards the end of this chapter and its relevance in a cyberbullying
context highlighted. This chapter concludes by proposing a model of coping
with activated schemas, which was tested empirically in the third study of
this thesis (see Chapter 7).
Chapter 4 outlines the worldview and the overarching
methodological approach for the thesis to explore the phenomena of
10
cyberbullying, EMSs, schema coping styles, and psychological distress

among emerging adults. An overview of pragmatism, how it informs the
current research, and the advantages of using pragmatism as a worldview is
discussed. The selection and definition of mixed methods research and, in
particular, a multiphase mixed methods research design follows. The
importance of this approach and the data collection methods used in this
design to address the overall research objective and the specific aims of
each study are also highlighted. More specific detail of the method,
procedure, and design of each study is provided in Chapters 5 through to 7.
Chapter 5 reports the method, data analysis, and findings from Study
1. This qualitative study was conducted to gain a better understanding as to
how emerging adults (i.e., 18-25 years old) define cyberbullying and
examples of cyberbullying during this age group by conducting focus
groups. A thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework
was used to analyse the qualitative data. A number of validation strategies
were also implemented and are provided at the end of the Method section.
In regard to the first research question, the findings revealed one
overarching theme and four subthemes. The focus of the findings was
mainly on the fourth subtheme where it was found that how cyberbullying is
defined depends on the perspective adopted (perpetrator, victim, bystander).
For the second research question, there was one theme and two subthemes
that were discussed. This chapter ends with a Discussion section, where the
definition of cyberbullying from different perspectives and examples of
cyberbullying behaviours during emerging adulthood are discussed in
relation to past study findings. Implications of the results are presented and
highlight how the results specifically help inform the third study in terms of
the definition of cyberbullying and measure of cyberbullying behaviours
that will be used. Limitations and future recommendations conclude this
chapter.
11
Chapter 6 outlines the development and evaluation of the new scales

designed to measure the specific schema coping styles proposed by Young
et al. (2003) based on the stages proposed by leading authors in the area of
scale development (DeVellis, 2012; Gregory, 2011). The stages include: (1)
defining the test; (2) generating and constructing the items; (3) selecting a
scaling method; (4) determining scale instructions; (5) administering and
testing the items; (6) evaluating the items (exploratory factor analysis,
reliability, and validity); and (7) optimising the scale length. Following the
development and testing of the new scales, there is a discussion on the
factor structure, reliability, and validity of the new scales. Implications and
how these results inform the third study are then presented, followed by
limitations and future suggestions which conclude this chapter.
In Chapter 7, the method, data analysis, and findings from Study 3
are presented. Firstly, the prevalence of cyberbullying during emerging
adulthood was analysed using frequencies and participants responses from
an open-ended question were coded. The data from the self-report
questionnaire was also analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM)
to test the second and third research questions. The data screening process
and assumption testing were described first, followed by testing the
measurement models (see Appendix O) and structural models. Similar to the
last two studies, this chapter also contained a Discussion section and
highlighted the main findings in relation to each of the research questions.
This was followed by the implications of the findings as well as limitations
and future suggestions.
Chapter 8 opens with an overview of the main findings in response
to the overall thesis question. The focus of this chapter was to provide a
general discussion of the theoretical, methodological, and practical
contributions of the findings. This chapter finishes with concluding remarks.
12
Chapter Summary
In this chapter an overview of the thesis, focus of the thesis, purpose
of the thesis, significance of the thesis, scope of the thesis, and structure of
the thesis were presented. The following chapter presents a review of the
literature on cyberbullying among emerging adulthood.
13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW OF CYBERBULLYING AMONG
EMERGING ADULTHOOD
Introduction
With the rapid growth in the development, accessibility, usage, and
functionality of digital technologies over the past decade, an extension of
traditional bullying has emerged, termed cyberbullying. Digital technologies
have many benefits and advantages, such as providing new opportunities to
meet and instantaneously communicate with people from all over the world.
However, there is also potential for individuals who use such technologies
to experience cyberbullying victimisation (Beran & Li, 2008; Foody,
Samara, & Carlbring, 2015; Lee, 2017). Cyberbullying victimisation has
been linked to various and severe negative psychological outcomes such as
anxiety, depression, and in extreme cases suicide (Mason, 2008). As a
result, cyberbullying has been subjected to an increasing level of scrutiny by
the media, governments and policy makers, workplaces, universities, and
schools on how to combat it. The negative consequences of cyberbullying
victimisation have also led to a dramatic increase in cyberbullying research
over the past 15 years, with most studies focusing on the definition,
measurement, prevalence, and correlates of cyberbullying (Cassidy,
Faucher, & Jackson, 2018). Yet in spite of a growing body of research and
urgency to develop evidence-based programs and interventions that reduce
cyberbullying and its effects on victims, there is still no unequivocal
definition of what constitutes cyberbullying (Bauman, Underwood, & Card,
2012; Grigg, 2010; Hemphill & Heerde, 2014; Langos, 2012; Menesini et
al., 2012; Olweus & Limber, 2018; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Vandebosch
& Van Cleemput, 2008).
14
Firstly, this chapter will present several definitions of cyberbullying

proposed by researchers and outline the challenges associated with defining
the term and its core features (i.e., repetition, intent to harm, and power
imbalance). To further highlight the complexity in defining cyberbullying,
what cyberbullying means to different populations that potentially comprise
perpetrators, victims, and bystanders will also be presented. Due to the
absence of an unequivocal definition of cyberbullying, the issues with the
measurement of cyberbullying will then be reviewed, with a focus on the
importance of qualitative research in enhancing academic definitions and
measurement of the phenomenon of cyberbullying.
A majority of cyberbullying research has primarily focused on
adolescents, though there is limited research on emerging adults despite
cyberbullying being prevalent among this developmental period (Hemphill
& Heerde, 2014; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Reese, 2012;
MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Tennant, Demaray, Coyle, &
Malecki, 2015). Cases such as Tyler Clementi, an America college student
who took his own life after being a victim of cyberbullying, have raised
much awareness that cyberbullying is not only a problem in adolescence but
also in emerging adulthood (Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). The need for more
research using emerging adult samples to understand how they define
cyberbullying will be discussed and a rationale for Study 1 will be clearly
outlined.
Lastly, this chapter will focus on the many negative outcomes
associated with cyberbullying victimisation. However, it will also
acknowledge that while some victims experience severe adverse reactions to
cyberbullying, others do not. There is evidence to suggest that how a person
copes with cyberbullying behaviours can influence the level of distress
experienced. Coping styles examined in the cyberbullying literature include
general coping styles (e.g., problem-focused and emotion-focused coping)
and cyber-specific technological coping strategies. However, past studies
15
have found these coping styles do not completely explain differences in

psychological distress. The focus of these studies has been on cyberbullying
victimisation and coping but other variables or individual differences that
may better explain variations in psychological distress have often been
neglected. As such, Chapter 1 will lead into Chapter 2, where early
maladaptive schemas (EMSs) as part of Young et al.’s (2003) schema
theory will be reviewed as a possible explanation for this variability in
distress.
The Definition of Cyberbullying

To date, several definitions of cyberbullying have been proposed by
researchers with no unequivocal definition established. For instance, some
researchers have proposed open and broad definitions that focus on the
technology, such as “Bullying through email, instant messaging, in a chat
room, on a website, or through a text message sent to a cell phone”
(Kowalski & Limber, 2007, p. 24). However, a limitation with this type of
definition is the fact that as new devices are developed and affordances of
digital technologies evolve, the relevance of the modalities included will be
reduced and constant revisions needed (Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson,
2009).
In search of a cyberbullying definition which is more enduring, other
researchers have based their definitions on Olweus’ (1994) original
traditional bullying definition. According to Dan Olweus (1994, p. 1173) “A
student is being bullied or victimised when he or she is exposed, repeatedly
and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other
students.” Olweus incorporated three key characteristics in this definition to
ensure there was a difference between aggression and bullying. Firstly, it
was proposed that aggression is a single act whereas bullying comprises
repeated acts. Secondly, negative actions refer to when a person or group
intentionally attempt to inflict injury or discomfort upon another. Lastly,
16
bully and victim relationships are characterised by an imbalance of power

where a bully has more power than a victim. These three characteristics
have typically been adapted and applied to cyberbullying, where it is
generally agreed upon that cyberbullying is considered an extension of
traditionally bullying rather than a separate phenomenon.
A widely used definition of cyberbullying that incorporates these
three key features states that cyberbullying is, “An aggressive, intentional
act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact,
repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or
herself” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). This definition refers directly to the
definition of traditional bullying with the only difference being the inclusion
of technological devices to carry out the attack. Over the last decade,
however, the cyberbullying literature has seen several variations of this
widely used definition, where other definitions tend to emphasise only one
or two of the three key characteristics. For example, Bill Besley (2009) is
widely known for coining the term cyberbullying and referred to it on his
website as “The use of information and communication technologies to
support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group
that is intended to harm others.” This definition shares similar
characteristics to the definitions of Olweus (1994) and Smith et al. (2008),
though here power imbalance is absent, which implies it is not a necessary
component. Similar to Besley’s (2009) definition, researchers in the United
States, such as Patchin and Hinduja (2015) also do not include power
imbalance as a key component in their definition of cyberbullying, with the
primary reason for this being the difficulty to define the term in a way that
laws can be clearly and consistently applied in different contexts (Campbell
& Bauman, 2018). While some researchers believe that power imbalance in
the online world is about having advanced technological knowledge and
keeping one’s own identity unknown (Langos, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja,
2015), others have argued that most youth find it easy to block the
17
perpetrator either online or by phone. This suggests that cyberbullying may

not involve an imbalance of power in which victims have difficultly
defending themselves (Barlett & Gentile, 2012; Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross,
2009, Langos, 2012; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008).
Because of the inconsistent use of the three characteristics used to
define cyberbullying, different studies have used different terms to describe
this phenomenon. For example, terms include “cyberbullying” (e.g., Smith
et al., 2008), “electronic bullying” (Kowalski & Limber, 2007), “online
harassment” (Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000; Ybarra et al., 2007),
“Internet bullying” (Williams & Guerra, 2007), and “cyberaggression”
(Pornari & Wood, 2010). The poor distinction between the different terms
largely comes down to confusion and debate among researchers on the
definitional criteria of cyberbullying and operationalisation of this criteria in
a technology-mediated environment.
Although researchers have typically applied the key characteristics
based on traditional bullying to cyberbullying, there are some important
differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Smith, 2019;
Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). Each of the key traditional bullying
characteristics, how they are applied to a technology-mediated environment,
and associated challenges of their application are discussed below.
Repetition. Repetition has long been considered a key feature of
traditional bullying. This feature was included in the definition of bullying
to exclude occasional acts of aggression directed at different people at
different times (Dooley et al., 2009; Olweus, 1994). This means that
multiple attacks directed towards one or numerous people could be
considered bullying, regardless of the person’s perception of the incident
(Dooley et al., 2009). This key feature has also been firmly applied to
cyberbullying where it has been argued that this feature is important to
include in order to distinguish cyberteasing and cyberaggression from
cyberbullying. Cyberteasing, or cyberjoking, refers to acts that are not
18
intended to harm another person, are not necessarily repetitive, and are
performed in an equal power relationship (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput,
2008). However, if cyberteasing does become repetitive, offensive or
demeaning, and there are clear signs that the target is distressed, then this
can qualify as cyberbullying (Langos, 2012; Olweus, 1994). In addition to
cyberteasing, cyberaggression can be classified after a once-off attack where
there was an intent to harm another person via technology (Livingstone &
Smith, 2014). However, it should be noted that researchers (and particularly
Western researchers) have often focused on the act of the perpetrator and
not the effect on the victim when making these distinctions.
Despite the inclusion of repetition in the definition of cyberbullying
being widely accepted, there has been increasing debate about its
operationalisation and importance as a key characteristic when applied to a
cyber context (Slonje & Smith, 2008). This is due to the permanence of
information posted or sent through different technological mediums, the fact
that this information can be widely disseminated, and that there can be
differences between the perpetrator and victim in terms of perceptions of
how many incidences occur and the potential consequences (Dooley et al.,
2009; Langos, 2012; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Therefore, the repetitive
behaviour that defines traditional bullying (i.e., more than once or twice)
may need to be re-conceptualised for cyberbullying. In particular, behaviour
that directly targets a person multiple times (e.g., multiple nasty emails or
text messages) clearly addresses the criterion of repetition (Langos, 2012).
On the other hand, a single nasty text message between the perpetrator and
target could be aggressive and intended to harm but not cyberbullying, even
though a victim may read and re-read these comments and be repeatedly
affected. Also, in regard to indirect or public cyberbullying, it is more
difficult to establish whether certain behaviours meet this key element of
repetition (Dooley et al., 2009; Dredge, Gleeson, & de la Piedad Garcia,
2014; Langos, 2012). A single episode of traditional aggression that would
19
have previously been constrained to a particular time and place is no longer

constrained in cyberspace. Aggressive content directed to a target can now
be posted as a comment, photograph, or video-recording by a perpetrator in
a single action. However, this content can be repeatedly viewed, shared,
saved, commented on, or “Liked” by others, and result in a cycle of
repetition of the original aggression and associated ongoing damage or
trauma for a victim who re-lives the experience (Dooley et al., 2009;
Langos, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2015; Slonje & Smith, 2008;
Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). For example, a single act, such as
posting a compromising photo online can result in continuous humiliation
and ridicule for the victim as it can be seen and accessed and/or
disseminated by many (Langos, 2012; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009).
However, this behaviour would not traditionally be classified as repeated as
the original act by the perpetrator was once-off. Therefore, academic
definitions of cyberbullying have typically focused on the behaviour of the
perpetrator, whereby the targeting behaviour needs to be carried out
multiple times, with less focus on how a behaviour is perceived by a victim
and the effect of this behaviour on him or her.
The repetition component has also been questioned by students in
previous studies where they have been asked to describe or evaluate the key
features of cyberbullying (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). For
instance, participants in Nocentini et al.’s (2010) study noted that an act
does not need to be repeated at the hands of the perpetrator if it is made
public and can be sent or shown to others. One example of this would be
when a comment ridiculing a person is posted on Facebook and is seen by
hundreds of acquaintances of the targeted person. This is one act on the part
of the perpetrator that may be considered repeated by virtue of the number
of comments it generates. Similarly, Slonje and Smith (2008) found that
8.6% of participants (N = 360) had at some point been victims of
photo/video clip-bullying in the last couple of months. Even though most
20
participants stated that the behaviour only happened on one occasion, the
authors note that this may fit into the notion of repetition. In more recent
qualitative studies, both adolescent and emerging adult stakeholders have
also reported that a once-off act could also be classified as cyberbullying as:
(1) the victim may be able to repeatedly view the act, (2) the single
behaviour may be serious enough to result in significant and ongoing harm
for the victim, and (3) the single behaviour may become repeated by being
spread by others (Moreno, Suthamjariya, & Selkie, 2018; Tran, Nguyen,
Weiss, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2018). Therefore, the use of repetition as a
criterion for traditional bullying may have a broader meaning in
cyberbullying, whereby a single perpetrator act may also count as
cyberbullying in some cases. Though as Moreno et al. (2018) pointed out,
this is yet to be incorporated into current definitions of cyberbullying.
The notion of repetition has also been debated among participants in
the traditional bullying literature. For instance, Guerin and Hennessy (2002)
conducted interviews examining students’ definitions of bullying and
whether they were in line with those used by researchers. It was found that
just over 50% of participants (N = 166) believed that behaviour did not have
to be repeated over time and that those that occur once or twice could
constitute as bullying. Fourteen per cent of participants reported that a
possible reason may be that an individual can still become upset even if a
behaviour occurred only once. However, it should be noted that around 28%
believed the behaviours must occur with some frequency and 8% felt that
other factors, such as the type of behaviour, were more essential in defining
bullying.
Many of the measures used to assess cyberbullying have employed
restrictions for the repetition component (e.g., “three times a month” or
more), whereby it is often assumed that the more frequent the behaviour the
more distress experienced. However, not all acts online are considered equal
in terms of victim impact. Participants have indicated in previous studies
21
that picture/video bullying have a higher impact factor (more severe and
humiliating) than other types of cyberbullying and traditional bullying
(Menesini, Nocentini, & Calussi, 2011; Naruskov, Luik, Nocentini, &
Menesini, 2012; Nocentini et al., 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al.
2008). The fear of not knowing who has seen the picture/video post but
being aware that a large audience could potentially see it are common
reasons given by participants as to why these acts are considered as more
serious than other online behaviours (Naruskov et al., 2012). It has also
been argued that ongoing feelings of stress or fear about an incident may be
considered repetitive and bullying even though the act occurred only once
(Tattum, 1997). This stress and fear may have a lasting effect on the target
where he or she ruminates on previous experiences as well as anticipates
future attacks (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Whittaker &
Kowalski, 2015). As such, a once-off attack could be regarded as
cyberbullying under certain circumstances.
Taken together, current definitions of cyberbullying have generally
focused on the targeting behaviour of the perpetrator when examining
cyberbullying. There has been little focus on the perceptions of the act and
the effect on a victim, despite qualitative research of participants’ views
reporting that certain behaviours online do not need to be “repetitive” to be
regarded as cyberbullying due to the potential harm inflicted on a victim
(Moreno et al., 2018; Tran et al., 2018). This suggests that there might be
victims that are being perpetrated against but whose victimisation does not
meet the current definitional criterion of repetition (Dredge et al., 2014). It
is argued here that it is important to incorporate the perceptions of victims
into definitions of cyberbullying because how a victim perceives the
behaviour and feels may be different to the person who perpetrates the act.
Repetition is not the only criterion used to distinguish between what
is and what is not cyberbullying. Intent to harm and power imbalance are
also considered key elements that help differentiate this behaviour from
22
other types of abusive cyber-communication (e.g., cyberteasing and

cyberaggression).
Intent to harm. Another key feature of traditional bullying that has
been applied to cyberbullying is intent to harm. Olweus (1994) states that
bullying behaviour is a subset of aggressive behaviour or intentional “harm
doing.” Including this element into the definition distinguishes bullying and
aggression from non-bullying behaviour such as teasing or joking (Olweus,
1994). However, in the virtual environment the intention of the perpetrator
and the impact on the victim can be problematic to establish due to the
nature of communication in this context (Kowalski et al., 2008, Menesini &
Nocentini, 2009). For example, non-verbal cues are typically absent when
communicating through technology, which means that certain behaviours
that were not intended to be harmful may be misinterpreted as
cyberbullying, and vice versa (Ackers, 2012; Mason, 2008; Vandebosch &
Van Cleemput, 2008, 2009). Therefore, the perpetrator’s intentions and
victim’s reaction may be ambiguous and remain partly hidden when
communicating online (Kowalski et al., 2008). It has been questioned in the
literature as to whether unintentional incidents that result in actual harm to
the victim, or, intentional incidents that do not result in actual harm, should
be considered cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2008).
In a number of qualitative studies that have explored students’
perceptions of cyberbullying, a subset of participants reported that
cyberbullying involved an intent to harm and that this characteristic helps to
distinguish this behaviour from others such as cyberteasing or friendly
banter (Baldasare, Bauman, Goldman, & Robie, 2012; Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2008). Participants have also acknowledged that repetition and
intentionality can be considered simultaneously, whereby if an attack
occurred over time this may indicate the act was intentional (Vandebosch &
Van Cleemput, 2008).
23
Alternatively, it has been argued that determining the intentionality

of a cyberbullying episode should not consider the motivations of the bully,
but rather how a victim perceives the episode (Nocentini et al., 2010). For
instance, the majority of focus group participants in Nocentini et al.’s
(2010) study agreed that regardless of the intentions of the bully or the
number of times someone has been targeted, the effect of a certain
behaviour on the victim and his/her perception of the act is a more relevant
criterion of whether the act is a form of cyberbullying. Moreover, Baldasare
et al. (2012) found that majority of the participants agreed that
cyberbullying depends on how the victim interprets the situation. This
suggests that regardless of the perpetrator’s motives, if the victim interprets
the behaviour as harmful and as cyberbullying then that is the deciding
factor. Similarly, in Dredge et al.’s (2014) study, intent to harm was the
most referred to characteristic compared to repetition and power imbalance,
though many of the participants believed that for an act to be considered
cyberbullying it does not have to be intentional. Rather, the impact on the
victim was referenced to as an important factor in determining
cyberbullying. Therefore, it appears that there are differences in the way
researchers and lay people define cyberbullying, and that intent to harm may
be interpreted differently depending on the role one takes (i.e., perpetrator
vs. victim).
Similar to repetition, despite several qualitative studies reporting the
importance of the victim’s perspective in classifying cyberbullying, this
perspective has not been made an explicit feature of the definition. Indeed,
intent to harm tends to be more focused on the perpetrators’ behaviour when
classifying bullying in Western countries, however in Asian countries the
victims’ point of view is also acknowledged as an important and defining
feature of cyberbullying. For instance, in Japan the focus of ijime, the
Japanese term most similar for bullying, is placed not so much on the
perpetrators’ behaviour and their intent to harm the victim, but more on the
24
psychological effects of the victim (Kanetsuna, 2016; Kanetsuna, Smith, &

Morita, 2006; Morita et al., 1999; Sittichai & Smith, 2015; Zeng &
LeTendre, 1999). At present, there has been little interchange between
Western and Japanese researchers in this domain. However, this research
highlights the importance of focusing on the victims’ perspective,
particularly when outcomes are concerned (Kanetsuna et al., 2006). As
such, it is argued here that the victims’ perspective should also be taken into
account in Western definitions of cyberbullying, which have focused largely
on the perspective of a perpetrator1.
Power imbalance. Another key feature of traditional bullying that
has been applied to cyberbullying is power imbalance. Olweus (1994)
described power imbalance as when an individual or group exposed to
negative behaviour has difficulty in defending himself or herself and is
somewhat powerless against the perpetrator(s). Olweus described that the
power imbalance in bullying behaviour can be actual or perceived and may
come about in various ways. For instance, the target of bullying may
actually be physically or mentally weaker than the perpetrators or may
simply perceive him or herself to be. It can also include when the source of
the negative actions is difficult to identify or confront as in gossiping, social
exclusion, or when an individual is being sent anonymous notes that contain
content that is considered mean (Olweus, 1994). It is this criterion that
permits the distinction between aggression and bullying (Dooley et al.,
2009). The meaning of power imbalance has not been altered from
conventional bullying but has received considerable debate as to whether it
is a necessary feature to include in a cyber context.
It is possible that conventional power criteria such as physical
strength or age can transfer over into the virtual world (Dooley et al., 2009,
1
The author does not intend to place labels on people but is following the
same conventions used in cyberbullying research.
25
Kowalski et al., 2008, Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Vandebosch

and Van Cleemput (2008) found that the bullying that takes place
traditionally is likely to be continued in cyberspace with retention of roles
(e.g., younger, weaker, inexperienced persons, girls). However, some
participants in interviews noted that online victims could also be of equal
strength (i.e., friends or former friends) or stronger (i.e., physically stronger
in real life) than the perpetrator but could not get the behaviour to stop.
Power imbalance in a cyber context has usually been described as
keeping one’s own identity unknown and superior technological knowledge
(Dooley et al., 2009; Dredge et al., 2014; Grigg, 2010; Langos, 2012;
Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013). Perpetrators are able to remain as
anonymous on websites and chatrooms, create pseudonyms and provisional
email addresses and block their telephone number to hide their identity.
Victims have often described that not knowing the person behind the
cyberbullying behaviour as frustrating and increasing their feelings of
powerlessness, although if this information were available it would help
their interpretation (e.g., negative or a joke) and response to the behaviour
(Langos, 2012).
The perpetrator’s perceived or actual greater technological expertise
could also result in the victim feeling powerless in defending him or herself.
As information, photos or videos can be posted publicly, disseminated
widely, copied, or altered by people other than the victim or the perpetrator,
the complexities associated with controlling material in cyberspace can also
contribute to the victim’s feelings of powerlessness, as they are also
potentially defending themselves against a large audience (Dooley et al.,
2009; Kowalski et al., 2008; Naruskov et al., 2012; Slonje & Smith, 2008).
Although power imbalance has long been considered a key criterion
of cyberbullying, researchers have increasingly argued that many types of
cyberbullying do not require an advanced technological skill set. For
example, the frequent acts of taking a photo using a mobile phone camera
26
and sending it to others, posting a photo or picture online, or creating a false

profile on a social network site (SNS), requires only basic knowledge of
how these sites operate (Dooley et al., 2009). On the other hand, acts that
are considered to be more advanced and complicated (i.e., manipulating
pictures, hacking one’s account) do not occur as often (Smith et al., 2008).
The fact that targets can use a number of technological solutions to cope
with cyberbullying suggests that cyberbullying may not involve a power
imbalance as individuals can easily defend themselves (Menesini et al.,
2012). For example, Wolak, Mitchell, and Finkelhor (2007) showed that
individuals harassed online or by phone were not distressed as they could
easily block the harasser or leave the website. Furthermore, in Moreno et al.
(2018) power imbalance was only reported in 7% of cases (N = 68) as being
an important feature of cyberbullying. The authors concluded that this might
be because the online environment offers all individuals, regardless of their
physical strength, external tools for creating a power imbalance. Therefore,
while power imbalance may not be considered an essential component in
defining cyberbullying, it appears that from a victim’s perspective there are
certain circumstances where a power imbalance becomes more salient.
Taken together, in spite of the considerable discussion on how
cyberbullying should be defined, most of the research on cyberbullying has
nevertheless utilised adapted versions of the traditional bullying definition,
where the key components of such definitions assume a perpetrator’s
perspective. These definitions have also primarily been proposed by
academic researchers without seeking the perspectives of potential
perpetrators, victims, or bystanders of cyberbullying. However, past
research has reported that lay definitions of cyberbullying often differ from
researchers’ definitions, which has implications for how data from research
participants is interpreted. It should also be noted that similar issues also
remain unresolved in the traditional bullying literature, with past research
reporting a discrepancy in how students, teachers, parents, and researchers
27
define bullying (Campbell, Whiteford, & Hooijer, 2018; Demaray, Malecki,

Secord, & Lyell; 2013; Maunder, Harrop, & Tattersall, 2010; Naylor,
Cowie, Cossin, deBettencourt, & Lemme, 2006; Sawyer, Mishna, Pepler, &
Wiener, 2011). For instance, Naylor et al. (2006) conducted a study on
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of traditional bullying. The findings
revealed that teachers described more thorough definitions compared with
students, who were more likely to provide definitions constrained to direct
bullying, and less likely to refer to social exclusion, power imbalance and
intent to harm. Moreover, Campbell et al. (2018) found that teachers were
generally better at identifying scenarios that depicted traditional bullying
compared to parents. In relation to the specific bullying components, other
studies have revealed that students and adults (i.e., their parents and
teachers) typically describe power imbalance and intent to harm when
defining cyberbullying. However, individuals did not report repetition as a
component of bullying (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012; Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener,
2006; Sawyer, Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2011). As such, there is a need
for researchers to clarify how specific populations define cyberbullying and
its associated behaviours in order to ensure that findings related to
cyberbullying are meaningful both in terms of further research, but more
importantly in terms of providing effective interventions.
Measurement of Cyberbullying
Due to the problems surrounding the definition of cyberbullying,
researchers have also experienced difficulties operationalising the term and
thus providing accurate estimates of the prevalence of cyberbullying
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015).
Reported rates of cyberbullying victimisation vary from 4.5% to 85% across
different age groups (e.g., Crosslin & Crosslin, 2014; Doane, Boothe,
Pearson, & Kelley, 2016; Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Ortega-Ruiz, & Casas,
2015; Finn, 2004; Gibb & Devereux, 2016; Kowalski et al., 2012; Lindsay
28
& Krysik, 2012; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja,
2010; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009).
Despite researchers’ attempts to measure cyberbullying in an
objective manner, it is usually measured using two types of subjective self-
report questionnaires: (1) a single-item scale about one’s involvement in
cyberbullying which tends to be presented after a general definition of
cyberbullying has been presented (e.g., “Have you been a victim of
cyberbullying”), or (2) a multi-item scale that captures a series of
behaviours considered to be cyberbullying. Single-item scales have been
considered by some researchers as a reliable and economic measure for
generating a general prevalence rate of cyberbullying by categorising
individuals who identify as a “victim” or “bully” (or both) into different
qualitative groupings (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). On the other hand, other
researchers argue that multi-item behavioural scales are more valid and
reliable measures for estimating prevalence compared to single-item
measures as it is unlikely that a single item can fully represent a complex
theoretical construct (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Multi-item
cyberbullying behaviour scales often do not include the terms
cyberbullying, victim, or bully. The purpose is to avoid individual
perceptions, stigma, or bias associated with using these labels and in turn
yield more accurate responses (Bowling, 2005; Felix et al., 2011).
Moreover, not all individuals may be aware that social exclusion or other
behaviours can be considered cyberbullying. Therefore, multi-item scales
that include a wide range of behaviours representative of the phenomenon
can be useful when individuals have limited or a biased understanding of
cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). In fact, past studies have found
that when single-item scales are used fewer incidents of cyberbullying tend
to be reported compared to multi-item scales that list specific behaviours
associated with cyberbullying (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009). It has
29
been suggested that this may indicate that participants are hesitant to label
themselves as bullies or as victims or unaware of the specific behaviours
that comprise cyberbullying (Dehue, 2013; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009).
However, another possible explanation is that these two types of
scales may actually be associated with different prevalence rates due to
capturing slightly different phenomena. For instance, single-item scales
have been considered a more subjective measure, while multi-item scales an
objective measure (Dehue, 2013). Yet, responses to the single-item scale, in
which cyberbullying victimisation is experienced by around 5 to 10% of
people could reflect more serious and problematic cyberbullying
experiences, whereas acts experienced by 50 to 60% of people may capture
many other interactions such as mutual conflict or friendly banter in
addition to cyberbullying (see Dehue, 2013). Therefore, multi-item scales of
cyberbullying behaviours can take away the context of what happened as
they often neglect intention to harm and power imbalance in behavioural
items which can inflate or lead to an overestimation of the prevalence rates
(Felix et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2002). It is important that researchers are
aware of the limitations associated with single-item and multi-item
cyberbullying scales and depending on which scale is used in a study will
depend on the researchers’ aims. However, rather than being used in
isolation, the use of both types of measures of cyberbullying in a single
study may be the best way to overcome the weaknesses associated with
these self-report measures, where multi-item scales can offer more specific
data on the type of behaviours experienced by individuals who self-identify
as victims of cyberbullying on a single-item scale.
Measures of cyberbullying have varied not only in terms of the
number of items included but whether a definition is provided, the term
“cyberbullying” is used and the list of behaviours specified (e.g., sent nasty
text message, prank calls, posted embarrassing photo or video etc). These
questionnaires have also differed in asking when the incident took place,
30
with time frames varying from in the “last week” to “have you ever been
cyberbullied” (e.g., Arıcak, 2009; Del Rey, Elipe, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2012;
Dilmac, 2009; Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012; Slonje &
Smith, 2008). The underlying assumption of these self-report questionnaires
is that victims of cyberbullying who report being victimised more frequently
are also cyberbullied more severely with many studies employing cut-offs
of “three times a month” or more as qualifiers of cyberbullying
victimisation (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Menesini et al., 2011).
However, it is plausible that one severe attack has more of a negative impact
than multiple mild attacks (Menesini et al., 2011; Schenk & Fremouw,
2012). This highlights the complex nature of operationalising the repetition
component in measures of cyberbullying.
Another limitation of self-report questionnaires is that they tend to
use closed-ended response formats such as dichotomous choices and Likert
scales, which means that respondents are constrained to response options
that are provided by researchers without being able to elaborate on their
experiences, views, or interpretations (Li, 2007; Menesini et al., 2011;
Smith, 2019). A multi-method approach such as including an open-ended
response in questionnaires of cyberbullying, which gives participants the
option to elaborate on their victimisation experiences, may help researchers
develop a more comprehensive understanding of a person’s involvement or
experience of cyberbullying and reduce some of the limitations associated
self-report measures of cyberbullying.
In addition, because technology is growing rapidly and changing the
nature of the cyberbullying phenomenon, self-report questionnaires such as
multi-item scales may need to be updated regularly with new technologies
and behaviours. Many of the multi-item cyberbullying behaviour
questionnaires have also been normed on adolescents (Menesini et al., 2011;
Palladino, Nocentini, & Menesini, 2015), whereas it is possible that the
behaviours experienced and language used by other age groups, differs from
31
adolescents’ (Menesini et al., 2012). It is argued that using a qualitative or a

mixed methods research design, with qualitative data informing quantitative
instruments, may provide a better way of capturing the phenomenology of
cyberbullying (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). This method enables
not only participants’ perspectives on the definition to be captured but also
how to operationalise these definitional criteria. This method can also
inform whether any adaptations need to be made to the language used in
measures of cyberbullying behaviours or if other behaviours need to be
added to ensure that this construct is in line with the specific population of
interest and represents their experiences of the phenomenon.
Cyberbullying During Emerging Adulthood

Much of the research on cyberbullying has primarily focused on
adolescents, with little attention in the literature on emerging adulthood
(Jenaro, Flores, & Frías, 2018; Lee, Abell, & Holmes, 2017; Phizacklea &
Sargisson, 2018). The heavy focus on adolescents in cyberbullying research
is said to be due to the various risks associated with this stage of
development and identity formation (Francisco et al., 2015; Li, 2007).
However, it is argued that although identity formation begins in
adolescence, the period of emerging adulthood is when this process is
magnified where emerging adulthood refers to the stage after adolescence
and before young adulthood (i.e., 18-25 years old; Arnett, 2000; Wood et
al., 2018). Arnett (2000) also described emerging adulthood as the age of
feeling in-between (neither adolescent nor adult), having a self-focus, and
realising that one’s life has possibilities (opportunity to transform one’s
life). It is also a time of anxiety, instability and uncertainty as to where their
explorations will lead (Arnett, 2015). Emerging adults often have to adjust
to changed living conditions, such as moving out of the family home and
away from friends and in turn they can lack social support and suffer from
isolation (Tennant et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2018). The changed status from
32
secondary school student to emerging adult can bring on anxiety with the
perceived demands that this developmental stage brings. For instance,
individuals may receive far less individual support, such as in the case of
university students where they are expected to be more autonomous and
have less interactions with teachers. Furthermore, emerging adulthood is
where individuals start to become independent in relation to financial and
residential status and use the Internet to access government information and
services (my.gov, Centrelink, tax, visas, and passports etc.). Emerging
adults are also dealing with increased performance pressure and searching
for romantic partners and social peers who may influence one’s day-to-day
life and future goals (Arnett, 2000; Barry, Madsen, Nelson, Carroll, &
Badger, 2009).
Emerging adulthood is also where texting and social media use is a
common part of social communication, and these media are no longer being
supervised by parents or teachers. Emerging adults are known to be heavy
users of mobile phones, computers, and other networked-mobile devices as
part of their personal, academic, and professional lives (Agatston, Kowalski,
& Limber, 2007; Arıcak, 2009; Boulton, Lloyd, Down, & Marx, 2012;
Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Cassidy et al., 2018; Lee,
2017). In Australia, approximately 90% of 18 to 29 year olds have reported
accessing the Internet daily, with 75% using SNSs at least once a day. Most
emerging adults indicated using Facebook (99%), followed by Snapchat
(60%), and Instagram (58%). In regard to Facebook usage, emerging adults
have reported checking Facebook around 45 times per week (Sensis, 2016).
These high rates of technology usage can be explained by the way
individuals communicate in the workplace and at university (Hemphill &
Heerde, 2014; Oblad, 2019). For instance, emerging adults may include
university students who require computers and the Internet to complete their
studies (i.e. research, student email, online portals, and submissions), or
employees in the workforce who are required to use a computer as part of
33
their professional duties. It can also be explained by one of the primary

developmental tasks that define this developmental period, that is,
participation in social activities (i.e., SNSs, texting) to strengthen
relationships with friends, family, and romantic partners (Subrahmanyam,
Reich, Waechter, & Espinoza, 2008).
Surprisingly there is limited research on cyberbullying during
emerging adulthood despite estimates reporting around 20% of college
students have been cyberbullied (e.g., Balakrishnan, 2018; Cénat, Smith,
Hébert, & Derivois, 2019; Kowalski et al., 2012; Kowalski, Toth, &
Morgan, 2017; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Oblad, 2019). In a
landmark case that brought public attention to cyberbullying among
emerging adults, Tyler Clementi, an American college student had been
involved in a sexual encounter with another male which was streamed
online by his roommate without consent. This, as well as a lack of support
from university officials regarding the matter, contributed to Tyler taking
his own life (Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014). More recently, university
“Stalkerspaces” on Facebook have become a medium to cyberbully other
students or teachers. Stalkerspace is a Facebook group in Australia where
students comment on other student’s outfits, looks, race, eating habits, or
what was said in class. Of the limited research that has been conducted
using samples of emerging adults, college students have described the
definition of cyberbullying as ambiguous, outdated and misleading
(Baldasare et al., 2012; Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Therefore, while it is
argued here that cyberbullying during this developmental period may be a
serious problem that requires further research, it is crucial that researchers
gain a clearer understanding of what cyberbullying means to emerging
adults before appropriate strategies and interventions can be recommended.
Therefore, the first study will seek to clarify how emerging adults define
cyberbullying and the associated behaviours observed or experienced by
this age group by conducting focus groups. This will help inform the
34
definition of cyberbullying and multi-item measure of cyberbullying

behaviours used in the final study and whether any adaptations need to be
made.
Cyberbullying and Psychological Outcomes

A plethora of research has investigated the psychological impact
cyberbullying can have on children and adolescents (Hinduja & Patchin,
2010; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Schneider, O'donnell, Stueve, & Coulter,
2012). However, less work has specifically focused on the negative effects
experienced by emerging adults, especially as this group potentially have
less supervision and people to help them at this vulnerable time of life
(Wright & Li, 2013). In a small number of research studies conducted in
this area using emerging adults as participants, Price and Dalgleish (2010)
reported that 86% of 10 to 25 year old Australian participants have
experienced some negative effect from their cyberbullying victimisation
experiences, with the most common areas impacted including self-
confidence (78%), self-esteem (70%), and friendships (42%). Moreover,
35% of participants reported that being cyberbullied negatively impacted on
their school grades, 28% on their school attendance, and 19% on their
family relationships. However, only 6% of the sample in this study were
aged between 19 to 25 years, with majority of participants aged between 10
to 14 years (50%) or 15 to 18 years (42%). More recently, studies have
linked cyberbullying victimisation experiences to depressive symptomology
(e.g., Feinstein, Bhatia, & Davila, 2014; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). For
instance, Feinstein et al. (2014) examined the relationship between
cyberbullying victimisation, depression, and rumination in a sample of 565
undergraduate students and revealed that rumination mediated the
relationship between cyberbullying victimisation and depressive symptoms.
That is, cyberbullying victimisation was associated with increases in
rumination over time, which in turn were associated with increases in
35
depressive symptoms. Furthermore, Schenk and Fremouw (2012) reported

that cyberbullying victims between 18 to 24 years of age scored higher than
control participants on depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety, and paranoia,
and also frequently reported feeling frustrated, stressed, sad or hurt, angry,
and/or experienced difficulty concentrating as a result of experienced
cyberbullying victimisation.
Researchers have also studied the relationship between suicidal
ideation and cyberbullying victimisation. Indeed, there have been many
high-profile cases involving emerging adults taking their own lives due to
being cyberbullied (e.g., Tyler Clementi). This has been termed
‘cyberbullicide’ and refers to suicide influenced (directly or indirectly) by
experiences with online aggression (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Schenk and
Fremouw (2012) also reported that emerging adult victims endorsed
significantly more suicidal behaviours (suicidal planning/attempts and
frequency of suicidal ideations) than control participants. Moreover, Price
and Dalgleish (2010) found that 3% of young people reported having
suicidal thoughts and 2% self-harming behaviour as a result of
cyberbullying victimisation. These findings provide support for an
association between suicide behaviours and cyberbullying victimisation.
While these behaviours are extreme and do not represent the norm, their
gravity demands further exploration and understanding. Clearly,
cyberbullying victimisation is a significant concern when considering
emerging adults’ psychological and emotional outcomes (Tennant et al.,
2015). As such, it is crucial that further research is conducted regarding the
experience and impact of cyberbullying victimisation on emerging adults as
research on this population is limited (Barlett & Gentile, 2012).
While the type of negative psychological outcomes endorsed by
victims is similar for bullying and cyberbullying, past studies have reported
that the negative effects of cyberbullying victimisation are at least as severe
and if not more than traditional bullying (Beran & Li, 2008; Hinduja &
36
Patchin, 2007; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Mishna,
Saini, & Solomon, 2009; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). For instance, Tennant
et al. (2015) reported that experiencing either cyberbullying victimisation
alone or in combination with traditional victimisation, may be a better
predictor of depression than experiencing traditional victimisation alone.
However, it is important to consider the frequency and/or the type of attack
(e.g., photo posted publicly, text message, impersonation) as this may
influence the psychological impact on the victim.
When distinguishing between the different types of cyberbullying,
some researchers have found that incidences involving pictures or video
clips were considered worse by the victims (Bauman & Newman, 2013;
Menesini et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2008). In particular, Bauman and
Newman (2013) found that sharing of naked pictures was perceived to be
the most distressing type of cyberbullying in a sample of 17 to 25-year-old
university students. The authors suggest that this may be attributed to
betrayal of trust and humiliation, especially if the photo is publicly
accessible. Similarly, Menesini et al. (2011) found that the posting of
embarrassing pictures was the worst form of cyberbullying for Italian
adolescents. Smith et al. (2008) also reported that photo/video clip bullying
was perceived as having a greater negative impact compared to traditional
forms of bullying, while other behaviours as having equal impact to
traditional bullying (e.g., text message bullying), or less of an impact (e.g.,
email bullying). Although email bullying was considered as less harmful,
this information was obtained from an adolescent sample. Emails may not
be used as much by children and adolescents in comparison to populations
that are older, who may use this form of electronic communication for
university and work. Therefore, the impact of certain types of cyberbullying
may vary across age groups.
Other factors that can escalate the severity of the impact on victims
can be attributed to the ubiquity of different technologies where those that
37
engage in cyberbullying are not restrained by time or space and can use
multiple media platforms (e.g., photos, videos) and mediums (e.g., email,
SNSs, websites) to target their victims (Li, 2007; Willard, 2007).
Technological permanency of material and constant availability of victims
can also exacerbate the negative impact on cyberbullying victims. This is
because there is potential for the act to reach larger audiences as some types
of cyberbullying (e.g., text, images and videos) can be downloaded, shared,
forwarded, and saved by many people to look at and talk about them as
much as they like (Dredge et al., 2014; Langos, 2012; Slonje & Smith,
2008; Smith et al., 2008). This means that for the victim of these behaviours
the experience can be re-lived over and over again as they too can revisit the
act, potentially contributing to a prolonged sense of victimisation. It can
also leave victims with a feeling of uncertainty as to whether the humiliating
or mean text or images are still circulating amongst other technology users
or will be reposted in the future (McGrath, 2009).
Furthermore, unlike traditional bullying, perpetrators can remain
anonymous or experiment with different identities. This anonymity can lead
to disinhibition, whereby people tend to say or do hurtful acts online that
they would not usually do in person (Willard, 2005). This may be due to
feeling protected by their anonymity in cyberspace and that there will be no
negative consequences to their actions (Willard, 2005). For instance,
Raskaukas and Stoltz (2007) stated that cyberbullies were physically and
emotionally removed from their victims and therefore did not experience the
impact of their actions (i.e., disinhibition effect). This suggested that normal
behavioural restraints can become lost or disregarded when communicating
through technology. It can also mean that there is a lack of immediate verbal
and non-verbal feedback from both parties. Without this feedback empathy
is lowered and communication can be ambiguous and wrongly interpreted
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). A lack of feedback can also lead to
38
friends and bystanders being less aware of victimisation and as a result, less
likely to provide support or to intervene (Holfeld, 2014).
Despite a great deal of research highlighting the negative
psychological and emotional impacts associated with cyberbullying
victimisation, it is important to note that researchers have also reported that
some victims are not bothered by cyberbullying (e.g., Ortega et al., 2012;
Topcu, Erdur-Barker, & Capa-Aydin, 2008). For example, in a study by
Topcu et al. (2008) the most frequent reaction (34.6%) of victims was that
cyberbullying did not bother them as they believed it had been a joke and
24.4% said they felt nothing towards the event. Similarly, Patchin and
Hinduja (2006) reported that 44% of victims felt unaffected by their
cyberbullying experiences. Ortega et al. (2012) clustered “non affect
victims” and found that 21.9% reported not being bothered by mobile phone
bullying and 31.5% reported not feeling bothered by Internet bullying.
Qualitative data in a study conducted by Crosslin and Crosslin (2014) also
captured the views and responses of individuals who have not been
negatively affected by cyberbullying victimisation. For example, two
participants who were unaffected by a cyberbullying event said “they
couldn’t care less about what was said.” Other participants also not
impacted by a cyberbullying event mentioned that they viewed the situation
in a positive light or chose to rise above it. However, it is unclear whether
these individuals themselves consider the incident to be cyberbullying as
they were not harmed by it, or whether they consider to it be cyberbullying
but do not identify as a victim. Hence, greater focus on victims’ perceptions
of cyberbullying and the effect this may or may not have on them is needed.
There is no question that cyberbullying is a serious and growing
problem among emerging adults and can influence a victim’s psychological
adjustment. However, the reasons for the disparity amongst studies
regarding the impact of cyberbullying victimisation remain unclear. To
understand the variation in reactions in response to cyberbullying, how
39
victims cope with cyberbullying has been examined to explain why some
individuals suffer from severe adverse reactions whilst others are resilient in
the face of cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Huynh, 2015).
Coping with Cyberbullying

An important factor that can influence the impact of cyberbullying
victimisation is how an individual copes with being targeted (Raskauskas &
Huynh, 2015). Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioural strategies a
person employs to manage stress (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). The ways in which individuals cope with cyberbullying
have been investigated by researchers with the focus typically on the use of
traditional coping styles or general responses to stress such as problem-
focused or emotional-focused coping or on cyber-specific technological
solutions to deal with cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007; Na, Dancy, &
Park, 2015; Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012; Raskauskas & Huynh,
2015; Smith et al., 2008; Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013).
For instance, researchers have used Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)
Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC) as a theoretical model
where coping behaviours can be grouped into problem-focused coping and
emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping refers to actively seeking
to change and control a stressful situation, whereas emotion-focused coping
refers to changing or regulating one’s emotions that resulted from the
stressor (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Many other dimensions of coping such
as Roth and Cohen’s (1986) approach and avoidance coping, can be
considered as conceptually similar to problem-focused and emotion-focused
coping. For example, approach in their model refers to an attempt to
actively change the stressor, like with problem-focused coping, whereas
avoidance coping, which can sometimes be considered a form of emotion-
focused coping, refers to suppressing or denying the stressor (Roth &
Cohen, 1986).
40
These coping styles are general approaches to coping with stress that
have been frequently applied to the cyberbullying literature, which is based
on the assumption that how people cope with stress in general is consistent
with how they cope with cyberbullying behaviours (e.g., Machmutow,
Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012; Völlink et al., 2013). Previous research
examining the two coping styles has found that individuals who use
problem-focused coping in response to stress tend to have more positive and
adaptive outcomes. In contrast, individuals using emotion-focused or
avoidance strategies are likely to experience poorer adjustment and
maladaptive outcomes (Carver et al., 1989; Lewis & Frydenberg, 2002).
Furthermore, past research in cyberbullying has revealed that individuals
who report using more emotion-focused coping to deal with stress also
employ these strategies to deal with cyberbullying (Machmutow et al.,
2012; Völlink et al., 2013). Similarly, cyberbullying victims who use
emotional-focused coping strategies such as self-blame or emotional
expression tend to report low wellbeing (Lodge & Frydenberg, 2007),
depressive feelings, and health complaints (Machmutow et al., 2012). This
coping style is often used when the situation is perceived as less changeable
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Völlink et al., 2013). However, a common
limitation of these studies is that the focus has been on coping usage, where
other underlying processes or mechanisms that may influence the selection
of particular coping responses and the level of psychological distress
experienced have often been neglected.
Technological solutions, also known as cyber-specific coping
strategies, have been viewed as conceptually distinct from general stress and
coping strategies such as those associated with Lazarus and Folkman’s
(1984) TMSC. These cyber-specific coping strategies differ in terms of their
focus on the use of technological tools or solutions provided by
technological providers (e.g., social media, email, Internet, apps) to prevent
41
or intervene in cyberbullying and related behaviours (Topcu-Uzer &

Tanrıkulu, 2018).
Indeed, many of the studies in this area have reported technological
solutions to be considered helpful in dealing with cyberbullying (e.g., Bryce
& Fraser, 2013; Slonje et al., 2013). Specifically, Agatston et al. (2007)
conducted focus groups where participants who suggested blocking the
sender, deleting nasty text messages, or ignoring the cyberbullying
behaviour as strategies for dealing with cyberbullying, rather than
responding to the perpetrator as it could potentially encourage retaliation.
Similar to Agatston et al.’s findings, Smith et al. (2008) found that the most
popular way to cope with cyberbullying is by blocking and avoiding
messages. However, two qualitative studies have reported an associated
pessimism surrounding the various coping responses, as participants tend to
perceive little or no way to prevent or reduce cyberbullying (Šléglová &
Cerná, 2011; Smith et al., 2008). Participants believe technological
strategies do not work permanently or are insufficient in combatting
cyberbullying (Šléglová & Cerná, 2011). For example, adolescent
participants reported that perpetrators created a new account as soon as their
profile was blocked or deleted. Participants also described frustrations with
the “report” button and that it was not successful as administrators often did
not respond or it did not work permanently (Šléglová & Cerná, 2011).
However, despite knowing some of the coping styles or responses
individuals use to cope with stressful situations such as cyberbullying, these
strategies only focus on how individuals cope with cyberbullying, which
accounts for some but not all of the variance in distress (Na et al., 2015).
Rather, there may be other variables or individual differences that further
explain the more severe reactions experienced by some victims of
cyberbullying which need more exploration.
42
Cyberbullying and Individual Differences

As mentioned previously, cyberbullying victimisation has been
shown to be associated with various psychological problems such as
anxiety, depression, psychosomatic issues (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Schenk
& Fremouw, 2012), suicidal ideation, and self-harm (Hinduja & Patchin,
2010; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). However, while some targets of
cyberbullying experience severe negative reactions, others do not. Despite
explorations of differences in psychological distress focusing on the
cyberbullying event itself and the strategies employed to cope with one’s
experience of this, there has been limited research examining the role of
other variables or individual differences. Past researchers have suggested
that other pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities or cognitive distortions
are important factors to understand individual differences in coping strategy
selection and the severity of the effects experienced (Bonanno & Hymel,
2013; Schenk & Fremouw; 2012). Although studies have looked at the role
of surface level cognitions and appraisals, few have examined cognitions at
a more stable and deeper level of schemas or core beliefs in the context of
cyberbullying (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Na et al., 2015; Raskauskas &
Huynh, 2015; Vollink et al., 2010). As such, more attention needs to be paid
to core beliefs about one’s self and his or her perception of events which can
be captured by early maladaptive schemas (EMSs; Young et al., 2003).
EMSs are relevant when examining variations in psychological
distress among victims of cyberbullying as certain EMSs can become
activated by stressful situations such as cyberbullying. When these EMSs
are activated they can influence a person’s interpretation of events, their
perception of themselves and others, and the coping responses employed.
Moreover, according to Young et al. (2003), EMSs play a key role in the
development and maintenance of many psychological disorders and have
been linked to depression (Harris & Curtin, 2002; Welburn et al., 2002),
various anxiety disorders (Pinto-Gouveia et al., 2006; Welburn et al., 2002),
43
college adjustment (Cecero et al., 2008), and personality disorders (Jovev &
Jackson, 2004; Nordahl, Holthe, & Haugum, 2005). Worthy of mention is
that EMSs have been shown to be prevalent among emerging adults in the
general population, and it is this developmental period when the effects of
EMSs become most noticeable and dysfunctional (Cámara & Calvete, 2012;
Walburg, Paez, Henin, & Leroux, 2008). Surprisingly though, only one
other study has focused on EMSs in a cyberbullying context, where EMSs
were found to be a consequence of adolescent cyberbullying victimisation
and also lead to the development and exacerbation of depression symptoms
(Calvete, Orue, & Gámez-Guadix, 2016). As such, it will be argued in this
thesis that EMSs provide one mechanism for explaining the more severe
outcomes associated with cyberbullying that effect some emerging adult
victims of cyberbullying. Since research on cyberbullying has been
conducted largely in the absence of theoretical foundations (Kokkinos,
Baltzidis, & Xynogala, 2016), EMSs in the context of Young et al.’s (2003)
schema theory will be examined in the next chapter and its applications to a
cyberbullying context explained.
Chapter Summary
Currently there is a lack of consensus on a definition of
cyberbullying. Most of the research on cyberbullying has nevertheless
utilised adapted versions of the traditional bullying definition, in which
intent to harm, repetition, and power imbalance are key components. There
are, however, some important differences when applying these components
from traditional bullying to cyberbullying. Current definitions of
cyberbullying have also primarily been based on the perspectives of
researchers’ views where the key components of such definitions assume a
perpetrator’s perspective. However, past research has reported that lay
definitions of cyberbullying often differ from researchers’ definitions.
44
Since there is no unequivocal definition of cyberbullying,

researchers have found the term difficult to operationalise. Despite this,
research in this area has predominately employed self-report questionnaires,
which have been normed on adolescent samples, and analysed using
quantitative statistics. The prevalence rates have also varied across the
different age groups and this is partly due to the issues with the definition.
There is also limited research on emerging adults, even though
cyberbullying has been shown to occur with similar frequency to that of
younger age groups. As such, the first study will conduct focus groups to
address the lack of research and consensus on the definition of
cyberbullying and its associated behaviours.
Cyberbullying has also been shown to be associated with various
psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, psychosomatic issues,
suicidal ideation, and self-harm (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Juvonen &
Gross, 2008; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012). However, while some victims
experience severe negative reactions in response to cyberbullying, others do
not. Past research has examined some of the ways in which individuals cope
with being cyberbullied, though this has not fully explained variations in
psychological distress in victims of cyberbullying. Other variables or
individual differences, such as EMSs may provide a better explanation as to
why there are differences in psychological distress. EMSs are important to
consider in the context of cyberbullying as they are prevalent during
emerging adulthood and can be activated by stressful events such as
cyberbullying. EMSs can also influence a person’s perception of themselves
and others as well as the use of certain coping styles, and are linked with
various and severe negative outcomes.
45
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ON CYBERBULLYING, EARLY
MALADAPTIVE SCHEMAS, COPING STYLES, AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES AMONG EMERGING
ADULTHOOD
Introduction
Chapter 3 extends on Chapter 2 by attempting to further explain why
some victims of cyberbullying experience more severe negative reactions
than others. Coping styles examined in the cyberbullying literature, namely,
general coping styles (e.g., problem-focused and emotion-focused coping)
and cyber-specific technological coping solutions, were presented in
Chapter 2 where previous research has proposed that how targets cope with
cyberbullying behaviours is one factor that can account for variations in
psychological distress. However, there has been limited research that has
examined individual differences such as early maladaptive schemas
(EMSs), which may better explain the more severe adverse reactions
experienced by some victims of cyberbullying behaviours. This chapter will
discuss the concept of EMSs associated with Young et al.’s (2003) schema
theory and highlight how this concept applies to cyberbullying. In
particular, this chapter will begin by describing the origins, definition, and
measurement of EMSs, including conceptual and empirical work conducted
on the structure of EMSs. The relationships between EMSs and
psychological distress will be discussed. This chapter will also introduce
three coping styles commonly used in response to EMS activation, which is
in contrast to the coping styles presented in Chapter 2 that focus on coping
with cyberbullying behaviours. Lastly, the structure of Young et al.’s (2003)
theoretical model will be outlined and its relevance in a cyberbullying
context highlighted. This chapter will conclude by proposing a model that
46
will examine the effects of EMSs on psychological distress and whether

coping moderates the relationships between EMSs and psychological
distress. Here it is argued that being on the receiving end of cyberbullying
can activate EMSs and this can lead to psychological distress. However,
depending on how a person copes with EMS activation in response to a
recent episode of cyberbullying can either exacerbate or weaken this
relationship. The proposed model will be tested in Chapter 7.
The Origins of Early Maladaptive Schemas

The concept of “schema” has been used in many different disciplines
such as computer programming, mathematics, and education, but has a long
history in psychology, particularly in cognitive psychology (e.g., Bartlett,
1932), cognitive development (e.g., Piaget, 1952), and attachment theory
(e.g., Bowlby, 1969). Although definitions for schemas vary in relation to
whether these cognitive structures are accessible or inaccessible, it is
generally agreed upon that they are a cognitive framework that represent a
cluster of related cognitions and emotions; and that they provide individuals
with a template or outline for making sense of themselves, the behaviour of
others, and events in their world (Beck & Freeman, 1990; Riso & McBride,
2007). While schemas can be highly adaptable and changeable during
childhood, they tend to become a stable set of core beliefs or static
structures by emerging adulthood (Young et al., 2003). For many, schemas
are adaptive and useful as they are in line with reality or can accommodate
new experiences (i.e., appropriately applied and/or in proportion to life
events). For others, schemas can distort reality or assimilate reality to fit
preconceptions even when it is not meaningful to do so (i.e., it is
inappropriately applied and/or disproportionate to life events), and this can
contribute to psychopathology (Beck & Haigh, 2014).
In the context of cognitive therapy, therapeutic and clinical
interventions focus on identifying and altering dysfunctional schemas that
47
have a powerful influence over cognition and affect and lead to various
types of psychological distress (Beck, 1976). Notably, Aaron T. Beck
(1976) implicated cognitive schemas as a fundamental element in his theory
of emotional disorders. He views schemas as the psychological lens through
which an individual perceives his or her world and can explain why
different people interpret the same situation in different ways. Despite
cognitive schemas being central in the earliest writings of cognitive therapy,
the cognitive techniques and therapeutic approaches that later emerged
tended to address surface level cognitions, namely, automatic negative
thoughts (“I am…”) and conditional beliefs (“if…then” statements). In a
similar way, the psychotherapy protocols that developed tended to be short
term. Relatively less attention was paid to the deeper underlying processes
of schemas, which heavily influence negative automatic thoughts and
conditional beliefs (Young et al., 2003).
A number of authors have returned recently to Beck’s (1976)
original notion of cognitive schemas when examining psychopathology. For
instance, Jeffery Young, the pioneer of schema therapy (ST), built on
Beck’s model by focusing on a subset of common EMSs and on coping
styles and behaviours which develop as a response to these maladaptive
schemas (Young et al., 2003). Like Beck, Young postulated that EMSs are
pervasive, negative, cognitive patterns surrounding one’s core self-concept
and underlie psychopathology. EMSs have been heavily studied in clinical
populations where these schemas become exaggerated and extreme, though
are indeed present in non-clinical populations (Young et al., 2003).
Surprisingly there is a limited amount of research on the effects of EMSs in
victims of cyberbullying, where these schemas can potentially explain some
of the variation in psychological distress. As mentioned, there is also only
one study to date that has examined EMSs in adolescent cyberbullying
victims (Calvete et al., 2016) but none in this area among the emerging
48
adult population, where these schemas start to become dysfunctional and

stable (Young et al., 2003).
Young et al.’s (2003) Early Maladaptive Schemas

EMSs have been defined as “Broad, pervasive themes comprised of
memories, emotions, cognitions, and bodily sensations regarding oneself
and one's relationship with others, developed during childhood and
elaborated throughout one's lifetime, and dysfunctional to a significant
degree” (Young et al., 2003, p. 7). Young et al. (2003) noted that these
schemas develop when specific core childhood needs are not met due to
adverse early life experiences particularly within the family environment or
with other children. In this regard, Young et al. focused more on the
developmental and social origins of these schemas compared to Beck’s
(1976) schema theory, postulating that there are four conditions in early
childhood that facilitate the development of maladaptive schemas. The first
instance that engenders schemas is toxic frustration of needs in which there
is an absence of stability, understanding, or love in the child’s early
environment. The second is traumatization or victimisation experiences
where the child is harmed or victimised. The third instance where schemas
are created is when the child is overindulged and experiences “too much of
a good thing” in the extremes rather than in moderation with experiences of
autonomy and realistic limits. The fourth type is selective internalisation or
identification with significant others, whereby the child takes on the
thoughts, feelings, behaviours and experiences of a parent.
Although it is common that schemas develop due to trauma
experienced during childhood, schemas can also develop later on in life in
response to other life experiences, or earlier developed schemas can become
elaborated. For instance, as the individual transitions from adolescence to
adulthood he or she may experience victimisation from peers, work
colleagues, or with romantic partners. These adverse experiences may lead
49
to the development of maladaptive schemas. However, in their clinical work

Young et al. (2003) found that schemas developed post childhood were
generally not as pervasive or as powerful than in those formed during
childhood. Despite this, Young et al. (2003) argued that regardless of the
aetiology of such schemas, they are generally caused by repetitive toxic
experiences.
Young et al. (2003) also posited that EMSs are dimensional and that
they vary in terms of their severity and pervasiveness. For instance,
individuals with higher levels of schemas, such as those who endured
frequent and ongoing criticism early in life, can experience schemas being
activated more easily. This is often associated with higher and more extreme
negative emotions that are longer lasting. On the other hand, individuals
with lower levels of EMSs, such as individuals who experienced criticism
later in life that were occasional and milder, is often associated with less
schema activation and less negative emotions. For example, an individual
with a high level of the defectiveness/ shame schema might experience
strong feelings of shame or humiliation precipitated by an unflattering photo
of themselves posted online by someone else. In contrast, another individual
with the same but less severe schema may react with only minor
embarrassment. The key difference is the different level of EMS that signify
different core belief about the self and others. It should also be noted that
EMSs can remain dormant in a supportive environment, though individuals
are still vulnerable to schema activation and psychopathology if faced with
certain stressful situations.
Overall, EMSs can be developed during childhood or even later on
in life, where repetitive and/or toxic experiences such as peer or
cyberbullying victimisation can affect one’s core beliefs about themselves,
others, and their environment. Indeed, cyberbullying victimisation
experiences can be sources of stress that activate (and even reinforce or
elaborate) these schemas and lead to psychological distress. However,
50
despite this, there has been an absence of research that has examined EMSs
associated with Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory in the context of
cyberbullying. Therefore, this research will be the first to investigate the
presence of EMSs in a sample of emerging adult victims of cyberbullying.
Measuring Early Maladaptive Schemas

It is widely accepted that the assessment of schemas is highly useful
for research and therapy, in which certain core beliefs can be identified and
corrected to reduce psychological distress (Sheffield & Waller, 2012;
Young et al., 2003). Yet, there has been limited research investigating and
assessing the schema construct in comparison to surface level cognitions
such as negative automatic thoughts. This can be attributed to different
definitions of schemas which vary as to whether schemas are conscious or
unconscious structures and thus accessible through self-report methods
(Sheffield & Waller, 2012). For instance, it has been generally argued that
the existence of schemas can be very difficult to measure because they are
thought to reside at a deep level of processing and are largely inaccessible to
conscious awareness (Sheffield & Waller, 2012; Young, 1990). In this
regard, it is assumed that information-processing tasks would be the most
appropriate way to detect latent or dormant schemas, especially when
primed for activation, and this is potentially less biased then other methods
(e.g., self-report; Oei & Baranoff, 2007; Riso et al., 2006). However,
according to Welburn et al. (2002) this method is not without its limitations
as implementation and assessment are considered more time-consuming for
use in clinical practice. Rather a self-report measure of EMSs has been
argued as more appropriate in this context (Sheffield & Waller, 2012;
Welburn et al., 2002).
Although some researchers assume that schemas can only be
assessed with unconscious information-processing tasks, other researchers
propose there will be periods of awareness of the schema, such as when the
51
schema is activated and results in intense negative thoughts, emotions, and

memories (Oei & Baranoff, 2007; Riso et al., 2006; Welburn et al., 2002).
This provides an opportunity to operationalise schema activation. For
example, victims of cyberbullying behaviours who have activated
defectiveness/ shame schemas may scan their world for evidence that they
are defective or flawed in some way and this process can influence their
interactions and relationships with others. It is likely that the victims would
be aware of their deep feelings of defectiveness or shame, especially if the
schema operates at the more extreme end and results in ongoing distress in
certain experiences or interactions with others. Thus, it appears that EMSs
contain underlying themes of emotions and memories that can be assessed
and identified with self-report instruments. In an attempt to measure EMSs,
Young (1990) developed a taxonomy of EMSs based on his therapeutic
insights with his clients and also created the Young Schema Questionnaire
(YSQ; Young & Brown, 2005) to capture the verbal content of these
specific EMSs. This means that EMSs are accessible structures that reside in
a level of conscious awareness. As such, a strength of being able to employ
self-report surveys are that EMSs can now be empirically examined in
research and practice (Riso et al., 2006).
The Structure of Early Maladaptive Schemas

Conceptual models. At present, Young et al. (2003) have identified
18 EMSs, which the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-L3) or its short
form (YSQ-SF3) are designed to measure. Based on Young and colleagues’
clinical experiences and observations, these 18 schemas have conceptually
and traditionally been grouped into five schema domains reflecting distinct
themes related to unmet core emotional needs. These domains, and the
schemas conceptually grouped within these domains, will be discussed in
detail below.
52
Domain 1: Disconnection and rejection. The disconnection/

rejection domain comprises five EMSs, which relate to unmet basic needs
for love, safety, stability, nurturance, empathy, and acceptance. The
maladaptive schemas in this first domain are abandonment/ instability
schema (a belief that significant others will not be available for support or
protection due to being either unreliable, unstable, or they will abandon or
die); mistrust/ abuse schema (a belief that people will abuse, intentionally
harm, humiliate, or take advantage of them if given the chance); emotional
deprivation schema (a belief that no one cares about them, no one will listen
or understand them, or no one to help or guide them); defectiveness/ shame
schema (a belief that one is fundamentally flawed and if these flaws were
exposed they will be unlovable); and social isolation/ alienation schema (a
belief that one does not belong, is different from others, and feels alienated
or excluded from a community or group). These schemas tend to develop
early on in life in environments that are detached, cold, rejecting, lonely, or
abusive. The first four schemas in this domain are argued to be the most
powerful and damaging of all 18 maladaptive schemas (Young et al., 2003).
Domain 2: Impaired autonomy and performance. The second
domain, impaired autonomy and performance, refers to beliefs that interfere
with one’s perceived ability and expectations to function independently and
separate from significant others. Schemas in this domain tend to emerge
when the early family environment is enmeshed and overprotective.
Schemas in this domain are dependence/ incompetence schema (a belief that
one is unable to cope with everyday responsibilities without significant help
from others); vulnerability to harm and illness schema (exaggerated
thoughts/ fears that harm or a catastrophe will strike at any moment and will
be unable to cope); enmeshment/ underdeveloped self-schema (feeling
overly reliant with a parent figure to the point where it is detrimental to their
full individualisation and social development; and failure schema (a belief
53
that one is inept and will fail in all areas such as school and career, and is
inadequate compared to peers).
Domain 3: Impaired limits. Impaired limits, the third domain,
relates to a lack of self-discipline and incapability of controlling impulses
and setting limits or goals. This domain includes the entitlement/
grandiosity schema (a belief that they are better than others, are demanding
and dominating, feel entitled to special privileges and do not have to follow
rules, tend to have little respect for others and lack empathy) and insufficient
self-control/ self-discipline schema (become frustrated easily and lack self-
control, making it difficult to achieve personal goals or repress excessive
expression of emotions or impulses). These schemas tend to develop in
early family environments that are characterised by overindulgence,
permissiveness, and lack supervision and discipline.
Domain 4: Other-directedness. The fourth domain, other-
directedness, refers to excessive attention on trying to gain approval and
meeting the needs and desires of others at the expense of one’s own needs.
Schemas in this domain tend to develop when early childhood conditions
are based on conditional positive regard, whereby the child has to suppress
their thoughts, feelings, and own needs in order to gain love, acceptance,
and approval. The schemas in this domain are subjugation schema (one
feels forced to suppress their desires or emotional responses in order to
avoid aversive outcomes such as abuse or abandonment); self-sacrifice
schema (voluntary meeting the needs of others to gain self-esteem, avoid
guilt, or to maintain a connection); and approval-seeking/ recognition-
seeking schema (excessive preoccupation of appearance in order to gain
approval or recognition from others in the hope to gain a secure sense of
self).
Domain 5: Over-vigilance and inhibition. Lastly, individuals with
schemas in the fifth domain, over-vigilance and inhibition, usually strive to
meet rigid internal standards at the expense of playfulness, self-expression,
54
and relaxation. Schemas in this domain typically develop when early family
conditions are cold, punitive, very controlling and demanding, and lack self-
expression. The schemas in this domain include negativity/ pessimism
schema (a belief that negative things will happen to them, with little focus
on the positive aspects and tend to always worry, complain, be indecisive,
and hypervigilant); emotional inhibition schema (suppress their actions,
feelings, and communication to prevent being criticised or losing control of
their impulses and often present as flat, constricted, withdrawn, or cold);
punitiveness schema (the thought that they should be punished for making
mistakes and have trouble forgiving themselves and others for mistakes);
and unrelenting standards/ hypercriticalness schema (high internal
standards to avoid disapproval but results in feelings of constant pressure
and hypercriticalness towards oneself or others). Young et al. (2003) note
that for the last schema to be considered an EMS it must cause significant
impairment in a person’s health such as self-esteem, relationships, and
experience of pleasure.
Empirically derived models. There have been different versions of
the YSQ developed over the past 20 years, including longer ones that range
from 123 items (YSQ-L1; Young 1990) to 205 items (YSQ-L2; Young &
Brown, 1994) measuring 15 to 16 schemas respectively (a schema of social
undesirability was added to the later version), which can be grouped into
five schema domains.
In a first attempt to investigate the factor structure of the EMSs
proposed by Young (1990), Schmidt, Joiner, Young, and Telch (1995)
examined the YSQ-L2 in undergraduate student and clinical samples. The
student sample (N = 1129) was separated into two groups. Using a Principal
Components Analysis (PCA) the first student sample (n = 575) identified 15
of the hypothesised 16 schemas, with the social undesirability schema (i.e.,
perception of being unwanted or isolated due to being outwardly
unattractive to others) not emerging as a factor. Items intended to measure
55
social undesirability instead loaded on the defectiveness scale. In addition,

two other factors emerged, money worries (containing items from the
vulnerability to harm/ illness subscale), and loss of control fears (containing
items from the emotional inhibition subscale). To validate this factor
structure, in a second sample of students (n = 554) 13 of the 17 schemas that
were found in the first sample were reproduced. In addition, among the
complete undergraduate sample, 12 of the schemas were found to cluster on
3 higher-order schema domains, namely, disconnection (emotional
deprivation, abandonment, mistrust, defectiveness, emotional inhibition,
fear of losing control); overconnection (dependence, vulnerability,
enmeshment, failure); and exaggerated standards (unrelenting standards,
self-sacrifice). The schema insufficient self-control loaded on all three
factors. Similar to the student sample, the clinical sample identified 15 of
the 16 hypothesised schemas, with the social undesirability schema also not
emerging as a factor. However, in the second student sample, three of the
schemas (social isolation, subjugation, entitlement) merged with other
schemas (emotional deprivation, dependence, insufficient self-control),
though were found to be independent factors in the clinical sample.
Moreover, Lee, Taylor, and Dunn (1999) replicated this study in an
Australian clinical sample (N = 433) and found 16 EMS factors, 15 of which
corresponded to factors found in Schmidt et al.’s (1995) clinical sample and
to Young’s (1990) hypothesised schemas. As in Schmidt et al.’s samples,
the social undesirability factor did not emerge. A higher-order factor
analysis indicated four factors: disconnection (abandonment, defectiveness,
emotional deprivation, emotional constriction, mistrust, and social
isolation); impaired autonomy (dependency, enmeshment, failure,
subjugation, and vulnerability); impaired limits (entitlement and fear of loss
of control); and over control (self-sacrifice and unrelenting standards). This
factor structure is similar to the solution found in Schmidt et al.’s study,
56
though the differences can be attributed to a clinical sample being used in

Lee et al.’s study as opposed a student sample.
In contrast, Rijkeboer and van den Bergh (2006) conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the Dutch version of the YSQ-L2 on
clinical (n = 172) and non-clinical (n = 162) samples. The results from both
samples supported the 16 factor structure (including social undesirability) as
originally hypothesised by Young (1990).
In addition to the long version of the YSQ, a shorter version was
introduced for faster administration and research purposes (Young et al.
2003) and has shown to have similar psychometric properties and
comparable clinical utility to the long version (Waller, Meyer, & Ohanian,
2001). The first iteration contained 75 items and measured 15 schemas,
which could also be grouped into five schema domains (YSQ-SF; Young,
1998b). The social undesirability schema present in the revised long version
was dropped due to its failure to emerge as an independent factor in an
EFA. In particular, Baranoff, Oei, Cho, and Kwon (2006) investigated
cross-cultural differences in the factor structure and psychometric properties
of the 75-item YSQ-SF. An EFA and CFA for both the South Korean
sample and Australian sample revealed a 13-factor solution to be the best fit
for the data. However, the higher order structure of the schemas was not
examined.
Furthermore, Cui, Lin, and Oei, (2011) conducted an EFA and CFA
on the YSQ-SF in Chinese undergraduate students and found that of the 75
original items, 64 were retained in a model that formed 14 factors, with the
subjugation schema not emerging as an independent factor. The study
findings also revealed three higher-order factors. The first two were almost
consistent with Young et al.’s (2003) schema domains of impaired
autonomy and performance and disconnection and rejection, though the
abandonment schema loaded on the first factor (instead of disconnection
and rejection) and emotional inhibition schema loaded on the second
57
(instead of impaired autonomy and performance). A third factor combined

schemas from Young et al.’s (2003) third, fourth, and fifth domains.
Finally, not long after the YSQ-L2 and YSQ-SF were developed, the
current long version (232 items; YSQ-L3; Young, 2003) and its related
short version (90 items; YSQ-SF3; Young, 2005) were created to measure
all 18 schemas by adding in three proposed schemas: negativity/ pessimism,
approval seeking/ recognition seeking, and punitiveness. Although early
versions of the YSQ have been extensively tested, fewer studies have used
versions of the latest questionnaire (YSQ-SF3), with its three new EMSs.
For instance, one study has examined the factor structure of the YSQ-L3
(Saggino et al., 2018). An analysis of the Italian version of the YSQ-L3
found that a second-order model, whereby there are five first order factors
and a general second-order factor to be the preferred model for the
community and clinical groups (Saggino et al., 2018).
With regard to the short form, Soygut, Karaosmanoglu, and Cakir
(2009) examined the Turkish translation of the YSQ-SF3 and found 14 first-
order factors and five higher order factors that represented domains, though
their composition was quite different from the five domains proposed by
Young et al. (2003). In contrast, Saritaş and Gençö (2011) also examined the
higher-order structure of the YSQ-SF3 in a Turkish adolescent sample and
found three higher-order schema domains, named impaired autonomy-other
directedness, disconnection-rejection, and impaired limits-exaggerated
standards.
Hawke and Provencher (2012) conducted a CFA which confirmed
the first-order structure of 18 EMSs but failed to support the hypothesised
schema domains proposed by Young et al. (2003), with only three of five
models demonstrating a good fit. In addition, Calvete, Orue, and González-
Diez (2013) also provide support for the first-order structure of 18 EMS for
the Spanish translation of the YSQ-SF3. Three second-order schema
domains were reported, in which the first two domains: disconnection and
58
rejection and impaired autonomy and performance were almost identical to

Saritas and Gencoz (2011), with a third domain called impaired limits, which
mainly combines schemas from the overvigilance and inhibition and
impaired limits domains.
Sakulsriprasert, Phukao, Kanjanawong, and Meemon (2016)
investigated the factor structure of the Thai version of the YSQ-SF3. A CFA
confirmed the first-order structure of 18 EMSs but failed to support Young
et al.’s (2003) theoretical second-order schema domains. The authors
indicated a four-factor solution as the best alternative second-order model
for this population and this solution is very similar to the four-second order
model proposed in past studies (Hoffart et al., 2005; Lee et al., 1999). As
such, the YSQ-SF3 appears to provide consistent support for the existence
of 18 schemas, though mixed findings for the second-order structure of
schema domains.
Despite some uncertainty of the higher order factor structure of the
YSQ-SF3, various factor analytic studies provide evidence of overlap for
each of the different domains theorised by Young et al. (2003) with
empirically derived factors, with two commonly being disconnection and
rejection and impaired autonomy and performance domains. Gallagher and
Gardner (2007) examined the role of EMSs in injured athletes and included
both the five schema domains (hypothesised by Young et al., 2003) and a
three-factor empirically derived model (Calvete, Estévez, López de
Arroyabe, & Ruiz, 2005) and found similar results. Therefore, in the current
study, the structure of EMS at the individual and schema domain level will
be based on Young et al.’s theory.
The Relationship between Early Maladaptive Schemas and

Psychological Distress
The YSQ has enabled researchers and clinicians to explore the
relationship between various EMSs and symptoms of psychological distress
59
in a reliable and valid way. According to Young et al. (2003), EMSs are
present in both clinical and non-clinical populations and play a key role in
the development and maintenance of many psychological disorders. For
instance, EMSs have been linked to depression (Calvete et al., 2016; Harris
& Curtin, 2002; Welburn et al., 2002), various anxiety disorders (Pinto-
Gouveia et al., 2006; Welburn et al., 2002), college adjustment (Cecero et
al., 2008), and personality disorders (Jovev & Jackson, 2004; Nordahl,
Holthe, & Haugum, 2005).
Various past studies examining the relationship between EMSs and
psychological distress have employed the Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised
[SCL-90-R]; Derogatis, 1983) or its shorter form Brief Symptom Inventory
(BSI-53; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), in which there has been consistent
support of the factorial structure of General Severity Index (GSI) being an
optimal measure of overall psychological distress (Pereda, Forns, & Peró,
2007; Piersma, Boes, & Reaume, 1994). For instance, Glaser, Campbell,
Calhoun, Bates, and Petrocelli (2002) used SCL-90-R to assess
psychological distress as measured by GSI. All of the EMS subscales with
the exception of the entitlement schema were significantly correlated with
psychological distress. In particular, EMS subscales were found to predict
54% of the total variance in GSI scores. Similarly, Thimm (2017) found that
in a sample of university students that all EMSs and schema domains were
significantly related to psychological distress (GSI measured by the BSI-
53), though entitlement had a very weak significant correlation with
psychological distress (.16). Moreover, Kriston, Schäfer, Jacob, Härter, and
Hölze (2013) found that all 18 EMS subscales were significantly associated
with psychological distress (GSI as measured by the SCL-90-R), in which
correlations ranged from .28 (entitlement) to .65 (abandonment and
negativity/ pessimism).
Furthermore, in a sample of university students with an average age
of 19.2 years, Schmidt et al. (1995) found that vulnerability to harm and
60
illness, dependency, and insufficient self-control accounted for 54% of the

total variance in GSI as measured by the BSI. Harris and Curtin (2002)
reported that several EMSs (i.e., defectiveness/ shame, insufficient self-
control, incompetence/ inferiority, and vulnerability to harm and illness)
explained 63% of the variance of depressive symptoms (BDI-II; Beck,
Steer, & Brown, 1995) in a sample of university students with an average
age of 19.3 years. There has been less work examining the relationship
between the five schema domains and psychological distress, though
Calvete, Orue, and Hankin (2014) reported that out of Young et al.’s (2003)
original five schema domains, disconnection and rejection, impaired
autonomy and performance, and other-directedness are associated with
depressive and social anxiety symptoms in adolescent students.
The aforementioned studies support the notion that EMSs exist not
only within clinical samples but also non-clinical such as undergraduate
student samples, however few studies have included individuals within the
general population. Notably though, the results of these previous studies
(e.g., Calvete et al., 2015; Schmidt et al., 1995; Thimm, 2017) suggest that
schemas, while operating with differing levels of severity, may be
considered stable and maladaptive structures by emerging adulthood.
Currently there is no published research that has examined the
relationship between EMSs and psychological distress in emerging adult
victims of cyberbullying. This is surprising given that emerging adulthood
is considered a challenging time in identity formation, an age where EMSs
have been shown to be associated with psychological distress, and
cyberbullying is prevalent, meaning that this group is particularly vulnerable
to schema activation. EMSs may be particularly salient in cyberbullying
experiences as the intent behind the behaviour online can be more
ambiguous than face-to-face bullying. For instance, attributing intent is
relatively straightforward when the cues are clear, however in many social
situations such as in cyberbullying the motivations of the perpetrator can be
61
ambiguous and have to be inferred. The more ambiguous the scenario, the
more a person draws on his or her cognitive schemas and biases, such as
past experiences and memories to fill in this missing information (Bergin &
Bergin, 2018). Therefore, EMSs are especially relevant to the phenomenon
of cyberbullying, where EMSs may become activated and relied on when
interpreting online behaviours and communication with others.
Only one study to date has examined the role of EMSs in the
association between cyberbullying victimisation and depressive symptoms,
in a sample of Spanish adolescents (Calvete et al., 2016). The results
revealed that cyberbullying victimisation at Time 1 predicted a worsening of
body image and defectiveness/ shame and mistrust/ abuse schemas at Time
2, and those changes in schemas predicted in turn an increase in depressive
symptoms from Time 2 to Time 3. Although this study brings attention to
the relationships between EMSs and psychological distress in victims of
cyberbullying, it should be noted that Calvete et al. (2016) only included
two of the 18 EMSs (defectiveness/ shame and mistrust/ abuse schemas).
Furthermore, the strength of the correlations for these two EMSs were only
weak to moderately correlated with distress, which could be due to the
sample being adolescents where it is said that these schemas are still
developing. Thus, to add to the body of knowledge of EMSs in a
cyberbullying context, this thesis will examine relationships between all 18
EMSs as well as the five schema domains and psychological distress among
emerging adult victims of cyberbullying.
Despite numerous past studies reporting an association between
EMSs and psychological distress, how an individual copes with an activated
EMS is said to either exacerbate or weaken the negative effects experienced.
The coping styles used in response to schema activation is considered an
important element in schema theory, yet few studies have explored the
impact certain coping styles have on this relationship.
62
Schema Coping Styles

EMSs have received an increasing amount of attention from
researchers over the past decade. Yet a major limitation of the research in
this area has been the lack of emphasis on coping styles associated with
maladaptive schemas, despite the fact that how well one copes with
maladaptive schemas determines to what extent he or she experiences
psychological symptoms.
Based on his clinical observations, Young (1999) theorised three
coping styles in which individuals usually respond to stress and specifically
stress associated with the activation of maladaptive schemas. The schema
coping styles, namely schema surrender, schema avoidance, and schema
overcompensation, correspond to three basic responses to threat - freeze,
flight and fight, respectively. More specifically, surrender refers to accepting
the beliefs associated with a maladaptive schema to be true and becoming
passive in response to stress. Avoidance involves behaving in a manner that
ignores or avoids stress associated with schema activation. Lastly,
overcompensation refers to responding in the opposite manner to activation
of a maladaptive schema, such as by becoming very controlling, demanding,
or critical towards others in response to an activated defectiveness/ shame
schema. However, rather than weaken or heal the schemas, these coping
styles continue to maintain the schema, and thus can elaborate and/or
reinforce it (Young et al., 2003).
In order to assess the different ways in which his patients coped with
their EMSs, Young and Rygh (1994) created a 40-item Young-Rygh
Avoidance Inventory (YRAI) to measure schema avoidance, and Young
(1998a) developed a 48-item Young Compensatory Inventory (YCI), which
measured schema overcompensation. However, very few studies have
investigated the psychometric properties of these measures or even the
relationships between EMSs and coping styles. The primary function of
these coping scales has been to provide therapeutic insight in clinical
63
settings, rather than for operationalising coping styles in survey-based

research. Of the few studies that have examined the psychometric properties
of these inventories, different factor structures and reliability estimates have
been obtained (e.g., Luck, Waller, Meyer, Ussher, & Lacey, 2005; Mairet,
Boag, & Warburton, 2014; Sheffield, Waller, Emanuelli, Murray, & Meyer,
2009; Spranger, Waller, & Bryant-Waugh, 2001).
For instance, Spranger et al. (2001) tested the psychometric
properties of YRAI on bulimic and non-clinical women. As Young et al.
(2003) did not develop any formal subscales for the measures, the authors
coded the items according to whether the avoidance was cognitive,
behavioural, somatic or emotional. If items did not fit within these
categories they were eliminated. Analyses showed that the reliability was
satisfactory, but also higher when collapsing the behavioural and somatic
items together, and the cognitive and emotional avoidance items together.
However, this study used a priori grouping of items, rather than a factor
analysis. Similarly, the two YRAI subscales coded by Spranger et al. (2001)
were also found in a PCA conducted by Luck et al. (2005), though the
coefficient alpha values were lower in this study. It should be noted that
fewer items were included in the analysis compared to the number of items
included in Spranger et al.’s study. Luck et al. decided on the two subscales
based on a scree plot but noted that these accounted for a small percentage
of the variance and that the questionnaire may measure other avoidance
processes. The factor structure and psychometric properties of the YCI were
also assessed where three distinct and reliable factors: social control,
individuality, and personal control were revealed.
Karaosmanoğlu et al. (2013) tested the psychometric properties of
the Turkish version of the YCI on clinical and non-clinical populations
using PCA for comparison purposes with past studies (e.g., see Luck et al.,
2005). Several of the items were excluded from analyses prior to conducting
a factor analysis due to problematic item reliability scores. The final results
64
showed a different factor structure to Luck et al. (2005) whereby seven

subscales were derived reflecting status seeking, control, rebellion,
counterdependency, manipulation, intolerance to criticism, and egocentrism.
Given the important role of coping styles in Young et al.’s (2003) schema
model but poor psychometric properties associated with the YRAI and YCI,
the second study of this thesis will develop and validate new versions of the
avoidance and overcompensation coping scales in a non-clinical sample.
A practical limitation of these therapeutically-driven scales in a
research context is the number of items per scale. For instance, the YRAI
contains 40 items, whilst the YCI contains 48 items. According to
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012), scales that are effortful and
time consuming to complete may result in boredom, frustration,
disengagement and non-responses. Therefore, Study 2 will attempt to
reduce the number of items on the new schema coping scale, which will in
turn be tested for reliability and validity.
Currently, there is no specifically designed psychometric tool to
measure the coping style schema surrender, despite the fact that it is one of
the three coping styles proposed by Young (1999). Although Young et al.
(2003) posits that data for this construct can be captured from the YSQ,
there are no protocols or scoring procedures developed to calculate a
schema surrender score from the data on this measure. Moreover, there are
potential issues associated with validity contamination when the coping
score is derived from the same items as the schema score. As such, Study 2
of the thesis will construct items and develop a scale that measures schema
surrender.
It is important to note that while it has been argued that researchers
need to develop shorter but psychometrically sound measures of schema
avoidance, overcompensation, and surrender in order to have a better
understanding of the use of maladaptive coping styles in a non-clinical
population, it would also be valuable to develop and validate a measure of
65
adaptive coping behaviours. This is especially the case since previous scales
have been designed for a therapeutic context for individuals suffering from
personality or ongoing psychological disorders, and not for individuals who
may experience stress but are not clinically distressed. Thus, for some
individuals the experience of schema activation may be less overwhelming
and the person can respond to the activation of the schema in a healthier
manner (Young et al., 2003). Indeed, the inclusion of an adaptive scale may
also allow comparisons of maladaptive versus adaptive coping style usage
for individuals with activation of particular schemas. To this end, Study 2
will extend on Young et al.’s (2003) maladaptive schema coping styles of
avoidance, overcompensation, and surrender by also developing and
validating an adaptive schema coping measure.
In spite of the measurement issues regarding the schema coping
constructs, out of a small amount of past studies that have included the
schema coping styles proposed by Young et al. (2003), or at least other
similar coping styles, most have examined coping as a mediator of the
relationship between EMSs and psychological distress (Carlucci,
D’Ambrosio, Innamorati, Saggino, & Balsamo, 2018; Dozois, Martin, &
Faulkner, 2013; Orue et al., 2014; Rezaei, Ghazanfari, & Rezaee, 2016).
However, mediation assumes that the activated EMS determines which
coping styles or responses are enacted, and the use of those responses
accounts for the relation between EMSs and psychological distress. While
EMS activation may influence the use of maladaptive schema coping,
schemas do not cause an individual to cope in one of those three ways.
Moreover, these coping styles may not be fully responsible for the
relationship between schemas and psychological distress. Instead, Young et
al. suggested that a person may use different coping styles in response to the
same or different activated schemas and in different situations. In fact,
Young et al. hypothesised that EMS activation can be powerful and directly
related to psychological distress. However, the authors also assert that these
66
maladaptive coping responses may elaborate the core beliefs and exacerbate
the negative effects experienced. Therefore, the maladaptive coping styles
proposed by Young et al. may be viewed as moderator variables in the
relationships between EMS activation and psychological distress. To date,
there is limited, if any, research examining the three coping styles as
moderators of this relationship, despite being hypothesised to exacerbate
this relationship. It is beneficial to examine Young et al.’s theoretical model
to determine whether using higher levels or types of coping styles with a
particular schema may predict poorer outcomes than when using lower
levels of the same coping style or a different coping style. To this end, the
third study in this thesis will test Young et al.’s theoretical model, where it
will be the first to include measures of maladaptive (i.e., surrender,
avoidance, and overcompensation) and adaptive schema coping styles and
examine the moderating effect of these constructs.
Young et al.’s (2003) Schema Theory in the Context of Cyberbullying

Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory provides a new approach to the
cyberbullying literature which has been largely atheoretical in explaining
variations in psychological distress. Although some theoretical frameworks
have been applied in the past to explain these differences in psychological
distress, such as the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Na et al., 2015; Raskauskas & Huynh, 2015), the
coping strategies examined in this research have been in response to specific
stressors or stressful situations. However, this thesis acknowledges other
variables that may be relevant to cyberbullying such as EMSs, which may
further explain variations in psychological distress. It is also argued in this
thesis that it is important to take a more nuanced approach to coping as there
are certain coping responses individuals use in response to schema
activation, which differ to how individuals cope with stressors like
cyberbullying. Given this gap in the literature, Young et al.’s schema theory
67
will be applied to a cyberbullying context and may provide an alternative

explanation as to why there are variations in psychological distress in
victims of cyberbullying. Here, EMSs and how individuals specifically cope
with the activation of certain EMSs will be examined. The theoretical model
proposed by Young et al. (2003) is displayed in Figure 1 and consists of the
following sequence: (a) the detection of threat or a stressful situation that
may threaten the activation of one’s schemas; (b) activation of schemas that
resonate with the stressful situation; (c) enactment of certain coping styles
such as maladaptive coping responses; and (d) experience of psychological
distress, which may be exacerbated or weakened by the use of certain
coping responses. Each of the processes involved in the model and its
application to a cyberbullying context from the perspective of a victim are
outlined below.
Schema Coping Psychological

Stressful Event EMS Activation
Style Distress
Figure 1. Young et al.'s (2003) schema model
Threat/ stressful situation. Young et al. (2003) proposed that when

an individual is exposed to a stressful situation such as cyberbullying, this
may resonate with the relevant schema and activate it. For example, a
person who has had an unflattering or compromising photo of themselves
posted online for many people to see may have schemas activated from
within disconnection and rejection (Domain 1; e.g., mistrust/ abuse,
defectiveness/ shame, social isolation/ alienation). Other schema domains
may also be activated by cyberbullying, though no research has examined
this important area.
Schema activation. Once activated, EMSs can unleash strong
negative emotions, cognitions, and memories associated with the relevant
68
schema and influence a person’s interpretation of events and perception of

themselves and others. For example, a person with activated EMSs within
disconnection and rejection may result in the person feeling hypervigilant to
criticism and feel a deep sense of shame, rejection, self-hatred, and
insecurity related to their perceived flaws. As mentioned, schemas are
dimensional, meaning that they have different levels of intensity and
pervasiveness (Young et al., 2003). This may provide an explanation as to
why some victims experience severe adverse reactions in response to
cyberbullying that are very difficult to manage, while others are less
affected, possibly interpreting the incident as a joke or at least able to
manage their emotional reaction. The same (or different) cyberbullying
behaviour may also activate schemas within different domains for some
victims. For example, activated schemas relevant to impaired autonomy and
performance (Domain 2) may result in the victim being overly concerned
with fear that further cyberbullying will occur and cannot be prevented, or
that one is incompetent in relation to peers to cope with such an eventuality.
Moreover, activated schemas relevant to overvigilance and inhibition
(Domain 5) may result in the victim feeling hypercritical, pessimistic,
blaming of themselves for things going wrong, and worrying excessively.
Coping style. Schema activation is then said to drive individuals to
respond with a maladaptive coping style (i.e., surrendering, avoiding, or
overcompensating) in order to prevent strong negative emotions from
emerging (Young et al., 2003). For instance, if a victim overcompensates in
response to activated schemas within disconnection and rejection they might
try to appear perfect or impress others by attention or status seeking
behaviour to compensate for this core belief. It should be noted that,
although a person may rely on one of these strategies more so than the
others, Young et al. (2003) posits that these strategies are not specific to the
schema, meaning that individuals may use any one of these strategies in
response to different situations and with different or the same activated
69
schema. Despite EMSs being associated with psychological distress, in non-

clinical populations a person may be able to cope with the activation of an
EMS. If the schema operates at a more manageable level, some victims of
cyberbullying may be able to employ more healthy behaviours to cope with
the schema activation. For instance, where one victim may overcompensate
to evade the strong negative emotions activated by disconnection and
rejection, another victim may be able to ask for help from others or reframe
or challenge these beliefs with those that are more positive.
Psychological distress. Lastly, EMS activation can lead to
psychological distress for victims of cyberbullying, though the extent of this
relationship may depend on the coping style employed. The maladaptive
coping responses proposed by Young et al. (2003) are said to exacerbate the
effects experienced, whereas certain adaptive coping responses are said to
weaken the effects experienced (Young et al., 2003). For instance, the
person in the example above who overcompensates in response to activated
schemas within the disconnection and rejection domain might try to appear
perfect or impress others by attention or status seeking behaviour in order to
develop connection and acceptance so they do not feel rejected. However,
rather than this behaviour leading to acceptance by others, it may result in
the person being further criticised or ignored by others, and thus uphold the
belief that they are defective or different. As such, even though the aim of
the maladaptive coping styles is to evade the threat or stress of schema
activation, the three coping styles often serve to maintain the maladaptive
schema and in turn exacerbate the effects experienced. In contrast, if the
person is able to respond to the activation of schemas within the
disconnection and rejection domain with other more adaptive coping
responses such as seeking emotional support from others, this may weaken
the schema and the negative effects experienced.
70
Proposed Model for Empirical Testing

The moderation model to be tested in this thesis is illustrated in
Figure 2. The model posits that for victims of cyberbullying, recent
cyberbullying behaviours may activate EMSs. For victims, higher levels of
activated EMSs will be associated with higher levels of psychological
distress. However, at the same time activated EMSs might evoke efforts to
cope, with certain coping styles moderating the effects of activated EMSs
on psychological distress. That is, a moderating effect is typically expressed
as an interaction between the predictor and criterion variables, in which a
moderator is a variable that affects the strength and/or direction of an
association between these two variables (Dawson, 2014). In the present
study, based on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, it is argued that
maladaptive coping (i.e., surrender, avoidance or overcompensation) may
exacerbate the relationships between activated EMSs and psychological
distress, whereas adaptive coping may weaken these relationships.
Psychological
EMS Activation
Distress
Schema Coping
Style
Figure 2. The proposed moderation model based on Young et al.’s (2003)

schema theory
71
Chapter Summary
There has been limited research within cyberbullying that has
examined individual differences such as EMS, that may explain variations
in responses, and in particular the more severe reactions experienced by
some victims of cyberbullying. The concept of EMSs associated with
Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory provides a new approach to
cyberbullying research by focusing on the psychological lens through which
an individual perceives themselves and their world. This may explain why
different people might interpret and react to being cyberbullied in different
ways and with differing levels of psychological distress.
Young et al. (2003) have identified 18 EMSs, which the YSQ is
designed to measure. These 18 schemas have conceptually been grouped
into five schema domains reflecting distinct themes related to unmet core
emotional needs. The psychometric properties of the YSQ have been
extensively analysed with research documenting consistent evidence for
EMS at the individual level, but there is mixed evidence regarding the
higher order structure of the schema domains. Despite this, there is
considerable overlap between the five higher order schema domains
proposed by Young et al. and empirically derived higher order models,
which have resulted in similar findings when both factor structures were
used in the same study to test the relationships between variables.
EMSs have been shown to be consistently associated with
psychological distress and to play a key role in the development and
maintenance of many psychological disorders. One study to date has
examined EMSs in the context of cyberbullying, in which defectiveness/
shame and mistrust/ abuse schemas were found to exacerbate depressive
symptoms over time in adolescent cyberbullying victims (Calvete et al.,
2016). However, this study is limited in that it only included two of the 18
EMSs, in which schemas within other domains also appear to be relevant to
cyberbullying victimisation.
72
Moreover, a major limitation of the research in this area has been the
lack of emphasis on coping styles associated with maladaptive schemas,
despite the fact that how well one copes with maladaptive schemas
determines to what extent he or she experiences psychological symptoms.
This may be due to a number of limitations associated with these
therapeutically-driven scales when applied to a research context. It is also
important to note that Young et al.’s (2003) schema coping styles only
include responses considered to be maladaptive, as they were designed to
assess individuals in clinical settings. Inclusion of an adaptive schema
coping style and responses would be valuable since there is limited research
on EMSs among non-clinical populations. This would also allow
comparisons of maladaptive versus adaptive coping style usage for
individuals with activation of particular schemas. To address the gaps in
schema theory, a schema coping style inventory which specifically
measures surrender, avoidance, overcompensation, and adaptive schema
coping will be developed and validated in a sample of non-clinical adults.
In spite of the issues with the measurement of schema coping, a
handful of studies have examined relationships between EMSs, certain
coping styles (not necessarily those proposed by Young et al., 2003), and
psychological distress. However, in these studies coping was modelled as a
mediator variable between EMSs and psychological distress. Rather, an
alternative model where schema coping styles are represented as moderator
variables was proposed as based on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory
there is a direct relationship between EMSs and psychological distress but
certain schema coping styles can either exacerbate or weaken this
relationship. Moreover, while individuals may rely on certain coping styles
more than others, EMSs do not cause a person to cope in a certain way.
Instead, different coping styles can be used in response to the same or
different EMSs. As such, Young et al.’s theoretical model was presented
and its relevance outlined in the context of cyberbullying. The current
73
chapter ended by proposing a model that will examine the effects of EMSs
on psychological distress and whether coping moderates the relationships
between EMSs and psychological distress.
The next chapter will provide information about the methodology of
the thesis, including the thesis paradigm or worldview, mixed methods
framework adopted, an overview of each of the three studies, and how the
first two studies inform the third.
74
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS
Introduction
This chapter provides an outline of the worldview and the
overarching methodological approach for the thesis to explore cyberbullying
victimisation, early maladaptive schemas (EMSs), schema coping styles,
and psychological distress in emerging adults. In particular, an overview of
pragmatism, how it informs the current research, and the advantages of
using pragmatism as a worldview are discussed. The selection and
definition of a multiphase mixed methods research design follows, where
the importance of this approach and the data collection methods used in this
design are described. More specific detail of the aims, method, procedure,
and design of each study are provided in Chapters 5 through to 7.
Thesis Worldview
A worldview is a philosophical term used to describe beliefs and
assumptions about knowledge that underlies a study and the methodological
approach to be adopted (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods;
Creswell, 2014). A number of different worldviews (also known as
paradigms, epistemologies, and ontologies) are available, however three
have typically been used to inform mixed methods research, namely, post-
positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism (Creswell, 2014). Post-
positivism is often associated with quantitative approaches and contends
that reality is singular and therefore seeks to identify knowledge or truth
based on objective measurement and observations, cause and effect,
interrelations between variables, and testing of theories (Doyle, Brady, &
Byrne, 2009). Researchers of this worldview tend to adopt a “top” down
approach, such as selecting a theory, generating hypotheses, collecting and
75
analysing data and lastly, supporting, extending on, or contradicting the

theory (Creswell, 2014; Doyle et al., 2009).
On the other hand, constructivism is often associated with qualitative
approaches and states that reality is socially constructed, whereby
individuals or groups construct their own reality or truth, meaning there can
be multiple perspectives and different interpretations from participants on a
specific phenomenon. For instance, this worldview is made up of
participants’ subjective views, understandings, and personal experiences of
a phenomenon of interest, such as those collected through the use of focus
groups where a range of participants’ perspectives on a topic are gathered.
Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm tend to employ a “bottom” up
approach using participants’ perspectives to build broader themes and help
inform theory and the conceptual understanding of a topic area (Creswell,
2014; Doyle et al., 2009).
Over the past three decades advocates for quantitative and
qualitative research paradigms have debated whether or not these two
methods, initially derived from different epistemological and ontological
perspectives, can be combined (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Tashakkori
& Teddlie, 2003). Advocates on both sides view their worldview as the
ideal for research and have argued for the incompatibility thesis, which
posits that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, including their
associated methods, are incommensurable and thus cannot be combined
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). More recently, many researchers view
reality as both singular and multiple, comprising both deductive and
inductive thinking, and mixing both qualitative and quantitative data in a
single or multiphase study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This is known
as mixed methods research where the worldview that has been most
commonly adopted for this research is pragmatism.
Pragmatism ascribes to the philosophy that the research questions
should drive the method(s), techniques, and procedures utilised rather than
76
being methodologically constrained to quantitative or qualitative methods

alone (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003). Pragmatists believe that quantitative and qualitative
methods are tools available to help researchers explore and examine the
research questions and that researchers should use the strengths of each in
order to capture a richer and better understanding of the phenomena of
interest (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). As such, this thesis rejects the
incompatibility hypothesis (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007) which
contends that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms and methods
cannot be mixed as this limits the scope of inquiry and the utility of the
findings. Instead, the current research was based on the assumptions of
pragmatism, which provided an overall paradigm for this mixed methods
investigation.
Using the pragmatic approach, this thesis began with a first phase of
research, which was to conduct a qualitative study using focus groups
(Study 1) to gain a better understanding of emerging adults’ perceptions,
observations, and opinions about the definition and behaviours associated
with cyberbullying. Moreover, a pilot study (Study 2) for developing a new
scale of schema coping styles suitable for a research context was conducted
alongside Study 1, as individuals tend to use certain coping styles in
response to activation of EMSs. Therefore, the findings from the first phase
of this research were incorporated into Study 3, where Young et al.’s (2003)
schema model was applied to the context of cyberbullying.
Methodological Approach
Mixed methods research has become increasingly popular over the
past few decades and is now formally considered its own stand-alone
research methodology (Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell,
2005). Mixed methods research involves “The collection or analysis of both
quantitative and qualitative data in a single or multi-phase study in which
77
the data are collected concurrently and/or sequentially, are given a priority,
and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process
of research” (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003, p. 212). A
strength of mixed methods studies can be attributed to its freedom to draw
on the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods and
minimise the limitations of both approaches (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004).
Some of the known strengths associated with quantitative research is
that theoretical models can be empirically tested and validated, the results
are relatively independent of the researcher, relationships between variables
can be tested, and it is useful for studying larger numbers of people
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A limitation of this approach is that
researchers’ definitions, items measuring a construct, and response
categories used may not reflect participants’ understandings or experiences
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This specifically applies to current issues
regarding the cyberbullying definition and limited research on emerging
adults’ perceptions and experiences of cyberbullying and associated
behaviours.
In comparison, a number of strengths associated with qualitative
research include that data are based on a participant’s own perceptions and
experiences in relation to complex phenomena which can be described in
depth. The researcher can also identify contextual factors that may impact
on the phenomenon of interest, and it can also be useful in developing,
adapting or informing the appropriate measures to be used in subsequent
phases (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). However, qualitative data
collection and analysis are often time consuming, and findings produced
may not be generalisable to the wider population and are unique to a small
number of participants. The findings can also be influenced by the
researcher’s personal biases (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), though there
are reliability and validity strategies that can be employed to minimise this
78
concern (see Chapter 5 for the reliability and validity strategies used in
Study 1). Combining both approaches into a single or multiphase study,
provides a more complete understanding of the research problem and can
enrich the results in ways that only utilising one approach does not allow
(Creswell, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In particular, the results
from one method can help develop or inform the other method such as in the
case of developing better measurement instruments, or can be used to
complement, elaborate, and expand on results from the other method
(Hanson et al., 2005).
When combing both quantitative and qualitative data into a study,
there are a number of steps involved including: (1) the time orientation, that
is, whether the data from the two methods is collected concurrently (i.e.,
data from both methods collected at the same time) or sequentially (i.e., one
method collected first, followed by the other); (2) whether methods are
given equal or unequal priority (i.e., one method may be given more weight
than the other, such as a primarily quantitative study); and (3) the point of
interface, which relates to how the data collected from one stage of the
research is integrated with and help informs the next stage (Hanson et al.,
2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Leech & Onweugbuzie, 2009). Each
of these aspects, central to mixed methods research will be discussed in
more depth below in relation to the current study.
Time orientation. There have been several typologies of mixed
methods research designs developed which are usually embedded in two
different time orientations, namely concurrent and sequential (Creswell,
2014; Hanson et al., 2005; Leech & Onweugbuzie, 2009). Concurrent mixed
methods designs (also known as convergent parallel mixed methods design)
are when two studies are conducted at the same time with the purpose of
comparing and contrasting the findings of both studies. On the other hand,
sequential designs refer to studies that occur one after the other (Creswell,
2014; Hanson et al., 2005; Leech & Onweugbuzie, 2009). Two primary
79
models of sequential designs include explanatory designs in which a study

begins with quantitative research being conducted followed by qualitative
data which aims to further explain the results in more detail; and exploratory
designs in which a study begins with qualitative data being conducted to
explore participants views with this information leading into a second
quantitative phase, such as building an instrument that best fits the sample
under study or to specify variables or identify appropriate instruments to be
used in the quantitative phase (Creswell, 2014).
Recently, more advanced designs have been developed that go
beyond the basic mixed method designs, one of which is the multiphase
design (Creswell et al., 2003). The multiphase design incorporates multiple
design elements in order to address an overall objective. This design occurs
when a topic is examined through an iteration of connected quantitative or
qualitative studies that are sequentially aligned, with each new approach
building on what was learned previously to address a central program
objective. Initially this design was explained as a sandwich design, where
quantitative and qualitative approaches alternate between the three phases.
Multiphase designs now also include mixed methods studies that combine
both sequential and concurrent strands over multiple phases to address a set
of incremental research questions that all advance one larger researcher
objective. This type of design provides an overarching methodological
framework to a multi-year project that calls for multiple phases to test an
overall research objective (Creswell, 2014; Creswell et al., 2011). There
have been three variations of this type of design proposed by Creswell et al.
(2011) which include: (1) multilevel statewide studies; (2) large-scale
funded projects such as program development and evaluation projects; and
(3) a single mixed method study combing both concurrent and sequential
phases. While information and examples of this type of design are limited as
it usually involves numerous studies which are frequently published as
single studies, this thesis contributes to knowledge on this design as it is
80
exemplar of the third variant, which incorporates both time orientations.

This type of design incorporates the flexibility needed to utilise different
mixed method approaches to address a set of interconnected research
questions that contribute to the overall objective of this thesis, which is to
explore Young et al.’s (2003) schema model in the context of cyberbullying
to help understand why some victims experience more severe adverse
reactions than others in response to cyberbullying behaviours. For example,
Study 1 and Study 2 were conducted concurrently and considered a first and
necessary step to address the definition and measurement issues in the
cyberbullying and schema theory literature so that this overall research
objective could be tested in Study 3. A diagram of Creswell and Plano
Clark’s (2007) multiphase mixed methods model is illustrated in Figure 3.
The figure outlines each phase in this mixed methods study and the steps
involved in each. Moreover, it illustrates when and how the studies are
linked and integrated.
Priority. The concept of priority in mixed methods research refers
to whether both qualitative and quantitative strands in the design have an
equal emphasis or weighting (i.e., equal status) in addressing the study’s
research questions, or whether one phase or study has greater priority than
the other phase (i.e., dominant status; Leech & Onweugbuzie, 2009). In this
thesis, priority was given to Study 3 (Phase Two) as this study addressed the
overall research objectives. However, a first phase was needed to help
inform the selection and adaption of a definition of cyberbullying and pre-
existing measure of cyberbullying behaviours so they were suitable for an
emerging adult sample, which was the target sample in the third study.
Moreover, the first phase also enabled new measures of schema coping
styles to be developed and used in the theoretical model tested in Study 3. In
the literature, a notation system has been developed, whereby pluses (+)
indicate phases conducted concurrently and arrows (→) where phases are
sequential (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Hanson et al., 2005), with the
81
phase given majority of the weight or emphasis given uppercase lettering.

The priority of each of the studies in this thesis is qual + quan → QUAN
and is demonstrated in Figure 3 (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Hanson et
al., 2005).
82
Phase 1: Study 1 and 2 Phase 2: Study 3
Qual data Qual data Qual results

collection analysis
(focus groups)
QUAN QUAN data QUAN data QUAN results Overall
instrument collection analysis Interpretation
development
Develop, select,
adapt
instruments for
use in Study 3
(theoretical
model)
Quan data Quan data Quan results
collection analysis
(scale
development)
Figure 3. Multiphase mixed methods model applied to the current study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)
83
Point of interface. The point of interface is the stage where the

qualitative and/or quantitative data from one phase is connected, integrated,
or mixed into the other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Since the current
research was situated within a sequential exploratory design, the findings
from Study 1 and Study 2 (Phase 1) were integrated into Study 3 (Phase 2)
in the instrument development phase. How the findings from Study 1 and
Study 2 (Phase 1) specifically connect to Study 3 (Phase 2) will be
discussed in more depth below with Figure 4 (Phase 1) and 5 (Phase 2)
further illustrating the steps involved in each study in each phase, as well as
the procedure and intended outcome or product of each of these steps.
Phase 1: Study 1. In the first phase of the research, the aim of Study
1 was to address the lack of consensus on the current cyberbullying
definition and the limited research on definitions of cyberbullying made by
emerging adults so that the definition used in Study 3 was in line with
emerging adults’ perceptions. In addition, examples of cyberbullying
behaviours were also sought to determine whether pre-existing measures
normed on adolescents needed to be adapted to be in line with emerging
adults’ experiences (Hanson et al., 2005). This was considered an important
first step so that the results obtained in Study 3 were meaningful and useful.
Focus groups using a semi-structured question protocol were
employed to gain a deeper understanding and reveal detailed information
about emerging adults’ perceptions, observations, and opinions of
cyberbullying. Since emerging adults’ views are largely underrepresented in
cyberbullying research, focus groups provide a broader range of responses
and several different perspectives on the topic rather than individual
interviews (Krueger & Casey, 2009). For instance, hearing other
participants’ perspectives can allow a participant to clarify or elaborate on
their own contributions to the discussion, which may be left underdeveloped
in an individual interview (Kitzinger, 1994; Powell & Single, 1996). This
method also gives researchers a chance to seek clarification and elaboration
84
on the issues and to explore contradictions or ambiguities (Krueger &

Casey, 2009). Focus groups can provide a non-threatening and more
naturalistic environment that encourages discussion among participants,
particularly if they have differing views, or a mutual understanding. This
provides researchers with insight into how participants conceptualise and
describe specific constructs such as cyberbullying, as well as the language
emerging adults use to discuss the phenomenon (Wilkinson, 1998).
The results from the qualitative study (Study 1) helped inform the
second phase (Study 3) in a number of ways. For example, to answer the
first research question of this study, “How do emerging adults define
cyberbullying?” focus group participants were asked: “What is
cyberbullying?” and “What is the difference between cyberbullying and
teasing amongst friends online?” Responses from focus groups helped
inform whether the cyberbullying definition selected and presented in Study
3 was based on the key characteristics of traditional bullying (e.g., Smith et
al., 2008), or if it needed to be adapted to suit emerging adults’ views. For
example, participants in focus groups may only consider two out of three
traditional bullying characteristics, such as repetition and power imbalance
as necessary components when describing cyberbullying, or the definition
may focus more on the effect on a victim (Dredge et al., 2014).
To answer the second research question, “What are some examples
of cyberbullying from a sample of emerging adults?” participants in the
focus groups were asked: “What are some examples of cyberbullying (e.g.,
posting nasty picture/video, abusive text message) in your age group?”
Responses to this question elaborated on and further clarified the findings in
response to the first research question regarding the cyberbullying
definition. This research question also helped inform whether the language
of items needed to be adapted, or whether any new items needed to be added
into the Florence Cyberbullying-Cybervictimisation Scale (FCBCVS;
Palladino et al., 2015), which was the multi-item measure of cyberbullying
85
behaviours used in Study 3. As this scale was developed some years prior
and normed on an adolescent sample it is important that scales measuring
this phenomenon are frequently reviewed and updated due to advancements
in technology, and that the behaviours included and language of items are
suited to emerging adults’ views and experiences of cyberbullying
behaviours.
Phase 1: Study 2. Also during the first phase of the research, a
second study was conducted to develop and pilot test a new measure of
schema coping styles to be included in the theoretical model tested in Study
3. This study tested the factor structure and reliability and validity of each of
the scales. An alternative measure of avoidance and overcompensation was
developed and tested as the pre-existing inventories of the 40-item Young-
Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI) and 48-item Young Compensatory
Inventory (YCI) were therapeutically derived for testing in clinical settings
and at face value many of the items in these scales do not appear to be
measuring the construct or are measuring different dimensions. Past studies
assessing the reliability and validity of these scales have needed to remove
many problematic items from the analyses and found different factor
structures (Karaosmanoğlu et al., 2013; Luck et al., 2005; Spranger et al.,
2001). In the current study, in addition to a new measure of avoidance,
overcompensation schema coping was separated into retaliation and
pleasing to assess two dimensions of this construct informed by previous
literature and theory (Adler, 2002; Bäckman & Dixon, 1992; Hjertass, 2006;
Young et al., 2003).
This study is also unique as a measure of surrender and adaptive
schema coping were developed. To date, no measure of surrender has been
developed despite being another main coping style (i.e., in addition to
avoidance and overcompensation coping) proposed by Young et al. (2003).
Furthermore, the specific coping styles proposed by Young et al. have
focused on coping styles considered to be maladaptive as they are
86
considered to perpetuate the schemas and they have excluded coping styles
that may lead to more adaptive outcomes, even though individuals may have
learnt to cope with his or her schemas through certain life experiences. The
results from the pilot study allowed for a theoretical model based on Young
et al.’s (2003) schema theory to be tested in the third study (Phase 2).
Pilot studies are recommended when developing new instruments as
this can act as a “trial run” before implementing the new scale into the main
study (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Some of the advantages of a pilot
study when developing a new measure are to test the adequacy of the
research instrument such as item difficulty, item discrimination, internal
consistency, and parameter estimation. Also, any issues can be addressed
with these before implementation into the theoretical model, which was
tested in Study 3 (Phase 2; Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2015; Johanson
& Brooks, 2010). Pilot studies are also useful to determine whether the
research protocol is realistic and workable such as the likely success of the
proposed recruitment approaches, the resources that are needed (e.g.,
finance and staff), the sampling frame and return rates, and competency
using the proposed data analysis techniques (Johanson & Brooks, 2010; van
Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). For example, in this study, a license was
required to use the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form (YSQ-SF3),
Young and Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI), and the Young
Compensatory Questionnaire (YCI) from the Schema Therapy Institute.
There were also restrictions surrounding the electronic use of these
questionnaires, which meant the study protocol was adapted from an
electronic survey to a lab-based study where participants could complete the
questionnaire on the university campus or via a mail questionnaire method.
The mail questionnaire method involved sending a questionnaire to
participants through the mail and asking them to return the completed
questionnaire in the reply-paid envelope provided by the university
(Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2015). The procedure used in the pilot
87
study provided an indication of the likely sample size and response rate for
Study 3. Research suggests that when using the mailing method the return
rates are typically 20 to 30% for the initial mailing (Nederhof, 1985).
Therefore, based on the demands of participation and the postage turn-
around time, a longer recruitment phase was required to obtain the desired
sample size and this was particularly true in Study 3 since the sample
characteristics were more stringent (i.e., emerging adults between 18-25
years of age as well as victims of cyberbullying). As such, this pilot study
provided the researcher with experience in the procedure and data analysis
as well as time to correct any problems, which helped streamline the process
and maintain constancy throughout the main study (van Teijlingen &
Hundley, 2001).
Figure 4 presents the first phase of this multiphase mixed methods
research design in more depth. In particular, it outlines the two studies in
this stage and the steps involved in each. Each of the methods and steps
involved are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 to 7.
Phase 2: Study 3. This phase began with an instrument development
stage. This stage integrated the findings from the two studies in Phase 1 into
Study 3 (Phase 2). As previously mentioned, the findings from Study 1
(qualitative study using focus groups) informed the cyberbullying definition
implemented and whether the behaviours or language used in the FCBCVS
needed to be adapted to be in line with emerging adults’ views, opinions,
and perceptions. In addition, revisions to the schema coping style measures
developed in Study 2 were made based on the pilot study exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) results. Once the quantitative self-report questionnaires used
in this final study had been compiled and briefly piloted, the survey was
administered to emerging adults between 18 to 25 years old in the general
population. The data from this survey enabled: (1) the prevalence of
cyberbullying, (2) the relationship between EMSs (at the domain and
subscale level) and psychological distress, and (3) the moderating role of
88
schema coping styles in the relationships between EMSs (at the domain
level) and psychological distress to be tested.
Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used in the current study
to analyse the structural model, which was based on Young et al.’s (2003)
schema theory. SEM can be considered a combination of path analysis and
factor analysis as the goal is to model the relationship between measured
variables (e.g. item responses) and latent variables, as well as examine the
structural relationships between latent variables (e.g. factors; Weston &
Gore, 2006). An advantage of using SEM is that it extends on conventional
multivariate analyses, such as multiple regression (MR), factor analysis
(FA), path analysis (PA), and analysis of variance (ANOVA) by accounting
for measurement error, allowing multiple measures to be used to represent
constructs, the ability to model a number of categorical or continuous
exogenous or endogenous variables, and provides tests of goodness-of-fit. It
can be used for the moderation analysis of latent variables and is also the
preferred method for confirming a theoretical model (Wu & Zumbo, 2008).
Figure 5 presents the second phase of this multiphase mixed methods
research design in more depth. In particular, it outlines the third study and
the steps involved in each stage of this study. The method and instruments
employed in this study are discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
89
Figure 4. Flowchart of the basic procedures involved in Phase 1 (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2007)
90
Figure 5. Flowchart of the basic procedures involved in Phase 2 (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2007)
91
Chapter Summary
This chapter reports the methodological framework and research
design of the thesis and rationales for using mixed methods. The worldview
paradigm adopted in this thesis is the pragmatic approach, which is
recommended when conducting mixed method research designs. This
paradigm is advantageous as it is flexible in its investigative techniques
when trying to address the research questions of a study and as a result the
strengths from both techniques can be integrated to help understand a social
phenomenon. To address the overall research objective of this thesis, a
multiphase mixed methods research design was utilised, which includes
both a concurrent and sequential design. In particular, Study 1 and Study 2
were conducted concurrently in Phase 1 of this thesis to (1) gain a better
understanding of how emerging adults define cyberbullying and examples
of cyberbullying during this age group, and (2) develop and validate a new
measure of schema coping styles so it was suitable for a research context.
The findings from both these studies were implemented into Study 3 (Phase
2) so that variations in psychological distress for victims of cyberbullying
could be examined by testing Young et al.’s (2003) schema model. A
general overview of the data collection methods and analysis was presented,
although this will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 5 to 7. The next
chapter describes in detail the method and findings specific to Study 1
(Phase 1).
92
CHAPTER 5
PHASE 1, STUDY 1: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF
CYBERBULLYING DURING EMERGING ADULTHOOD
Introduction
This chapter describes the process of conducting the first study in
Phase 1. The chapter commences with the aims and overview of how ethical
approval was sought. Following this, participant characteristics, the
materials used in the focus groups, the study procedures, and ethical issues
anticipated in the project’s planning and undertaking are described. The
techniques used to analyse the qualitative data and the validation strategies
implemented are provided at the end of the Method section. The qualitative
results with embedded quotes from participants are then illustrated along
with thematic maps, which provide an overview of the results for each
research question. A discussion of the findings and implications are then
presented, followed by how these findings inform the definition and
measurement used in Study 3. The limitations of the study and a chapter
summary complete this chapter.
Aim of the Study

The purpose of the first study was to clarify and gain a more in-
depth understanding into emerging adults’ opinions, views, and experiences
of cyberbullying to help inform the definition of cyberbullying and measure
of cyberbullying behaviours used the final study (Study 3). Taken together,
the research questions that guided Study 1 were:
1. How do emerging adults define cyberbullying?
2. What are some examples of cyberbullying from a sample of
emerging adults?
93
Conduct of Studies
The current study was approved by Swinburne University of
Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (Project number: 2014/023;
see Appendix A). An overview of the ethical considerations for this study
are presented in the Method section.
Method
Participants
Thirty-nine emerging adults (25 female, 14 male) aged between 18
to 25 years (M = 21.33; SD = 2.64) from the general population participated
in the study. Of the 39 participants, 36 were university students either
undertaking their undergraduate (n = 29) or postgraduate (n = 7) degree, and
three participants were employed in full-time work only. Six semi-
structured focus groups were conducted with approximately five to eight
participants allocated to each focus group, which is consistent with the
recommendations of leading qualitative researchers who specialise in focus
groups (Kruger & Casey, 2009). The only inclusion criteria for this study
was that participants were aged between 18 to 25 years and were able to
attend a focus group session on University campus in Melbourne. Previous
involvement in a cyberbullying situation as a perpetrator, victim, or
bystander was not necessary for participation in this study as only general
opinions and perceptions were needed to meet study aims and research
objectives.
Materials
A semi-structured interview guide was developed for the focus
groups. This helped to ensure that the research questions were addressed
(e.g., how emerging adults define cyberbullying and examples of
cyberbullying) but the facilitator was free to explore and ask more specific
questions if needed. Using a semi-structured interview guide also gave
94
participants the opportunity to openly discuss any other issues they

considered to be important that were potentially unknown to the researcher.
The interview guide included an introductory script for the facilitator to read
at the beginning of the focus group that outlined information about the
study, participants’ rights and ethical information. It also included a list of
open-ended questions relating to the definition of cyberbullying, examples
of cyberbullying behaviour, the effects of cyberbullying, and the strategies
used to cope with cyberbullying. Example questions included: “How do you
define cyberbullying?” “What is the difference between cyberbullying and
teasing amongst friends online?” “What information and communication
technologies are individuals mostly using to cyberbully others?” “What are
some examples of cyberbullying?” (see Appendix D for full list of
questions).
Procedure
Recruitment procedures. Participants were recruited through a
university Research Experience Program (REP), which was conducted with
first year psychology students. Students enrolled in first year introductory
psychology units are invited to complete a minimum of three hours of the
REP. This involves participating in online and laboratory-based studies and
answering some questions about these studies. In addition, students are able
to gain up to six additional marks by completing more than the minimum
three hours required. The current study was advertised on the Sona System,
which is the system used by researchers to advertise, organise, and credit
participants who participate in the REP. An information flyer (see Appendix
B), which provided information about the study, was posted on the Sona
System to advertise to participants. First year psychology students interested
in taking part in this study were able to confidentially register their
participation by emailing the researcher. After participation in the study, the
95
researcher awarded one credit to each participant on the Sona System. No

other form of compensation was provided for participation in this study.
Participants in the general population were also recruited through
snowball sampling methods such as advertising on SNSs (i.e., Facebook and
Instagram), email, and information flyers. All individuals interested in
participating in the research contacted the researcher via email. The
researcher liaised with participants to organise a time to attend a focus
group that was conducted in a meeting room at the University campus.
Participants were notified of the day, time, and location of the focus groups
via email. The researcher tried to ensure there was a gender balance in each
of the groups. Participants received a reminder email one week before the
session containing details of the focus group.
Data collection procedures. Before commencement of each focus
group session, all participants were given a Consent Information Statement
(see Appendix C) outlining the purpose of the study, ethical information
including participants’ rights, and the types of questions that would be
asked. This ensured that participants were fully and ethically informed
about the research process when providing signed informed consent. A
registered clinical and counselling psychologist (the student researcher’s
Principal Coordinating Supervisor) experienced in conducting qualitative
research facilitated the focus groups. The student researcher was present
during each focus group session and had the responsibility of note taking
and asking specific questions when warranted. All focus groups were audio
recorded and lasted approximately one hour. Data were transcribed
verbatim, de-identified, and analysed using a thematic analysis.
Ethical considerations. There were a number of ethical
considerations that needed to be considered. For instance, cyberbullying can
be classified under Stalking laws in the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 and is a
criminal offence, which means that instances of cyberbullying should be
reported to authorities. In order to minimise risk of criminal or civil liability,
96
participants were informed prior to focus groups that researchers would not
ask about personal experiences of cyberbullying and that participants were
to refrain from mentioning personal experiences as it may have legal
ramifications. The focus of this study was on general observations and
opinions of cyberbullying, not personal experiences of being a perpetrator
or victim of cyberbullying.
It was also possible that participants who had been involved or were
currently involved in a cyberbullying situation may have experienced
psychological distress. Again, the registered clinical and counselling
psychologist who facilitated the focus groups was able to provide immediate
assistance and support to such individuals who experienced any discomfort.
Moreover, if a participant experienced discomfort after leaving the focus
group, he or she could refer to the Consent Information Statement that listed
the details of a range of counselling and mental health services.
It was fully explained to participants on the Consent Information
Statement and at the beginning of the focus group that: (a) their
participation in the study was completely voluntary; (b) all reported data
were to be de-identified; (c) they were free to withdraw their participation at
any time; and (d) they were free to abstain from any questions they did not
wish to answer. It is important to note that no participants reported any
discomfort or distress during or after the focus groups. Researchers were
also mindful that groups should not be so large that some participants might
feel unable to share their thoughts, but not so small that uncomfortable
participants might feel pressured to speak (Doucette, 2013). Therefore, the
focus groups included five to eight participants in each group. Lastly,
participants were informed that the focus groups would be audio-recorded
for accurate transcription. Transcripts were recoded to remove any
individual identifying information and pseudonyms were used (e.g.,
‘Participant 1’).
97
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis. Prior to the analyses, data were transcribed
verbatim by the researcher. After preliminary analysis of the six focus
groups, theoretical saturation of the data was reached, meaning that there
was significant repetition of the themes emerging and no new information
coming to light (Krueger & Casey, 2009). A general qualitative framework
was utilised, as only general views and opinions on cyberbullying were
collected. That is, other qualitative frameworks (e.g., phenomenology,
ethnography, or narrative approaches) were not suited to the aims and
research objectives of the current study (see Creswell, 2012).
A thematic analysis using the coding framework outlined by Braun
and Clarke (2006) was conducted. A thematic analysis was an appropriate
data analytic technique to use given that it allowed a dual deductive-
inductive analysis to be employed, whereby pre-existing codes in the
previous literature, as well as those that came out of the data were able to be
applied to the data. The first step was to read and re-read the transcripts in
order to become familiar with the content. This was followed by writing
notes and highlighting ideas in the right margin of each transcript. Initial
descriptive coding was applied to the first transcript and these codes were
then applied to the following transcripts or new codes were developed that
came out of that group. Once 20-30 codes were developed each code was
defined to make sure it was being applied consistently across the data and
supporting evidence for each code was given. In addition, similar codes
were grouped together to develop categories and then overarching themes in
which redundant codes were excluded from the analysis. A thematic map
was drawn to see how the story fit together (see Figure 6 and 7). Each
thematic map can be seen in the section describing the qualitative results.
Validation strategies. Researchers have attempted to develop
several strategies to assess the validity and reliability of qualitative research.
The set of strategies corresponds to constructs employed by positivists,
98
though the terminology has been redefined for use in a naturalistic setting
(e.g., Creswell, 2012; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996; Merriam,
1998). Several researchers such as Lincoln and Guba (1985) have employed
the following set of strategies to establish validity in qualitative studies: a)
credibility (in preference to internal validity); b) transferability (in
preference to external validity/generalisability); c) dependability (in
preference to reliability); and d) confirmability (in preference to
objectivity). How these strategies were used in the current study are
described below.
Credibility. Credibility refers to the trustworthiness of the findings in
reflecting participants’ experiences. Some of the strategies employed in the
current study to promote confidence that the student researcher had
accurately recorded the phenomena of interest included: negative case
analysis, peer review or debriefing, and member checks (Creswell, 2012;
Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Shenton, 2004; Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). For instance,
negative case analysis refers to refining a researcher’s working hypothesis
or expectations until it addresses all cases within the data, such as negative
or disconfirming evidence. In the current study, after preliminary themes
and categories were developed, a search for data that confirmed or
disconfirmed these was undertaken. Data that did not fit the pattern of
themes and categories, such as differing opinions on the definition of
cyberbullying, was still reported in order to provide a realistic assessment of
the phenomenon, even if it included only one participant’s viewpoint
(Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Peer review or debriefing was also employed, which provided an
external check of the research process in a similar way to interrater
reliability in quantitative research. Doctoral students and academics who
were part of the Digital Training and Technologies Lab at Swinburne
University of Technology played the role of the “disinterested peers” (i.e.,
99
other researchers not directly involved) but also had some knowledge of the
project. This group provided a sounding board to test developing ideas and
alternative approaches. During this time, peers also probed and asked
challenging questions about the methods, meanings, and interpretations of
the research. The researcher explained the coding process and showed the
initial codes, categories, and themes coming to light, and also presented the
thematic maps once there was a clearer picture of how the information fitted
together. In addition, panel members, who were academics in Psychology
employed by the University, acted as peer reviewers in yearly progress
review presentations. The role of the panel members was to provide
feedback to the student researcher about the conduct of the study and
findings. The findings from this study have also been presented at national
and international conferences and published in peer reviewed journals (See
List of Conferences and Publications after the Appendix). The feedback and
suggestions provided throughout this process have enabled the student
researcher to develop a better understanding and explanation of the research
design, interpretations, and conclusions.
The student researcher also conducted member checks in which
seven participants from three different focus groups were asked to view the
credibility of the findings, such as specific codes or labels used to describe
these, or interpretations of the data.
Transferability. Transferability is often called external validity and
refers to the degree to which findings from qualitative research can be
transferred or generalised to other contexts, settings, or people. Thick
description was used when describing the current study results as it is
described by Lincoln and Guba (1985) as a way of achieving a type of
external validity. By using thick description, which refers to describing a
phenomenon in sufficient detail, other researchers can compare and evaluate
whether these instances relating to a case or a theme are transferable to
those emerged in their situation (Creswell & Miller, 2000). In addition to
100
thick or rich description, the Results section used many low inference
descriptors (e.g., verbatim quotes). By reading verbatim quotes emerging
adults’ perspectives regarding the definition and examples of cyberbullying
are made visible and the reader can experience the participant’s actual
language2. It can also help the reader to assess the credibility of the findings
(e.g., how data has been collated into themes) and also the transferability of
the findings to different populations, or contexts (Johnson, 1997).
Dependability. Dependability refers to the consistency of the results,
such as if the qualitative data was analysed by another researcher how
similar the findings would be. This meant that it was important that the steps
involved in the qualitative data analysis within the present study were
reported in detail to ensure that adequate research practices had been
engaged in and other researchers would be able to carry out similar work. A
detailed description of the steps involved in analysing the data can be seen
in the Method section.
Confirmability. Confirmability refers to the extent to which the
results can be confirmed or corroborated by others and is comparable to the
concern of objectivity in quantitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A
technique used to ensure the confirmability of the findings is investigator
triangulation (Denzin, 2008; Jack & Raturi, 2006). In investigator
triangulation, multiple observers, such as student supervisors of a project,
allow cross checking of observations to eliminate selective perceptions and
any blind spots in the analysis. The goal was not to seek consensus, but to
understand that there are multiple ways of viewing the data (Denzin, 2008;
Jack & Raturi, 2006). In the current research, the student researcher and
Principal Coordinating Supervisor conducted all focus groups together and
debriefed and discussed initial themes based on participants’ responses in
2
Hesitations and false starts (eg, “umms,” “ahhs,” “you knows,” and “likes”) were
deleted to improve readability.
101
each of the focus groups. Once formal data analysis was conducted the
student researcher met with both the primary and secondary supervisor
where both the supervisors reviewed the coding booklet and thematic maps.
Upon reviewing each of these documents, the supervisors provided
feedback on where codes and categories could be collapsed, or merged, or if
the labels provided were suitable.
Results
The results pertaining to each of the research questions for this study
are discussed below.
RQ 1: How do emerging adults define cyberbullying?

The thematic analysis identified emerging adults’ views and
interpretations of the definition of cyberbullying. In all focus groups
participants described cyberbullying as a complex phenomenon with many
layers, though there was a general agreement that it is an extension of
traditional bullying (main theme). In particular, participants mentioned that
cyberbullying is “bullying via technology” (female, 24; first subtheme),
such as “over the [mobile] phone” (female, 19) or “using social media”
(female, 24), where “one or more people are essentially bullied” (male, 22)
“by a group of people or by one person” (male, 21; second subtheme). The
form of cyberbullying behaviour (third subtheme) can be indirect (e.g.,
“making fun of you [on a Facebook timeline wall post] but just talking
amongst us but you can see it,” male, 23) or direct (e.g., “send[ing] someone
an angry text,” male, 23), which is also similar in traditional bullying.
The three key components of traditional bullying, namely, intent to
harm, repetition, and power imbalance were identified during participant
discussions. Intent to harm was the main topic of discussion in the focus
groups with repetition and power imbalance being spoken about as
102
secondary terms. It is important to note that power imbalance was implicit

in the discussion on intention to harm, but was not necessarily explicitly
stated as a criterion for cyberbullying. Moreover, when participants delved
deeper into discussions about how to operationalise these key components,
there was much confusion and debate within the focus groups. For example,
one participant (female, 24) who initially stated that cyberbullying involves
an intent to harm later expressed, “now I’m confused about my own
definition of cyberbullying” when trying to establish this concept from a
bystander’s perspective (where the notion of “victim” without “bully”
becomes more salient). Interestingly, it became evident that the way in
which individuals define these key components depended on the point of
view adopted (fourth subtheme). For example, participants said that how
cyberbullying is defined “…comes down to perception” (male, 19) and
“how you perceive things might be different from the bully’s perspective”
(female, 22). The focus group data revealed that there are multiple
perspectives when defining cyberbullying such as a perpetrator, victim, and
bystander perspective (categories). It should be noted that participants were
not asked to think about the definition from each perspective (e.g.,
perpetrator, victim, or bystander) or asked about their own experiences of
cyberbullying from these different perspectives. Rather, this discussion and
debate was generated by focus group participants themselves when
considering the definition of cyberbullying.
A thematic map illustrating the main themes and codes relating to
emerging adults’ perceptions of the definition is displayed in Figure 6. The
shaded section in Figure 6 indicates that the rest of the Results pertaining to
the first research question focused on the definition of cyberbullying from
the different perspectives (perpetrator, victim, bystander). Quotes from
participants in each of the focus groups were embedded in descriptions
below to provide a rich understanding of emerging adults’ perspectives on
the topic.
103
Extension of
traditional bullying
One or more Key components

Bullying via individuals Form of (Dependent on point
digital technologies involved cyberbullying of view adopted)
Direct A perpetrator A victim A bystander

cyberbullying perspective perspective perspective
Indirect Perceived Target’s

cyberbullying Intent to harm intent to harm response
Single episode Empathy for

Repetition or repetition target
Behavior alone
intentional and
aggressive
Figure 6. Thematic map of emerging adults’ perceptions of the cyberbullying

definition
Perpetrator’s Perspective
A number of participants interpreted the definition of cyberbullying
from a perpetrator’s perspective. Participants viewing cyberbullying from a
perpetrator’s perspective argued that the motives of the perpetrator are what
is important in classifying cyberbullying behaviour, regardless of how
successful the perpetrator is in inflicting harm. For example, two
participants stated, “from a bully’s perspective…it has a lot to do with
intent” (male, 19) or “it comes from the bully’s intent to put you down in
some way or another, if you weren’t affected by it that's great, but the bully
still has this intention of wanting to put this person down” (female, 22).
Alternatively, if a perpetrator did not intend to harm a target then the
behaviour may not be classified as cyberbullying even if the target
interpreted the act that way. For example, participants with this view
mentioned, “how can it be intent if you’re not knowing you’re doing it?”
104
(female, 18) or “I question if it’s cyberbullying if there is no callous intent

behind it” (male, 20). However, participants in the current study highlighted
that “if you did find out that person took a rolling [was hurt] and you kept
doing it” (female, 22), “then that's when it goes over [the line from teasing
or other benign behaviour to cyberbullying]” (male, 21), “because you are
now aware of the person’s feelings and how they cope with something like
that…that would become an intent to harm that person on your part”
(female, 22). As such, rather than apologising or “debrief[ing] afterwards
and say we didn't mean it” (female, 19) this repetition helps establish the
perpetrator’s intent to harm the victim.
In regard to repetition, one participant (male, 21) expressed that for a
behaviour to be cyberbullying “it would have to happen more than one or
two times…I wouldn't say it would be a once off attack because sometimes
you have differences with people.” Another participant (female, 18) also
agreed that “…it’s got to be a continuous thing, you can’t just consider it to
be bullying if someone says something and you’re upset by it.” However, it
was not clear from participants’ responses as to whether their perceptions of
“repetition” were more general and would change when considering
different types of cyberbullying behaviours. For example, when the
participant above (female, 18) mentioned “…you can’t just consider it to be
bullying if someone says something and you’re upset by it,” it is unknown
whether their view of repetition would differ when thinking of a direct
private text message between a perpetrator and target versus a public
comment that has the potential to be seen, read, and re-read by the target
and many other people. It also was not clear from participants’ responses
how many times a specific act needs to be carried out to qualify as
cyberbullying. These responses highlight the perception of repetition from a
perpetrator’s perspective, but also the complex nature of repetition in
cyberspace. It should also be noted that participants mainly viewed a
perpetrator’s intentions as premeditated, proactive, and “calculated.” For
105
example, one participant (male, 24) described, “you can sit and take time
and think how can I really get to this person.” However, participants in one
focus group said the perpetrator’s intention to harm could also be “reactive”
(Participant 1, female, 24) or “an impulsive act…still an intent, but maybe
not as well thought out compared to a premeditated thing” (Participant 2,
female, 24). These participants may be referring to the more specific role of
bully-victim, where a person may bully others in response to victimisation
experiences, though these were the only two comments on this intention.
Taken together, when interpreting cyberbullying from a perpetrator’s
perspective, intent to harm appears to be the central factor and repetition can
help establish the perpetrator’s intention. On the other hand, individuals
who defined cyberbullying from the perspective of a victim had a different
interpretation.
Victim’s Perspective
A majority of the participants in the focus groups viewed
cyberbullying from the perspective of a victim. However, it is important to
note upfront that participants identified that it means something different to
be a target of a cyberbullying behaviour versus a victim. That is, a target
was viewed more as an overarching category to describe a person who is a
target of a cyberbullying behaviour and perceives the behaviour as intending
to harm. The target becomes a victim when the behaviour is not only
perceived as intending to harm but harm is also inflicted. For example,
participants agreed that, “I think to be bullied, anyone can be bullied but
then to be a victim is another kind of side to it” (male, 19). Another
participant (female, 18) further highlighted the distinction between target
and victim by disclosing her own personal experience with cyberbullying, “I
would still consider it to be bullying but then I don't consider myself to be a
victim,” with another participant (female, 19) adding “it’s bullying without
the victim thing.” In addition to this, one participant (female, 19) described
106
“to be considered as a victim you have to be affected by it, you have to be

damaged by the bullying as such...you’re not a victim if it doesn't affect
you.”
In general, participants of this perspective argued that, “regardless of
intent…it’s really down to the victim [or target]…how they see it” (male,
20). Similarly, another participant (male, 19) mentioned that “the person
who receives the message, if they perceive it as bullying then it is bullying
because you’ve hurt their feelings.” Therefore, in contrast to traditional
cyberbullying definitions that have typically comprised key features based
on the perpetrator’s behaviour (e.g., intent to harm, repetition), these
qualitative findings highlight the importance of also considering the target’s
perspective.3
It was also emphasised across each of the focus groups that, from a
target perspective, cyberbullying could be considered a “once-off attack,” as
it can result in serious harm for a person. For example, “they might see it,
they may deem it as cyberbullying just from that one isolated incident”
(male, 24) as “once it’s on Facebook it’s there forever…the damage is done
because everyone’s seen it” (female, 18) and “it can be permanent, people
can save that photo or it can stay somewhere online, and you could see the
photo of yourself again online and be like that is really horrible, it’s still
there” (female, 20).
Taken together, in comparison to the perspective of a perpetrator,
participants stated that if a target perceives a cyberbullying behaviour as
intentional and harmful, then that is the deciding factor. A target becomes a
victim if, not only do they perceive the intent to harm, but they also
experience harm. From this perspective, a once off attack can be classified
3
Henceforth target will be used as an overarching category and victim as a
subgroup of this. However, there may be some instances where target and victim labels are
used interchangeably such as when using participant quotes or discussing previous research
where the distinction between target vs. victim is less clear.
107
as cyberbullying, as it may be just as harmful as repetitive attacks. It is

important to note the definitions and main components of cyberbullying
were similar for both a perpetrator and target perspective, but the
perceptions of intent and harm and what counts as repetition were different.
Bystander’s Perspective
The bystander’s perspective further highlighted the multifaceted
nature of the definition of cyberbullying. There were a range of participants
in the focus groups that reported that they had been bystanders to
cyberbullying, and described their opinions and perceptions of
cyberbullying based on an observer’s perspective. However, they often
found it difficult to determine cyberbullying situations because “from a
bystander’s perspective…looking at harmful comments that someone has
written about or to someone else…it’s hard…because you don't know in
what sense or context they are making those comments” (female, 22) as it
“can look really ambiguous from the outside” (female, 24) and “…it is a
grey area if you were looking at it objectively” (female, 24). Other
participants described, “sometimes I get confused when I see something and
it’s not until you read into the comments further and that's when you realise
this isn’t even serious” (female, 20) or think “oh they’ll be right, they
probably won’t even take that to heart” (female, 18).
Emoticons were said to be helpful in distinguishing between teasing
and cyberbullying, however it was stressed that a target could say they are
fine, send a “smiley,” “LOL,” or “haha” when they are actually hurt by the
behaviour, which further complicates bystanders' interpretations of the
event. Thus, bystanders expressed that “unless I was to maybe ask them…”
(female, 24) it’s hard to distinguish if the target has been hurt by the
behaviour. For example, one participant (female, 24) identified, “I might
view something online and if that was me I would be really upset but to that
group of friends it was a big joke, so I wouldn't know if that person was
108
being bullied or not.” The lack of visual and verbal cues creates great
challenges for potential bystanders as “you don't pick up tone or anything,
just words…so you’re kind of lost, are they being sarcastic or are they being
for real” (male, 22).
This ambiguity often resulted in bystanders choosing not to
intervene in behaviours that they perceive may be cyberbullying. For
example, as one participant (male, 25) stated, “we have all sat back and
went, I don't want to get into this shit storm, I don't want a notification
coming through all the time, I can’t be bothered with it.” It was pointed out
that, “a bystander in cyberbullying…have the option of turning a blind eye
and no one would know…you can just look at it and…keep going with your
life because it doesn't affect you personally” (female, 18).
Participants expressed that a concern with intervening was that it
could potentially exaggerate the situation, as the bystander may have
misinterpreted the incident or “put themselves in the limelight to potentially
become bullied” (male, 21), or become a bully. One participant expressed
this happening to her:
I’ve had bantering conversations with friends and I’ve had someone
else interject and take it completely out of context…but there was no
need because it was just friendly banter…he went from being the
bystander to the bully. I guess sometimes it can be obvious, but if you
don't know it can be dangerous to interject (female, 18).4
Despite the uncertainty from a bystander’s perspective of what

cyberbullying is, participants suggested a general set of criteria that can be
used to establish cyberbullying from a bystander perspective.
Target’s response. The target’s response to the situation was
suggested as an indicator of distress and potential cyberbullying. As one
4
Any quotation over 40 words was displayed as a block quote.
109
participant (male, 24) described, “you can tell through a chain of comments
the reaction by the individual” or when “someone literally says this has
upset me” (female, 19). Thus, while bystanders may perceive comments or
acts online as subjective, it appears the target’s reaction to the event can
help bystanders determine whether a behaviour constitutes cyberbullying.
Empathy for the target. Furthermore, bystanders also mentioned
that by imagining the experience from a target’s point of view can help with
their interpretation of a scenario as being more clearly cyberbullying. For
example, one participant (female, 24) described, “I might view something
online and if that was me I would be really upset”. In addition, another
participant (female, 24) expressed “there is that [university] Stalkerspace
thing I only recently joined…some people comment on there thinking they
are being funny but it seems really mean... I wouldn't want to be the victim
of that.” It should be reiterated here that in Australia, and particularly in
Melbourne, many of the universities have a “Stalkerspace” Facebook page,
which has been created by students at these universities. While the purpose
of Stalkerspace is to connect students and ask university and course related
questions, there is also a number of incidents that could be classified as
cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking.
Behaviour alone intentional and aggressive. Participants
mentioned that the behaviour alone could be perceived by bystanders as
intentional and aggressive. For instance, it was suggested that intent to harm
might be established depending on the number of perpetrators involved. A
participant (female, 24) described, “if you’re trying to be all nasty online
you would include as many people as you could to make it widespread.”
Similarly, another participant (female, 18) pinpointed, “maybe it's a
numbers thing too, if someone said, ‘let’s all delete this person’ and just to
upset them 20 people delete you off Facebook all at once, I think that's a big
statement.” Acts that involved public humiliation were also said to help
establish intent and cyberbullying. Public acts were defined as posting
110
content which “friends” or “followers” of the target can view. As one

participant pointed out:
You don't actually have to be speaking to that person to bully them,

it's the fact that you can just post stuff about them and all of a sudden
there is this huge array of people that can see what you’re saying. It’s
not like a personal thing where you have to be in front of them, you
can get the reaction from them by just throwing it out for everyone
else to see (male, 25).
Therefore, multiple perpetrators, the presence of bystanders who

endorse the bullying, as well as the nature of cyberbullying behaviours such
as public humiliation, may result in the interpretation of these events as
serious cases of cyberbullying that require bystander intervention. The
relationship between the sender and receiver was also said to provide some
context as to whether the interaction between the two parties is friendly
banter or cyberbullying. For example, one participant (female, 22) said, “I
think sometimes you would look at comments and be like ‘oh yeah it was
harmful, I would judge that as bullying’ or ‘oh no, I know those two people
and they’re just having a joke’…”
Therefore, the definition of cyberbullying from the bystander’s
perspective is when it is observed that a behaviour has negatively affected
another person, or that such a behaviour would likely negatively affect the
bystander if directed toward him or her. A bystander may also perceive the
behaviour alone as intentional and aggressive.
Taken together, despite emerging adults perceiving cyberbullying to
be an extension of traditional bullying as it involves similar key
components, participants agreed that the current definition of cyberbullying
and operationalisation of the key components based on traditional bullying,
is too simplistic and general. Rather, how emerging adults define
cyberbullying, depended on the point of view adopted. As such, it is
111
important to integrate the different perspectives (i.e., perpetrator, target-

only, victim, bystander) to form a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying.
RQ 2: What are some examples of cyberbullying from a sample of

emerging adults?
While participants had different perceptions of the definition of
cyberbullying, many participants agreed on examples of cyberbullying
behaviours that they have experienced or witnessed. In particular,
participants agreed that cyberbullying is prevalent and relatively pervasive
during their age group with one participant (female, 18) stating it occurs on
“…all social media pretty much.” Another participant (male, 24) in a
different focus group mentioned, “I don't think I can use the Internet at all
without being a bystander to bullying and vicious comments…it's a jungle
out there.” Further highlighting the pervasiveness of cyberbullying during
this developmental period is the emergence of the overarching theme:
cyberbullying exists “across the board,” in that emerging adults have
experienced or observed cyberbullying occurring on a range of digital
technologies that they use (first subtheme) as well as many different types
of cyberbullying behaviours (second subtheme). A thematic map illustrating
the main theme and codes relating to examples of cyberbullying in
emerging adulthood is displayed in Figure 7. Quotes from participants in
each of the groups will be embedded in descriptions below to provide a
detailed account of the examples of cyberbullying.
112
Figure 7. Thematic map of examples of cyberbullying in emerging adulthood
Cyberbullying exists “across the board.”

Technological mediums. Participants reported that cyberbullying
occurs “through any sort of electronic device” (female, 19) and “anything
that can be used to communicate” (male, 22) such as computers and mobile
phones. Participants mentioned that cyberbullying mainly occurs via the
Internet (e.g., Instant messaging services [IM], email, SNSs, chat rooms) but
also stated that it can occur through “text messages and phone calls” (e.g.,
threatening text messages and prank phone calls). For example, in relation
to the first focus group question asked about the definition of cyberbullying,
many participants immediately responded with statements like “the intent to
hurt someone’s feelings via the internet” (female, 23) or “I guess the
technical term of being mean on the internet is probably cyberbullying”
113
(male, 23). Participants mentioned specific mediums on the Internet where

they have witnessed cyberbullying occurring, which includes instant
messaging (IM) services, chat rooms and forums, emails, and websites (e.g.,
SNSs).
Instant messaging. Cyberbullying was said to take place on IM
services or applications on mobile phones (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook
Messenger) that use the Internet. For example, a participant (male, 22)
mentioned “probably messaging, whether that's text messaging, Facebook
messaging…I’m talking about more direct bullying/ cyberbullying…people
have been told some pretty horrific things that's normally through Facebook
Messenger.” Other participants also mentioned that cyberbullying can occur
through, “instant messenger at workplaces”, “WhatsApp” or “anywhere
where you can get an instant reaction from comments.” One participant
compared the newer IM services to MSN Chat, which was popular in the
early 2000s, “I think Facebook Messenger has turned into the modern-day
MSN communication.”
Emails. Participants described instances of cyberbullying occurring
via email, particularly in a professional environment. One participant (male,
24) expressed, “in a more professional setting, email…when you start to get
to our age group there is less reliance on social media and more reliance on
sort of individual communication or internal communications.” Similarly,
another participant said:
In a professional environment you see all those emails that turn into
ginormous threads from one guy posting a stupid email to some senior
people in his company and then it gets forwarded around to all the
different companies and Cc’d (male, 24).
SNSs. A pattern observed across each of the focus groups was that
participants mainly experienced cyberbullying taking place on SNSs and it
114
was agreed that “Facebook is probably the main one”. For example, as soon
as the facilitator asked about examples of cyberbullying during emerging
adulthood many participants quickly responded with “Facebook” at the
same time and laughed in agreeance. Participants then added, “Facebook’s
most common”, “it [Facebook] would be the most prominent for sure,” “I
don't use anything except for Facebook,” and “I wish I didn't even use
Facebook but I cannot physically stop.” Participants who were university
students predominately mentioned the Facebook page, StalkerSpace.
Participants agreed, “Stalkerspace…that's probably where I see it most…it
comes up on my news feed and some think they’re being funny but it seems
really mean” (female, 24). This prompted another participant to state, “I
have found on Stalkerspace, I’ve been on there since I was in first year or
second year, and I think it has got a lot worse over time and we see a lot
now of people posting photos of sometimes their tutor or lecturer” (female,
25). This illustrates that there are certain mediums that are specific to adults
at Australian universities where cyberbullying appears to occur.
In addition, Facebook can be linked to other SNSs, such as Ask.fm
and Qooh.me. For example, “my cousin’s always on my Facebook and like
Qooh.me, Qooh.me, Qooh.me” (female, 18). ASKfm and Qooh.me are
where users are given the option of being anonymous or identifiable,
however, “everybody would tick anonymous and then people would just
write awful things about you” (female, 18). One participant (female, 19)
highlighted that similar sites to ASKfm and Qooh.me are “Formspring” and
“Tumblr” as “…you can send questions but people really just use it to send
anonymous hate…”
YouTube was another website where cyberbullying was said to
frequently occur. For example, “you read some of the shit on YouTube and
it’s just vile” (male, 25) and “that's [YouTube] a huge one…Maybe one that
is not always as acknowledged and as personal as Facebook, but because
it’s not as personal people say harsher things. That's just my experience with
115
it” (male, 24). This may be because Facebook users are usually identifiable
as it is the norm to use one’s full name, whereas on YouTube users usually
go by a pseudonym.
Participants briefly mentioned that they have witnessed
cyberbullying on Twitter. For example, one participant (female, 20) stated,
“I have a friend at work who wrote something quite horrible about someone
else at work on Twitter and somehow this person found out, so I think
Twitter is one.” In addition, participants have witnessed “quite negative
comments through Instagram” (male, 24) and on Snapchat. One participant
(female, 18) described the content on Snapchat as “just disgusting” and
another (female, 19) said, “on Snapchat people take photos of other people
doing a joke between them, but once you send it out then it’s no longer is
joke between you, that's something else.”
Lastly, cyberbullying was also said to occur in chat rooms and
forums where individuals have the option to appear anonymous or under a
pseudonym. Only one participant went into detail about their experience of
cyberbullying on parenting forums, “I’ve recently become a dad and
looking up questions and stuff. You can see some parents just getting
slammed by so many people and insulted for asking questions” (male, 24).
Although the participant discussed this as an example of cyberbullying,
without more context it is unclear whether this is specifically trolling or
cyberbullying.
As such, participants have clearly pinpointed the mediums where
cyberbullying can occur during emerging adulthood and that may need
special attention in the context of research.
Types of cyberbullying. Participants in each of the focus groups
discussed different types of cyberbullying. These were coded and fall into
the seven types of cyberbullying proposed by Willard (2007), namely,
flaming, harassment, masquerading and impersonation, outing and trickery,
denigration, cyberstalking, and social exclusion. Some of the main examples
116
from the focus groups corresponding to each of the seven types of

cyberbullying can be seen in Table 1.
117
Table 1.
Examples of Seven Types of Cyberbullying Behaviours During Emerging Adulthood as Described by Focus Group Participants
FLAMING HARASSMENT MASQUERADING/ OUTING AND DENIGRATION CYBERSTALKING EXCLUSION

IMPERSONATION TRICKERY
Angry Nasty text Hacking a Facebook Creating false Publicly posting Posting nasty A group leaving
confrontational message, email, account, whereby profiles nasty comments or comments, images, or someone out of
messages on Facebook post someone logs into rumours on a videos of a person conversations on
SNSs, forums or about a person another person’s Posting person’s SNS around university SNSs
on YouTube account and posts embarrassing or campus on the
videos that are Nasty comments embarrassing unflattering Forwarding on a StalkerSpace Posting a nasty
not related to the on Ask.fm, such information about the information, private email sent Facebook page. Facebook status
content posted as “kill yourself” person without their photos, or videos by a colleague to about a person for
(could also be consent of a person other colleagues many individuals
regarded as online to witness except
harassment) Creating ‘hate the person
pages’ on themselves
Facebook about a
particular person
118
Flaming. Flaming was coded when participants mentioned that they

had witnessed flaming, such as angry confrontational messages, which use
explicit and vulgar language and can result in “flame wars” (Willard, 2007).
An example of this is on the comments section on YouTube videos:
On YouTube I could never look at a clip and not see comments

attacking at least one type of stereotype of a person. It just seems to be
everywhere, and it’s got more frequent…YouTube comment sections
are the most vicious things I have ever seen…the most offensive,
racist, sexist comments and some people may have a problem with it
and then it will just be a swarm of people who narrow in on them and
just tear them to pieces…(male, 24).
Other participants added that these personal attacks tend to be

unrelated to the video. For instance, one participant mentioned:
On Facebook or Instagram a lot of the bullying behaviours that I’ve

seen have been on comments…but it becomes these personal attacks
between the different people commenting and not even really about
what they are commenting on. I think kind of the same thing often on
YouTube videos - people who don't even really know each other just
get into some little weird fight or conflict on the comments (male, 21).
However, it should be noted that these behaviours could overlap

with or be better defined as harassment as it is unclear whether the examples
witnessed by participants were people of equal power fighting against each
other or whether it was more one-sided.
Harassment. In addition, many participants described that
cyberbullying involves acts of harassment such as “people receiving quite
aggressive harassing text messages and emails” and “just continuous
harassment really” without the target of these behaviours posting something
aggressive in return (such as in the case of “flame wars”). Harassment
119
involves repetitive insults of threats against the cybervictim (Willard, 2007).

Participants in the current study highlighted that harassment is “not just like
a political debate but a really mean personal attack,” such as homophobic
and racist comments or threats of harm (e.g., comments such as “kill
yourself”). For example, one participant (male, 20) mentioned that a person
had posted a religious quote and then several people commented on the post
“swear words…and derogatory things and so I think that becomes bullying
when you start attacking the person’s character rather than intelligently
disagree with what they’re saying.”
Masquerading and impersonation. Although less described, one
participant mentioned an example of masquerading and impersonation,
which requires some advanced technical skills, whereby the perpetrator
pretends to be the target and sends offensive messages to others that appear
to come from the target, such as in the case of hacking into one’s SNS
account (Willard, 2007). For instance, this participant (female, 18)
mentioned that her brother and his friends often steal her phone and write
something embarrassing on her Facebook timeline pretending to come from
her.
Outing and trickery. Moreover, outing and trickery were coded
when participants provided examples of perpetrators gaining and then
violating the trust of a cybervictim by creating false profiles (Willard,
2007). An example of this was described by a participant who said that this
had happened to someone they knew, “someone made a fake profile, they
took some attractive pictures of girls from the internet and made him kind of
fall in love with the fake profile and snatch it from under him and be like I
wasn't real” (female, 18). Similarly, another participant expressed that her
friend “dated this guy, who is the fake profile that a bunch of girls had made
to get back at this one girl, the victim.”
Another example of outing and trickery described was publicly
announcing private and embarrassing secrets or posting photos or videos
120
about another person in order to humiliate them. One participant mentioned

that “…on Facebook people make up fake profiles and go to great lengths to
get back at that person that hurt them. They post very extreme cases of
photos and things like that” (male, 19). Similarly, instances of sexting which
are forwarded on to others without consent can be categorised as outing and
trickery. For instance, a participant (female, 19) stated, “with the sexting
problems it’s just like someone obviously trusts someone with a photo or
whatever and then they really betray them and send it to everybody.”
Participants mentioned that this type of behaviour can have serious
consequences for the target because when the photo or video is shared,
forwarded on, or posted publicly online, “you can’t actually take the photo
down off somebody else’s profile” (female, 19) and “once it’s on Facebook
it’s there forever” (female, 23). Overall, outing appears to be prevalent
among emerging adults.
Denigration. An instance of denigration was coded when
participants mentioned that damaging information or rumours were spread
to harm the cybervictim's reputation or humiliate them (Willard, 2007). For
instance, participants described instances where nasty comments were
posted publicly on a person’s SNS account or a private email sent by a
colleague was forwarded on to other colleagues in order to humiliate the
person. One participant expressed:
I’m not friends with any of them [boyfriend’s friends] on Facebook

because I know what they’re like. I know they like to upset me, so I
made the decision I’m not going to be friends with you. One of them
in particular made a status earlier this year basically saying that I’m
obese and calling me a whale and the comments kept going and other
friends of my boyfriend kept contributing, and it just went on and on
and on and to me, and they know this, to me calling me that is the
most offensive thing you could do to me because that's an area that
121
I’m very self-conscious with…I’m not even friends with these people
but they knew it would get back to me (female, 19).
Other examples of denigration mentioned in the groups were email

chains, where people “reply all to the emails and just spread secrets through
there,” and “hate pages” created on Facebook about a person. One
participant mentioned that a person they knew had a hate page created about
them on Facebook where people spread damaging information about his
personal life and “there were hundreds of people who joined it making all
sorts of comments about if they see him in the street they are going to kill
him and be really aggressive and violent towards him” (female, 24).
Similarly, another participant said they have witnessed this sort of attack, “I
saw an acquaintance on Facebook created a Facebook ‘Like’ group and it
was something similar, ‘Like this if this person is disgusting’. It was just a
group to hate this one person” (male, 23).
Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking was coded when instances of
cyberstalking, unwanted contact, threats of harm, or the behaviour is
excessively intimidating (Willard, 2007) were described by participants.
Participants in one focus group mentioned that they had witnessed
cyberstalking of students, in which videos and images taken of the student
unknowingly on university campus where posted on the Stalkerspace
Facebook page. One participant highlighted that “today someone posted a
video of one of my ex-students walking around campus and people are
saying mean things about him…” (female, 25). Another example of
behaviour that could be classified as cyberstalking was provided:
Someone posted a photo of a girl in their class and then it turned into a
game that whole day. Like, people on Stalkerspace were trying to find
this random girl on campus and trying to follow her around and take
her photo and put it on Stalkerspace and I think she ended up running
out of class crying and left campus (female, 24).
122
Many of these examples illustrate that offline bullying or stalking

behaviour can turn into cyberbullying and cyberstalking and vice versa.
Social exclusion. Lastly, social exclusion was coded when
participants mentioned behaviours that encompass systematically excluding
a target from online activities or online groups (Willard, 2007). Participants
agreed with one participant’s statement, “that no-inclusion is just another
form of bullying as well, when you have a whole bunch of people and you
are constantly leaving out one person all the time…you can tell on
Facebook who it is that they are leaving out” (male, 25). Earlier examples
about email chain’s being sent around organisations about a particular
person could be classified as social exclusion. Furthermore, a common
example was a nasty status or comment(s) about a person being indirectly
but publicly posted on SNSs, whereby the target is “not even friends with
these people but they knew it would get back to me [the target]”.
Discussion
Overview of Discussion
The purpose of this study was to clarify and gain a deeper
understanding of what cyberbullying means to emerging adults. The
research questions were: (a) How do emerging adults define cyberbullying?
(b) What are some examples of cyberbullying from a sample of emerging
adults? This section summarises the key findings in relation to the two
research questions and discusses them in light of previous research. In
addition, implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are
discussed. A chapter summary concludes this chapter.
Research Question One

The first research question asked: How do emerging adults define
cyberbullying? This qualitative study is one of the first comprehensive
examinations of cyberbullying from the perspective of emerging adults. The
123
findings showed that emerging adults were hesitant and confused

surrounding defining cyberbullying. On the surface, it appeared as though
participants generally understood cyberbullying to be an extension of
traditional bullying. They identified that cyberbullying was carried out using
digital technologies to target one or more people directly or indirectly. The
thematic analysis also identified the key components as intent to harm,
repetition, and power imbalance, though the latter two were seen as helping
to establish intent to harm, rather than being viewed independently from it.
Again, it is important to note that power imbalance was implicit in the
discussion on intention to harm, but was not necessarily explicitly stated as
a criterion for cyberbullying. When participants tried to elaborate on and
operationalise the key components in a technology mediated-environment,
this appeared to be a difficult task and was highly subjective, depending on
the point of view adopted (i.e., perpetrator, target, or bystander perspective).
A perpetrator’s perspective. From a perpetrator’s perspective,
intent to harm was the main component in defining cyberbullying. This
supports previous qualitative research, where young people consider the
perpetrator must have intent to harm the target in order to be constituted as
cyberbullying (Baldasare et al., 2012; Nocentini et al., 2010; Vandebosch &
Van Cleemput, 2008). On the other hand, if there is no intent to harm on the
perpetrator’s behalf, then it may not be classified as cyberbullying, even if
the victim interpreted the act that way, in which case, interventions might be
better focused on the victim. Baldasare et al. (2012) found similar results
from college students, who reported that if there was no intention to harm
then the behaviour should not be deemed as cyberbullying, even if the target
interpreted it as such. Moreover, in accordance with previous research and
definitions of cyberbullying (Baldasare et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2008;
Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008), repetition was identified as another
key feature of cyberbullying, particularly in establishing the perpetrator’s
intention to harm. Taken together, it is clear when looking from a
124
perpetrator’s perspective that cyberbullying involves an intent to harm, with

the repetition of the behaviour(s) helping to establish the motivations of the
perpetrator.
A target’s perspective. Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that
some participants stated that while they had been cyberbullied they do not
consider themselves to be a victim, but rather a target. These two groups
have not been differentiated from each other in previous cyberbullying
literature and labels to describe these two groups have often been used
interchangeably. This may also explain as to why one-item scales, which
ask individuals involvement in cyberbullying (e.g., “Have you ever been a
victim of cyberbullying?”) have reported lower prevalence rates compared
to multi-item scales that list certain behaviours associated with
cyberbullying (Dehue, 2013), as to be a victim (negative effect experienced)
is interpreted as different to being a target (no negative effect experienced).
Therefore, target may be seen more as an overarching category, where a
target becomes a victim when behaviour is perceived as intending to harm
and is harmful.
From this perspective, participants mentioned that the most
important component of the cyberbullying definition was the target’s
interpretation of the behaviour. That is, if a target interpreted an act as
intentional and harmful this was said to be the deciding factor, regardless of
the perpetrator’s actual intentions. Furthermore, it was only from a target
perspective that an imbalance of power was mentioned. This was not
considered a main component, but rather a way to help establish the
perpetrator’s intention to harm. This is similar to past studies where power
imbalance has been considered a less important feature of cyberbullying
(Dooley et al., 2009; Menesini et al., 2012). These findings suggest, that
while intent to harm is considered important from this point of view, the
interpretation is different than from a perpetrator’s perspective. This finding
coincides with previous qualitative studies where participants reported that
125
the victim’s interpretation of the incident is the deciding factor in

establishing cyberbullying (Baldasare et al., 2012; Dredge et al., 2014).
Therefore, as traditional cyberbullying definitions have typically comprised
key features based on a perpetrator’s perspective (e.g., the behaviour is
intended to harm, repetition), these qualitative findings highlight the
importance of also considering the target’s perspective (Dredge et al., 2014).
Furthermore, it was reported that a singular public act can have a
similar function to repetition as certain content can be witnessed, ‘liked’,
shared, or commented on by many and result in severe negative effects for
the target, and this consistent with previous research (Baldasare et al., 2012;
Dooley et al., 2009; Dredge et al., 2014; Langos, 2012; Nocentini et al.,
2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Therefore, cyberbullying scales which employ
restrictions for the repetition component (e.g., “two or three times a month”)
could potentially exclude targets who have experienced a once-off attack,
even though it was just as severe as multiple mild attacks (Dredge et al.,
2014).
As such, the definitions and main components of cyberbullying are
similar for both a perpetrator and target perspective, but the perceptions of
intent and harm and what counts as repetition are different. From a
target/victim perspective, the behaviour needs to be considered as
intentional and harmful, and a once off attack can also be classified as
cyberbullying as it may be as harmful as repetitive attacks.
A bystander’s perspective. From a bystander’s perspective,
cyberbullying was challenging to define because of the subjective nature of
communication through digital technologies, such as a lack of visual or
verbal cues. This is consistent with the findings of Baldasare et al. (2012),
whereby college students expressed that a lack of tone can lead to a
misunderstanding of ambiguous cyber-communication. Despite the
uncertainty from a bystander’s perspective of what cyberbullying is,
126
participants suggested a set of criteria that they can use to try an establish
cyberbullying.
First, bystanders stated that they tend to use the target’s response as
an indicator of distress and potential cyberbullying. Similarly, Holfeld
(2014) reported that when a victim reported or responded to a cyberbullying
situation, the behaviour is perceived by bystanders as being severe if the
victim has to notify the perpetrator about it. On the other hand, less
bystander support is received when victims do not respond to the behaviour
or confront the perpetrator, as a lack of response tends to be interpreted by
bystanders as the behaviour not affecting the victim. Thus, while bystanders
may perceive comments or acts online as subjective, the current study
findings show that the target’s reaction to the event can help bystanders
determine whether a behaviour constitutes cyberbullying. Second,
bystanders mentioned that by imagining the experience from the target’s
point of view helps with their interpretation of a scenario as cyberbullying.
This is similar to the findings of Barlińska, Szuster, and Winiewski (2013)
where it was reported that taking the other person’s perspective, such as the
targets, and focusing on the potential negative consequences of
cyberbullying reduced negative bystander behaviours. Third, the behaviour
alone may be deemed as intentional and harmful by a bystander. For
example, the number of perpetrators involved in the act and whether the act
is posted publicly for others to witness was said to help the bystander
distinguish between friendly banter and cyberbullying.
Therefore, based on participants’ responses from the current research
and previous literature, the definition of cyberbullying from the bystander’s
perspective is when it is observed that a behaviour has negatively affected
another person, or that such a behaviour would be likely to negatively affect
the bystander if directed toward him or her. A bystander may also perceive
the behaviour alone as intentional and aggressive.
127
Overall, while each perspective highlighted similar key components,

the interpretation of these was different. Therefore, it is evident from
responses in the focus groups that the current definition of cyberbullying is
too simplistic and rather it needs to be multifaceted in order to capture the
perceptions and understandings of emerging adults. The current study
extends on previous research by focusing on the different perspectives of
cyberbullying (i.e., perpetrator, target, and bystander) rather than assuming
a single perspective, and in turn integrating these perspectives to propose a
multifaceted definition of cyberbullying. As such, this study proposes a
three-part definition in the following paragraph.
Cyberbullying is defined using an information and communication
technology to target one or more people directly or indirectly, whereby:
(1) Perpetrator perspective. The goal of the bully is to intentionally
harm the target. Repetition can also help establish intentionality and
cyberbullying, in which the bully repeatedly carries out a harmful
behaviour towards the same target;
(2) Target perspective. The behaviour is perceived as intending to
harm by a target. A target becomes a victim if they perceive that the
perpetrator has an intent to harm and experience harm. A once-off
attack can also be considered as cyberbullying as the negative
impact on the victim may be just as severe as frequent attacks; and
(3) Bystander perspective. It is observed that a behaviour has
negatively affected another person, or that such a behaviour would
likely negatively affect the bystander if directed toward him or her.
A bystander may also perceive the behaviour alone as intentional
and aggressive.
Research Question Two

The second research question asked: What are some examples of
cyberbullying from a sample of emerging adults? A theme identified in the
128
focus group data was: cyberbullying exists “across the board” (theme). Two
subthemes also emerged: cyberbullying occurs on various technological
mediums (first subtheme) and seven types of cyberbullying behaviours have
been observed by emerging adults (second subtheme).
In regard to the first subtheme, a range of different technological
mediums used to cyberbully others were reported and included: text
messaging, phones calls, IM services (e.g., Whatsapp, Messenger), emails,
and SNSs, which is similar to the different modes of cyberbullying reported
by Smith et al. (2008). Participants elaborated on the specific SNSs used to
cyberbully others. These included YouTube, anonymous question asking
sites (e.g., Ask.FM, Qhoo.me, Formspring, and Tumblr), and chat rooms
and forums, although much of the focus of this discussion was on SNSs
such as Facebook. University students, in particular, revealed that a lot of
cyberbullying behaviour occurs on university Facebook pages, called
[university name] StalkerSpace. However, cyberbullying was also observed
on Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter. Similarly, Peluchette et al. (2015)
found that the most common medium through which cyberbullying was
experienced among emerging adults was Facebook followed by text
message, email, MySpace, Twitter, Chatrooms, Instant Messaging, and
Blogs. Francisco et al. (2015) also found that during higher education,
cyberbullying escalates through Facebook, continues occurring through
text/photo messages, and increases in Blogs, compared to primary school
and secondary school aged participants where the main technologies used
included text/photo messages, IM, and Hi5. As such, this study adds to the
previous research regarding which technological mediums cyberbullying is
most commonly experienced or observed during emerging adulthood.
The specific technological mediums mentioned by emerging adults
in the current study align with the examples provided in pre-existing multi-
item measures of cyberbullying behaviours. For instance, a more recent
version of the widely used Cyberbullying Scale (CBS) by Menesini et al.
129
(2011) is the Florence Cyberbullying Cybervictimisation Scale (FCBCVS;

Palladino et al., 2015). The FCBCVS includes suggestions made by
Menesini et al. regarding item wording and inclusion of certain types of
behaviours that were not included in the CBS. For example, Menesini et al.
suggested that items relating to SNS’s be included into the scale. Therefore,
Palladino et al. (2015) included either the word “social network sites” or
specific types of SNSs, such as Facebook or YouTube into pre-existing
items that only included “websites” (e.g., “insults or threats on Websites”).
These platforms are consistent with those mentioned by emerging adults in
the current study. This can act as a prompt for participants to think about not
only their social media profiles when answering items, but also other
technological mediums where cyberbullying might occur. Another adaption
to the scale made by Palladino et al. was replacing “unpleasant” on
Menesini et al.’s scale with more relatable words such as embarrassing,
which was the language used by emerging adults in the current study when
describing cyberbullying experiences. In addition, Palladino et al. included
the word “video” into items mentioning only “photos or pictures” based on
Menesini et al.’s suggestions. This change is also relevant to emerging
adults’ experiences as embarrassing and/or viral videos were often described
when participants provided examples of cyberbullying. As such, the
FCBCVS appears to be an appropriate measure to use with emerging adult
samples.
In regard to the second subtheme, different types of cyberbullying
behaviours were mentioned by emerging adults in the focus groups, which
aligned with Willard’s (2007) seven categories of cyberbullying behaviours:
flaming, online harassment, cyberstalking, denigration (put-downs),
masquerading/ impersonation, outing or trickery, and social exclusion.
Although it has been argued in the previous literature as to whether flaming
should be considered cyberbullying (see Willard, 2007), in the current study
130
examples of flaming included nasty, confrontational, or vulgar comments

via digital technologies and were described as instances of cyberbullying.
Instances of harassment (e.g., nasty, threatening, or insulting
behaviours), denigration (e.g., spreading damaging rumours on SNSs,
creating hate pages), and cyberstalking (e.g., StalkerSpace) were frequently
mentioned by participants when discussing examples of cyberbullying
among emerging adulthood. Denigration, along with harassment have been
reported as the most common types of cyberbullying behaviours by
participants in previous research (e.g., Buelga et al., 2015; Katzer, 2009;
Popović-Ćitić, Djurić, & Cvetković, 2011). Therefore, it is important that
items covering these types of behaviours are included in measures of
cyberbullying, especially when exploring this phenomenon among emerging
adulthood.
Outing or trickery, such as posting humiliating or compromising
content (e.g., photos/videos) publicly about a person, were also commonly
described as examples of cyberbullying. Some participants disclosed that
they had known people who had been the target of an extreme case of
outing/ trickery. Participants described that the consequences of being a
target of this behaviour have the potential to be very damaging and previous
studies have found that instances of outing or trickery were considered
worse than private bullying (e.g., Nocentini et al. 2010; Slonje & Smith
2008; Smith & Slonje 2010; Sticca & Perren, 2013). This may be because
the content can be more salient, long lasting, more public, and does not
require advanced technological skill to be carried out. However, there were
some participants in the present study that appeared confused as to when
this behaviour crossed over from being a joke or friendly banter to
cyberbullying. Therefore, in self-report questionnaires of cyberbullying
behaviours, a follow-up open-ended question may be required to tease out
how this behaviour is perceived by those involved.
131
An example of masquerading and impersonation was only

mentioned by one person in the current study. It was not clear whether the
limited discussion on this type of cyberbullying was because participants
lacked real-life examples of this form of cyberbullying, or whether other
participants viewed this behaviour as extreme and considered it as a
criminal act separate to cyberbullying. The latter was the case in Nocentini
et al.’s (2010) study, where German adolescents reported that impersonation
was not considered a type of cyberbullying behaviour. However, despite
only one participant in the present study mentioning this form of
cyberbullying, an item relating to this behaviour in measures of
cyberbullying should be included to ensure that targets of cyberbullying
behaviours are identified.
Furthermore, social exclusion was considered a form of
cyberbullying by emerging adult participants. Past cyberbullying research
has found social exclusion to be rarely reported by adolescents, along with
impersonation and outing/trickery (e.g., Pieschl et al., 2013; Riebel et al.,
2009; Wachs & Wolf, 2011). This may explain why items of social
exclusion, along with impersonation and outing/ trickery, have not been
included in some multi-item measures of cyberbullying behaviours such as
Menesini et al.’s (2011) CBS, which was normed on an adolescent sample.
However, as with the current study, Kokkinos, Antoniadou, and Markos
(2014) found that exclusion from SNSs was one of the most commonly
reported cyberbullying behaviours by university students aged 18 to 35
years old. As such, it is important that items surrounding social exclusion,
impersonation and outing/trickery are included in the measurement of
cyberbullying, especially when being used on emerging adult samples. The
FCBCVS included items regarding social exclusion and masquerading/
impersonation based on Menesini et al.’s suggestions. However, additional
items are also needed to reflect denigration, such as rumour spreading and
hate pages, as well as outing/trickery.
132
Taken together, the present study outlines the phenomenon of

cyberbullying during emerging adulthood in terms of the main platforms
used to cyberbullying others (e.g., text messages, IM, email, SNSs) and
specific types of cyberbullying behaviours (e.g., harassment, denigration,
exclusion).
Implications
This qualitative study has several notable implications. Firstly, this
study is one of the first comprehensive examinations of the definition of
cyberbullying from the perspective of emerging adults. Currently there is an
assumption that how perpetrators, targets, and/or bystanders define
cyberbullying is invariant though the findings from the current study
suggest this is not the case. It is argued here that by separating out the
definition and incorporating other perspectives researchers and practitioners
have a more comprehensive and valid understanding of how different
people perceive and/or experience cyberbullying. For instance, researchers
could include all three perspectives (such as the multifaceted cyberbullying
definition stated above) in self-report measures and adapted measures of
cyberbullying such as peer nominations and investigate the agreement (or
disagreement) between different types of involvement to obtain a more
accurate picture of the cyberbullying situation (see Wegge, Vandebosch,
Eggermont, Van Rossem, & Walrave, 2015). In addition, if researchers
were interested in examining a cyberbullying incident from a target (or
victim) perspective and the impact of the behaviour, the definition from a
target’s perspective could be the focus.
Moreover, it emerged from the focus group data that there were
differences between being a target of a behaviour (no negative effect
experienced) and being a victim (negative effect experienced). Previous
cyberbullying research has not distinguished between these two
involvement types and instead have used these terms interchangeably. It is
133
argued that, in certain circumstances it might be important to differentiate

between target versus victim in cyberbullying measurement as this can help
clarify why there may be variations in psychological distress and whether
this can be attributed to individual differences, such as EMSs. Failing to
treat these groups as different may result in some of the uniqueness of these
groups being lost. Taken together, by participants being able to indicate
whether they have been a target with or without being a victim, this can
result in more valid examinations and comparisons of similarities and
differences between these two groups with other variables, more meaningful
conclusions and implications, and, in turn, more accurate recommendations
for prevention and intervention programs.
It is good practice in cyberbullying research to provide a
cyberbullying definition first, followed by a single item and/or multi-item
measure of cyberbullying behaviours to strengthen the validity of these
measures. However, the decision was made in this thesis to administer a
multi-item cyberbullying behaviour questionnaire first to capture being
targeted by cyberbullying behaviours (i.e., the overall target group),
followed by a cyberbullying definition with a single item question
measuring whether a participant identifies as a victim of cyberbullying (i.e.,
a subset of the overall target group). This was considered an important step
in terms of distinguishing between targets-only and victims. For instance,
participants who indicated they had been a recipient of behaviours (e.g.,
nasty text message) but not been a victim of cyberbullying were categorised
as the target-only group. An open-ended question asking participants to
write about the behaviour experienced, or qualitative interviews that run
alongside the quantitative self-report questionnaire could help triangulate
whether the act was in fact perceived as cyberbullying (or mutual conflict,
friendly banter). To this end, Study 3 employed this approach in order to
differentiate between individuals who identify as targets of cyberbullying
versus those who also identify as victims. Integrating the perspectives of
134
emerging adults to inform the definition of cyberbullying, even if the focus

of a study is only on one of the perspectives (e.g., target and/or victims), can
allow the operationalisation of the term, which in turn would ensure that
data on prevalence rates are more valid and meaningful. If there is not a
clear recognition of how cyberbullying is perceived from different
perspectives, individuals’ responses to self-report questionnaires cannot be
accurately interpreted.
Practitioners in different contexts may be interested in particular
perspectives but can also incorporate the other perspectives to gain a better
understanding of the cyberbullying situation and determine if it is a
definitive case of cyberbullying. For example, the perpetrator’s perspective
may be of interest in a legal context, however from a psychological and
clinical perspective, which was the focus of this thesis, the victim’s
perspective may be of interest irrespective of whether there was an intention
to harm. From this perspective, what matters is how the individual perceives
the incident and reducing distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, low self-
esteem) as subjective appraisals of victimisation have been found to be
more closely associated with current adjustment than actual victim status
(McCabe, Miller, Laugesen, Antony, & Young, 2010). It is also helpful
being able to distinguish between being a target and a victim, as the
intervention might be different for these individuals.
Secondly, the results shed light on the specific mediums and
behaviours used to cyberbully others during emerging adulthood and also
validated Willard’s (2007) typology of cyberbullying behaviours. This study
builds on previous knowledge in this area as most of the research has
focused on mediums and behaviours specific to adolescents, and multi-item
measures of cyberbullying behaviours have often been developed and
normed on this group (e.g., Patchin & Hinuja, 2010; Menesini et al., 2011;
Palladino et al., 2015).
135
Given this, pre-existing cyberbullying behaviour scales may need to

be adapted so that certain items relating specifically to emerging adults’
experiences of the phenomenon are included. Qualitative questions, like
those asked in the current study, should also be asked regularly within
specific samples or age groups to ensure that questionnaires of
cyberbullying behaviours are not only up-to-date with the latest
technologies or behaviours but also relevant to the experiences of that
specific age group.
The study highlighted that the multi-item cyberbullying behaviour
scale developed by Palladino et al. (2015) can be considered relevant and
meaningful for emerging adults, and requires only a small amount of
adaptions. Thus, rather than develop a new multi-item measure of
cyberbullying behaviours and add to the overwhelming amount of measures
that already exist, Study 3 employed an adapted version of the FCBCVS as
a measure of cyberbullying behaviours.
Limitations
A limitation of the present study was that while some participants
expressed that they had personally been involved in, or witnessed
cyberbullying, the facilitator did not directly ask about the personal
experiences of emerging adults. This was to protect participants from
potentially disclosing distressing experiences and to avoid legal
ramifications associated with cyberbullying. However, participants may
have been responding with how they thought the different perspectives may
interpret a situation, without actually experiencing it first-hand themselves.
It should be noted that there were a few participants in each group who did
describe their own personal experiences of cyberbullying, though this was
to provide an example or clarify a point rather than to vent about it.
Another limitation was that a majority of the participants were
university students attending the same Melbourne university with only a
136
small number of participants from other universities, or who were employed

in the workforce on a full-time basis. This means that readers should be
cautious when transferring the qualitative findings from this study to
emerging adults in general.
Lastly, it should be acknowledged that although the current study
findings validated Willard’s (2007) typology of cyberbullying behaviours in
an emerging adult sample, there are more recent frameworks that could be
used to make sense of the data (e.g., see Hamby et al., 2018).
Chapter Summary
Since there is a lack of consensus on the definition of cyberbullying
and limited research on emerging adults, it is crucial that researchers
understand what cyberbullying means to this age group. Data from the focus
groups suggested that emerging adults perceive cyberbullying to be an
extension of traditional bullying, as it comprises similar key features.
However, when attempting to operationalise the term and the key
components, this was highly subjective and dependent on the point of view
adopted. Therefore, this study extends on previous studies by integrating
emerging adult perceptions to develop a multifaceted cyberbullying
definition from the perspective of a perpetrator, target of perceived
cyberbullying behaviours, and bystanders. It also uncovered that there are
differences between being a target of cyberbullying (overarching category;
perceived intent to harm) versus a victim (subgroup of target; perceived
intent to harm but also harm inflicted), and that this distinction needs greater
focus in future studies. By breaking the definition down into the multiple
perspectives, different contexts (e.g., research, psychological) can focus on
different perspectives (e.g., target and/or victim only). This enabled a more
valid definition from the perspective of victims to be incorporated in Study
3. It informed the measurement of cyberbullying so that targets and victims
could be distinguished between so that the relationships between EMSs,
137
schema coping styles, and psychological distress could be further

understood.
Cyberbullying was also perceived as pervasive among emerging
adults and a wide range of technological mediums and types of
cyberbullying behaviours experienced or observed by emerging adults were
highlighted. As the majority of previous multi-item behavioural measures of
cyberbullying are normed on adolescent samples, it is important that
behaviours experienced by emerging adults are included into these scales so
that the items are in line with emerging adults’ experiences of the
phenomenon. Thus, Study 3 will adapt the FCBCVS to include a number of
cyberbullying behaviours specified by emerging adults.
138
CHAPTER 6
PHASE 1, STUDY 2: DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A
NEW MEASURE OF SCHEMA COPING STYLES: A PILOT STUDY
Introduction
This chapter describes the development and evaluation of a new
instrument, referred to as the Schema Coping Scale Inventory (SCSI), which
was designed to assess each of the schema coping styles. The development
of the SCSI was based on the stages proposed by leading authors in the area
of scale development (DeVellis, 2012; Gregory, 2011). The stages included:
(1) defining the test; (2) generating and constructing the items; (3) selecting
a scaling method; (4) determining scale instructions; (5) administering and
testing the items, (6) evaluating the items (factor analysis, reliability, and
validity), and (7) optimising scale length. Stages 1 to 4 are described after
the aims of the study are presented. The fifth step, administering and testing
the items, is described in detail in the Method section. This stage required
the SCSI to be administered to a pilot sample, which allowed for the
necessary data to be collected so that scale items could be evaluated (Step 6)
and scale length optimised (Step 7). These two final steps are described in
the Results section, where the factor structure of the scale was evaluated
using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The reliability and validity of
the scale was also determined. Following these statistical examinations,
refinements were made to the scale such as elimination of unhelpful and
redundant items in order to improve scale brevity.
Aim of the study

The aim of Study 2 was to develop and test the psychometric
properties (i.e., factor structure, reliability, and validity) of an instrument
designed to measure the specific schema coping styles proposed by Young
et al. (2003) so this could be implemented into the structural model tested in
139
the final study (Study 3). Two measures have been developed to assess
avoidance and overcompensation (i.e., YRAI and YCI, respectively),
although these scales were derived for use in therapy rather than for a
research context. While there has been limited research testing the
psychometric properties of these scales, published studies have focused on
clinical samples and reported various factor structures and issues with
reliability and validity. Surrender, one of the three coping styles proposed
by Young et al. (2003), has often been neglected from these studies as no
formal measurement tool has been developed to test this construct.
Furthermore, as the focus of Young et al.’s scales has been on maladaptive
responses, the aim of this study was to also develop an adaptive schema
coping style scale as individuals in non-clinical settings may have learnt
alternative ways to cope with their schemas. As such, the second study was
guided by the following three research questions:
1. What is the factor structure of the surrender, avoidance,
overcompensation, and adaptive schema coping scales?
2. Are these new schema coping scales reliable?
3. Do these new schema coping scales demonstrate construct and
Step 1: Defining the Test

The first step in developing a new scale is clearly defining the
construct and what it is intended to measure, as well as defining any
subscales or domains (DeVellis, 2012; Gregory, 2011; Netemeyer, Bearden,
& Sharma, 2003). Theory can serve as a guide in developing criteria as to
what is included and excluded in the phenomena, what level of specificity
or generality is appropriate (e.g., global or general measure versus specific
behaviour), and the construct dimensionality such as unidimensional,
multidimensional, or a higher-order construct (DeVellis, 2012; Netemyer et
al., 2003). While this is only the initial step in developing and validating a
140
scale, it is essential that the construct to be measured is well grounded in

theory (DeVellis, 2012; Netemyer et al., 2003). Young et al.’s (2003)
schema theory and related literature, as described in Chapter 3, assisted with
the development of the five schema coping scales to ensure that each was a
reliable and valid representation of the construct (DeVellis, 2012).
As mentioned in Chapter 3, Young et al. (2003) theorised three
coping styles: surrender, avoidance, and overcompensation. However, only
two scales measuring avoidance (40-item YRAI) and overcompensation
(48-item YCI) were developed. Young (1999) discussed these coping
constructs as unidimensional and did not propose any formal subscales for
these measures. Out of the limited past research that has examined the
psychometric properties of the YRAI and YCI, there have been variations in
the factor structure, the number of original items retained in final analyses,
and reliability estimates for each of the factors. However, this could be a
reflection of many items within Young and colleagues’ scales not only
including coping responses but other items about the person’s memories and
past experiences with parents. Therefore, in the current study,
unidimensional constructs were developed based on Young et al.’s
definition and description of these constructs. A series of statements
representing all facets of each coping construct were developed. The items
on these scales were subsequently assessed for face validity prior to
statistical analyses to ensure the items (coping responses) reflected the
specific latent variable (coping style) being measured.
More specifically, in regard to the development of a new scale
assessing schema avoidance, schema theory (Young, 1999; Young et al.,
2003) and past research (see Luck et al., 2005; Spranger et al., 2001), as
well as items on the YRAI, helped inform the types of items that were
included in this new scale. For instance, items on the YRAI covered
behavioural, psychological, and somatic types of avoidance. However, items
relating to somatic complaints were not included in the new scale due to an
141
overlap with similar items measuring other constructs (e.g., gastrointestinal

issues on the BSI-53) and thus potential to impact construct validity being
established. Other items on the YRAI, which were unrelated to the construct
itself (e.g., items asking about memories, what parents were like etc.), were
also excluded from the new scale.
In regard to the development of a new scale assessing schema
overcompensation, past theory on compensation and overcompensation, as
well as items on the YCI, were reviewed to determine the types of items to
be included in this scale. It appeared that Young’s (1999) conceptualisation
of overcompensation in schema therapy extended on the work of Adlerian
theory, where this concept was described as a response to an inferiority
complex (Milliren, Clemmer, Wingett, & Testerment, 2006). An inferiority
complex refers to when inferiority feelings, such as feelings of weakness
and inadequacy, become excessive (Milliren et al., 2006). Adler (1907;
2002) proposed that some individuals may choose to retreat and surrender to
early feelings of inferiority or stress, although other individuals may
compensate or overcompensate to these feelings by acquiring new skills and
developing new talents. Moderate feelings of inferiority can motivate the
individual to compensate in a positive way (e.g., show affection, be socially
concerned) and strive towards substitutable goals. However, a deep sense of
inferiority can impede positive growth and development and lead
individuals to overcompensate (e.g., be power seeking, selfish) whereby
they overbalance the scales. Like Adler, Young et al. (2003) also stated that
it can be healthy to compensate or fight back against a schema if the
behaviour is proportionate to the situation, takes into account the feelings of
others, and can reasonably be expected to lead to a desirable outcome.
However, overcompensators can typically get locked into counterattacking,
with behaviour usually being excessive, insensitive, or unproductive. For
instance, when individuals overcompensate, they can have a grandiose sense
of themselves and go to extraordinary lengths to gain power or retaliate
142
against others (e.g., dominating and controlling) and achieve status or please
others (e.g., try to appear perfect, please others, and flaunt their success), in
an effort to cover up their underlying inferiority complex. Similarly, Young
et al. (2003) stated that overcompensation is an attempt by the individual to
fight EMSs or dysfunctional core beliefs to avoid the negative emotions the
schema triggers, but as overcompensatory behaviours are usually excessive,
they end up perpetuating the schema.
Although Adler (2002) did not develop a scale measuring
overcompensation, Young (1999) developed the 48-item Young
Compensation Inventory (YCI). However, because of the limitations and
security restrictions associated with this scale, the current study developed
an alternative measure of overcompensation, which reflected the two
components: a positive construct such as pleasing/ status seeking (e.g., “I
try hard to please others,” “In order to be included I put on an act”), and a
negative construct, such as retaliation/ dominance (e.g., “I am highly
critical towards other people,” “I am controlling of the people around me,” I
make myself feel better by devaluing the person).
Moreover, there is no psychometric tool designed to measure
schema surrender. Surrender was conceptualised as coping in a passive and
compliant way, which continues to perpetuate a schema. People who
surrender to their EMSs tend to rely on others, act submissively, try to avoid
conflict, and put up with abuse (Young et al., 2003). Examples of this
coping style are: “selects abusive partners and permits abuse,” and “gives a
lot to others and asks for nothing in return” (Young et al., 2003, p. 38-39).
The development of items for this scale are based on Young et al.’s (2003)
definition and examples of surrender and will follow the same format as
avoidance and overcompensation, where a unidimensional surrender scale
was developed.
Young et al.’s (2003) schema coping styles only includes responses
considered to be maladaptive, however schema theory discusses alternative
143
responses to EMSs which are considered more healthy and adaptive in

response to schema activation, such as cognitive (e.g., cognitive reframing,
viewing oneself more positively) and behavioural coping patterns (e.g.,
relaxation techniques, assertiveness training, self-control strategies [self
monitoring, self-reinforcement]). These behaviours will inform the
development of the adaptive schema coping scale.
Step 2: Generating and Constructing the Items

After each of the constructs were clearly defined, approximately 20
sample items were generated for each of the five schema coping constructs
and judged by the student researcher for content and face validity (DeVellis,
2012). A pool of items that was twice the size of the final scale was
developed as DeVellis (2012) recommended that it is better to have a pool
of items that is over-inclusive of the domain of the construct than one that is
under-inclusive. Items were written for clarity and congruence by keeping
the items short and simple, avoiding jargon or colloquialism, and double-
barrelled statements that in effect address two issues in one statement
(Netemeyer et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012). It is also important to point
out that no reversed (negatively-worded) items were included to control
acquiescence response bias because such changes may actually impair
response accuracy as participants can become confused by wording
reversals (Dillman, 2007; Schriesheim & Hill, 1981).
After the initial 99 items were developed, the main student
investigator reviewed the items with the research team (supervisors), who
have expertise in schema theory and schema therapy, and scale
development. The research team reviewed the items carefully to ascertain
the face validity, identify poorly written or vague items, and eliminate
redundant items. In addition, the questionnaire was piloted on six university
PhD Psychology candidates (three of which were also experienced in scale
development) and four other adults from the target population (18 years and
144
over) to receive further feedback on item writing. Thus, the item pool was
thoroughly judged, modified, and trimmed by expert and population judges,
and items were then pilot tested on a larger sample from the relevant
population in Step 6.
Step 3: Selecting a Scaling Method

The next step was to determine the response format employed. Most
scale items consist of two parts: a stem and a series of response options
(Netemeyer et al., 2003). For example, the stem is essentially an item or
statement expressing an opinion, attitude, or belief, and the response options
accompanying each stem might be a series of descriptors indicating the
strength of agreement with the statement (Netemeyer et al., 2003).
A widely used scale item format is a Likert scale, which includes an
item presented as a declarative sentence, followed by response options that
indicate different levels of agreement with or against the statement
(DeVellis, 2012). A desirable quality of scales in general, and particularly
Likert scales, is variability. A way to increase this is to (1) include lots of
scale items, and/or (2) provide numerous response options within items
(DeVellis, 2012). Many researchers have mentioned that rating scales under
five response options should be discouraged even though they are quick and
easy for respondents to answer to (Weng, 2004). Rating scales with few
response categories tend to result in lower reliability, especially lower test-
retest reliability (Weng, 2004). On the other hand, rating scales which
include five to 10 response options have shown to be more reliable as
respondents have more opportunity to accurately respond how they feel
(Weng, 2004). In particular, the optimum number of alternatives is said to
be between four and seven. From seven alternatives onwards, psychometric
properties of the scale scarcely increase further (Lozano, García-Cueto, &
Muñiz, 2008). The test re-test for these higher ratings are also shown to be
more reliable than the lower rating scale (Weng, 2004). In addition to the
145
psychometric reasons, respondents prefer formats with a larger number of

response alternatives as this permits them to clearly express their point of
view (Lozano et al., 2008). It is important to note that the number of
response options do not exceed the discriminative capacity of the subjects.
If too many alternatives are offered, and the subject has problems
discriminating between them, there is greater likelihood of the introduction
of new measurement errors (Clark & Watson, 1995; Lozano et al., 2008;
Spector, 1992).
As such, an asymmetric 6-point response format was employed in
the development of the new schema coping constructs as it has been shown
to have optimal results (Johnson & Christensen, 2008) and is consistent with
pre-existing schema questionnaires (e.g., YSQ, YRAI, YCI). In addition, a
6-point scale forces a participant to choose a response option in one or the
other direction, rather than fence-sitting, which can happen when an odd
number of response options is used, such as a five-point or seven-point scale
(Johnson & Christensen, 2008). However, the response scale has been
adjusted to a balanced or symmetrical 6-point response option (‘completely
untrue of me’ to ‘completely true of me’) from an unbalanced or
asymmetrical one as this study aimed to use a non-clinical population rather
than clinical sample as that is the intended sample for Study 3.
When measuring a construct with a skewed distribution, such as a
clinical sample with high levels of maladaptive schemas, an unbalanced
design for a response scale may be more useful (Saris & Gallhofer, 2014).
For example, if it is known a priori that a majority of respondents are
leaning in one direction of a scale (e.g., test scores are assumed to be piled
up on high end of the scale as clients would be attending therapy due to
problematic/high levels of schemas), it is not very efficient to use a
balanced or symmetrical scale because one side of the scale will not really
be used, and the population is reduced to only answering a 2-point scale
(Saris & Gallhofer, 2014). In this instance, an asymmetric scale is more
146
appropriate and precise, such as in the pre-existing schema inventories

(Saris & Gallhofer, 2014). However, if this type of scale were to be
employed in a non-clinical population it could be classified as biased as it is
predicted that this sample would have a more even distribution of responses
(Saris & Gallhofer, 2014). Clark and Watson (1995) also advised against
using unbalanced scales due to the limited variability of participants’
responses. Therefore, the proposed new scale employed a balanced response
scale that enabled the two directions to have the same probability to be
chosen.
Another aspect to consider with response options is using extreme
anchor labels (i.e., only endpoints of response options are labelled with
words, with midpoints represented graphically or numerically and not with
words) or verbal anchor labels (i.e., all response options labelled with words
as well as graphically and numerically; Krosnick, 1999). Reliability and
validity can be significantly improved if all points on the scale are labelled
with words because it clarifies the meaning of the scale points (Krosnick,
1999). In addition, although the ordering of response options, such as
positive to negative, or negative to positive, has not been shown to affect
response patterns, the current study employed a “completely untrue of me”
to “completely true of me” ordering of response options based on general
recommendations that it appears less leading (Johnson & Christensen,
2008).
Lastly, the schema coping scale developed in this study asked
participants to indicate the coping responses used in response to a specific
stressful situation experienced. Therefore, an “unsure” or “don't know”
option was not appropriate to include in the scale. Past studies have shown
that there is not much of a difference as to whether or not a neutral option is
included psychometrically (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). However, it is
often included in surveys to avoid participants becoming irritated and
because some truly hold a neutral stance. In replace of a neutral response, a
147
“Not Applicable” option was employed as some coping responses may have
not been applied or applicable in that context.
Step 4: Determining Scale Instructions

The next step undertaken, prior to administering the generated and
reviewed items to a sample (Step 5), involved the careful construction of
instructions. Instructions were designed firstly to provide respondents with
information specific to the construct being measured, and secondly to
provide directions regarding the use of the scale (Podsakoff et al., 2012;
Spector, 1992). The instructions were also informed by pre-existing schema
coping questionnaires and general coping with stress questionnaires
(Carver, 1997; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus,
1980; 1985; Tobin, Holroyd, & Reynolds, 1984). As mentioned in the
previous two steps, the scale instructions were also informally piloted on the
same individuals to ensure the questionnaire instructions were easily
followed and not missing pertinent information (DeVellis, 2012; Netemyer
et al., 2003). The following instructions were developed:
“The statements below reflect different coping styles mainly related to

when you are under stress or distressed. To respond to the statements below,
please take a few moments to think of a stressful situation you have experienced
involving someone else or a group of people over the last three months (e.g.,
tertiary education, your job, your partner, your family, your friends, or other).
Please write a brief description of that situation in the space below (e.g.,
where did it happen, who was involved, how did you feel, what were your thoughts,
and why was it important to you).
1. Rate the number that shows how stressful this situation was for you.
1 2 3 4
Not at all A little Somewhat Very
148
Once again, when responding to each of the statements on the next page,
please answer them based on how you dealt with this stressful situation involving
someone else or a group of people.
Read each statement carefully and make sure you answer as honestly as
you can. Remember that there is no right or wrong answer and your answers are
anonymous. Please respond to each statement separately in your mind from all
other statements. For each of the coping styles, rate each statement from
‘Completely untrue of me’ to ‘Completely true of me’ to what extent you used it in
the situation. Don’t worry whether it worked or not, we are only interested in how
much you either used it or didn’t use it. The statements may not reflect all of your
coping style(s) accurately so there is room to add comments.
RATING SCALE: Completely untrue of me; Mostly untrue of me; Slightly
untrue of me; Slightly true of me; Not Applicable; Mostly true of me; Completely
true of me;
Please try to answer every question. Please TICK the box that best
corresponds to your answer for each question.”
Step 5: Administering and Testing the Items

Once a suitable pool of items had been generated and judged for
content and face validity, the SCSI was administered to a relevant sample.
Various researchers suggest that pilot samples should include around 300
participants, however, 100 to 200 participants are also appropriate (Clark &
Watson, 1995; Hair et al., 2014; MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong,
1999). Moreover, according to Weng (2004), it is preferable to use samples
from the population of interest, however for pilot testing, convenience
samples such as university students may suffice as the focus of pilot testing
is less on external validity. The Method section below outlines in detail the
process of administering and testing the SCSI.
Conduct of the study

Technology Human Research Ethics Subcommittee (Project number:
149
2014/268; see Appendix E). An overview of the ethical considerations for

this study are presented in the Method section.
Method
Participants
Approximately 500 questionnaires with 364-items were distributed
to adults aged 18 years and over, residing in Australia. Two hundred and
eighty-one questionnaires were returned, indicating a response rate of 56%,
which is consistent with other studies using paper surveys and has been
considered adequate (Nulty, 2008). After missing data was treated using
listwise deletion, the revised sample comprised of 102 adults (76.5%
female) aged between 18 to 68 years old (M = 36.93, SD = 12.29). The
majority of the sample indicated they were students (38.2% full-time
students [M age = 30.4, SD = 10.10), 45.1% part-time students [M age =
39.39, SD = 10.35), with 16.7% of adults indicating they were not studying
(M age = 45.24, SD = 14.66). Furthermore, 41.2% of adults were married,
26.5% were single, 26.5% were in a defacto relationship, 3.9% were
separated, and 2.0% were divorced. Lastly, the demographic information
revealed that majority of participants were born in Australia (79.4%).
Measures
Participants received a paper questionnaire (see Appendix I) which
included demographic questions (e.g., age, sex, marital status), the Schema
Coping Style Inventory (SCSI), Young Compensatory Questionnaire (YCI),
Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI), Brief COPE, Young Schema
Questionnaire (YSQ), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS).
Schema Coping Style Inventory (SCSI). The SCSI consists of 99
statements measuring surrender, avoidance, retaliation, pleasing, and
adaptive schema coping. Consistent with previous coping measures,
150
participants are asked to think about and write down a particular stressful
situation that they have experienced involving someone else or a group of
people. They are then asked to think of how they dealt with this experience
when responding to the questions and rate items on a 6-point scale ranging
from (1) Completely untrue of me to (6) Completely true of me. Higher
scores on these scales indicate a higher level of the respective coping style.
The factor structure, reliability, and validity of this scale are examined in the
Results section.
Young Compensatory Inventory (YCI; Young, 1998a). The YCI
is a 48-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure schema
overcompensation. Participants rate each item on a 6-point scale ranging
from (1) Completely untrue of me to (6) Describes me perfectly. Higher
scores on this scale indicate a higher level of schema overcompensation.
Example items include: “I like to be the center of attention,” “I am quite
controlling of the people around me,” “I often blame others when things go
wrong.” Luck et al. (2005) examined the factor structure and psychometric
properties of the YCI and found three distinct factors social control (α = .85
for non-clinical sample), individuality (α =.80 for non-clinical sample) and
personal control (α = .72 for non-clinical sample). However,
Karaosmanoglu et al. (2013) tested the psychometric properties of the
Turkish version of YCI on clinical and non-clinical populations. An initial
reliability analysis on the scale indicated several problematic items, which
were deleted before a factor analysis was performed. According to
Karaosmanoglu et al. (2013), the results from their factor analysis on the
remaining 35 items found seven subscales reflecting: status seeking (α =
.81), control, (α = .79), rebellion (α = .79), counterdependency (α = .72),
manipulation (α = .73), intolerance to criticism (α = .60), and egocentrism
(α = .76). In the current study the YCI was used as a global measure as no
formal subscales were proposed by Young et al. (2003).
151
Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory (YRAI; Young & Rygh,

1994). The YRAI is a 40-item self-report questionnaire assessing schema
avoidance strategies. Participants rate each item on a 6-point scale ranging
from (1) Completely untrue of me to (6) Describes me perfectly. Higher
scores on this scale indicate a higher level of schema avoidance. Example
items include: “I withdraw when I'm angry,” “I take naps or sleep a lot
during the day,” “often I don’t feel anything, even when the situation seems
to warrant strong emotions.” Spranger et al. (2001) tested the psychometric
properties of the YRAI on bulimic and non-clinical women. As there are no
formal subscales, the authors coded the items according to whether the
avoidance was cognitive, behavioural, somatic, or emotional. If items did
not fit within these categories, they were eliminated. The reliability analyses
on the remaining 31 items found that the coefficient alpha values were
higher when collapsing the behavioural and somatic subscales together, and
the cognitive and emotional avoidance together. Coefficient alpha values for
the non-clinical group were .65 for behavioural/somatic avoidance, .78 for
cognitive/emotional avoidance, and .79 for the total scale. However, this
study used a priori grouping of items, rather than an EFA. Luck et al. (2005)
conducted a PCA and found support for the two YRAI subscales found in
Spranger et al. However, the coefficient alphas were lower than those
reported in Spranger et al. (2001). Luck et al. found inadequate coefficient
alpha values for behavioural/somatic avoidance (α = .54) and
cognitive/emotional avoidance (α = .66) for the nonclinical sample.
However, far fewer YRAI items were included in this study compared to
Spranger et al. and it is important to note that as the number of items
increases so can the coefficient alpha values (Clark & Watson, 1995). In
addition, Luck et al. decided on the two subscales based on a scree plot but
said that these accounted for a small percentage of the variance and that the
questionnaire may measure other avoidance processes. In the current study
152
the YRAI was used as a global measure as no formal subscales were

proposed by Young et al. (2003).
Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form (YSQ-S3; Young,
2005). The YSQ-SF3 is a shorter version of the original 205-item scale
designed to assess EMSs. The 90-item self-report questionnaire includes 18
different EMSs, which can be categorised into five schema domains. The
schema domains are called disconnection and rejection (Domain 1),
impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2), impaired limits (Domain
3), other-directedness (Domain 4), and overvigilance and inhibition
(Domain 5). The EMS subscales grouped under the disconnection and
rejection domain are emotional deprivation, abandonment, mistrust/abuse,
social isolation, and defectiveness/shame. The EMS subscales grouped
under the impaired autonomy and performance domain are failure,
dependence/incompetence, vulnerability to harm or illness, and
enmeshment. The EMS subscales grouped under the impaired limits domain
are entitlement and insufficient self-control. The EMS subscales grouped
under the other-directedness domain are subjugation, self-sacrifice, and
approval seeking. Lastly, the EMS subscales grouped under the
overvigilance and inhibition domain are emotional inhibition,
hypercriticalness/ unrelenting standards, negativity/pessimism, and self-
punitiveness (see Figure 8).
153
Disconnection and Impaired Autonomy Impaired Limits Other-Directedness Overvigilance and

Rejection and Performance Inhibition
Emotional Failure Entitlement Subjugation Emotional

deprivation inhibition
Hyper-
Dependence/ Insufficient criticalness/
Abandonment incompetence self-control Self-sacrifice unrelenting
standards
Vulnerability to Approval Negativity/

Mistrust/ abuse harm and illness seeking pessimism
Social isolation Self-

and alienation Enmeshment punitiveness
Defectiveness/
shame
Figure 8. Overview of five schema domains and the 18 early maladaptive

schemas grouped within each domain.
Each of the 18 EMS subscales contains five items, where each item
is phrased as a negative belief regarding the self and one’s relationships
with others. Items are rated on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) Completely
untrue of me to (6) Describes me perfectly, where higher scores indicate a
stronger presence of the respective schema. Example items include: “If I
make a mistake, I deserve to be punished” (self-punitiveness), “I feel
alienated or cut off from other people” (social isolation/ alienation), “I feel I
cannot let my guard down in the presence of other people, or else they will
intentionally hurt me” (mistrust/ abuse). The internal consistency of an
earlier 75-item version of the YSQ-SF found coefficient alphas exceeding
.80 for all schema subscales in an Australian sample (Baranoff, Oei, Cho, &
Kwon, 2006). In addition, Mairet et al. (2014) found the 90-item YSQ-SF3
to display good reliability in an Australian sample, with coefficient alphas
ranging from .86 (emotional deprivation) to .89 (defectiveness/ shame) at
the schema level and .94 at the schema domain level. Soygüt,
Karaosmanoğlu, and Çakır (2009) reported the internal consistency of the
154
YSQ-SF3 in a sample of Turkish university students. Coefficient alphas

ranged from .63 to .80 for each of the schemas and from .53 to .81 for the
schema domains. The test–retest reliability ranged from .66 to .82
(p < .01) at the schema level and from .66 to .83 (p < .01) at the schema
domain level.
Brief-COPE (Carver, 1997). The Brief-COPE (Carver, 1997) is a
28-item self-report questionnaire used to assess a number of different
coping responses to a specific stressful situation. There are 14 subscales (2
items for each subscale): active coping, planning, self-distraction, denial,
substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support,
behavioural disengagement, venting, positive reframing, humour,
acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Individuals rate 28 coping responses
on a four-point scale ranging from (1) I haven't been doing this at all to (4)
I've been doing this a lot. Carver (1997) reported coefficient alphas ranging
from .57 to .90 for the 14 subscales.
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-21 is a short form of the 42-item DASS
(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-21 is a set of 21 statements
designed to measure three 7-item subscales of depression, anxiety and
stress. Participants rate on a 4-point scale, ranging from (0) Did not apply to
me at all to (3) Applied to me very much or most of the time how much each
statement applies to them over the last week. Higher scores indicate greater
distress. The DASS-21 has been extensively normed and demonstrated
excellent psychometric qualities for adults (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, &
Swinson, 1998; Daza, Novy, Stanley, & Averill, 2002). Previous research
has reported high coefficient alphas for each of the subscales (Depression =
.97, Anxiety = .92, Stress = .95; Antony et al., 1998). The DASS-21 has also
demonstrated strong convergent validity with other measures of depression
(e.g., Beck Depression Inventory; r = .79), anxiety (e.g., Beck Anxiety
155
Inventory; r = .85) and stress (e.g., State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait; r =

.68; Antony et al., 1998).
Procedure
Participants were recruited through a university Research Experience
Program (REP), which was conducted with first year psychology students
(on-campus and online students). Participants from the general population
also were recruited via Facebook and other social networking sites, on-
campus advertising, and snowball sampling.
First year on-campus REP psychology students at the university had
the ability to sign up to participate in the study via the Sona System, an
online booking system. Upon arrival, participants were immediately
provided with the Consent Information Statement (Appendix G) and a
debriefing statement (Appendix H). Consent was implied by return of the
anonymous questionnaire.
First year online REP psychology students also had the opportunity
to participate in this study through the Sona System booking system.
Students who were studying online were: (1) instructed to send an email to
the main student investigator if they were interested in participating in the
project; (2) provide their full name; and (3) their postal address. This
enabled the researcher to post a questionnaire pack to the participant,
containing the Consent Information Statement, questionnaire booklet, a
small envelope with a document enclosed where participants were to
provide their name in order to receive REP credits, the debriefing statement,
and a reply-paid envelope with the principal supervisor’s university-mailing
address. As soon as the returned questionnaire packages were received, the
completed questionnaires were separated from the sealed envelope
containing the document with participant’s name. This ensured that
participants responses were anonymous. The student researcher then granted
course credit.
156
All other adults in the general population were recruited through

information flyers posted around the university campus, on SNSs, and
through snowball sampling. As with online students, participants could
provide their postal address in order to receive a questionnaire pack in the
mail. Alternatively, if applicable, participants could also receive their
questionnaire pack in person. Completing the questionnaire took
approximately 40-60 minutes.
The student researcher attempted to reduce any discomfort
associated with participating in the research project by informing
participants about what they could expect prior to commencement (e.g.,
through the Consent Information Statement). This included informing
participants that participation in the study would involve completing a
questionnaire about a stressful situation involving someone else, or a group
of people, within the last three months; how they coped with the stressful
situation; how they viewed themselves and their world; how they have been
feeling lately (i.e., stress, anxiety, depression); and demographic questions
(e.g., age, sex etc.). Participants were also informed that (a) participation in
this study was voluntary; (b) all processed data were anonymous; (c) they
were free to discontinue participation at any time; and (d) they were free to
omit any questions they did not wish to answer. In the unlikely event that
any problems arose, participants had access to on-campus counsellors as
well as online services through the university, both of which were available
for current university students. Participants who were not students at the
university were referred to the university counselling clinic (low cost
service), Lifeline, and Beyond Blue. These resources were listed on the
Consent Information Statement, which was displayed before the
questionnaire (see Appendix G) and on a debriefing statement provided at
the end of the questionnaire (see Appendix H).
157
Statistical Analyses
Data were analysed using Mplus 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015). A
Factor Analysis (FA), specifically an EFA for ordered categorical data, was
conducted first to determine whether the items form the five unidimensional
hypothesised scales. The estimation of the parameters in the factor models
were performed using Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted
(WLSMV), the default estimator available in Mplus for ordinal data
(Muthen & Muthen, 2015). A CFA was then conducted and used to evaluate
the discriminant validity of the latent constructs. The reliability was
examined by calculating the coefficient alphas for the five constructs. The
student researcher then checked for convergent and discriminant validity of
each of the five scales to other measures (i.e., YRAI, YCI, YSQ, Brief-
COPE, and DASS) using correlations.
Exploratory factor analysis. There were a number of steps to
consider before conducting the statistical analyses. Presented below is the
rationale for using an EFA, the estimation technique for ordered non-
categorical variables, rotation method employed, and decision on number of
factors to extract.
Rationale for using Exploratory Factor Analysis. As the FA was
based on theoretical grounds, an EFA, which is associated with theory
development and usually performed in the early stages of research, was
employed rather than a PCA. A PCA is purely an empirical data reduction
technique and does not assume any underlying theory (Fabrigar, Wegener,
MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). An EFA was also conducted initially,
instead of a CFA, to explore and uncover an optimal and parsimonious
factor structure. EFA is argued to be more appropriate for scale
development, while CFA is preferred at the advanced stages of a research
process where measurement models have a well-developed underlying
theory for hypothesised patterns of loadings (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;
Field, 2009; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014; Hurley et al., 1997;
158
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Ullman, 2006). Despite unidimensional scales

being developed, there is little theoretical or empirical basis to make strong
assumptions about how many common factors exist for each of the schema
coping constructs.
Estimation Technique for Nonnormal Ordered-Categorical
Variables. An appropriate estimation technique needed to be considered
when using Mplus 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2015) so that accurate standard
errors and parameter estimates could be obtained. This is especially so when
variables are classified as ordered-categorical (ordinal), the data has a non-
normal distribution, and the sample size is classified as small (N = 102).
WLSMV is considered the most optimal estimation technique to use with
non-normal ordered-categorical data and small to moderate sample sizes
(Byrne, 2012; Harrington, 2009; Kline, 2011). Simulations research related
to the WLSMV estimator has shown it to yield accurate test statistics,
parameter estimates, and standard errors under both normal and nonnormal
latent response distributions across sample sizes ranging from 100 to 1,000
(Flora & Curran, 2004). As such, the WLSMV was implemented in the
current study as the sample size was small and the data were ordinal and
non-normally distributed. This estimation technique was available in Mplus
7.4 and the default with categorical outcomes (Muthen & Muthen, 2015).
Rotation Method. The model was initially examined with an oblique
rotation, GEOMIN, which was the default for Mplus 7.4 (Muthen &
Muthen, 2015). An oblique rotation rather than orthogonal rotation was
implemented in this study as it allowed for correlations among the factors,
opposed to orthogonal, which does not (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Despite the
lack of previous research examining psychometric properties of the YRAI
and YCI, it is likely that if any subscales arise from each measure they
would correlate with the other subscales in the same measure, reflecting the
broader measure of the particular coping construct. Knowing which factors
are correlated with one another is useful in interpreting the conceptual
159
nature of the factors. Furthermore, substantial correlations among factors

suggests that higher order factors may exist (Fabrigar et al., 1999).
Deciding on the number of factors to extract. As each of the five
schema coping constructs were developed as unidimensional scales based
on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, one-factor solutions were examined
as a first step. Competing models with multiple factors were also extracted
and explored for each of the five schema coping constructs as this was to
see whether other factor solutions provided a better fit to the data than the
one-factor model. There are a number of techniques available, in addition to
theory, that can help in deciding the number of factors to retain, one of
which is a scree plot. A scree plot was produced in Mplus and all the factors
above the elbow or above a break in the plot indicate factors that explain the
most variance in the data set (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012).
In addition to this, model fit indices in Mplus 7.4 were inspected to
evaluate and determine the most optimal model. The model fit indices used
to evaluate all models were the χ2 goodness-of-fit statistic, root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), the standardized root-
mean-square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995), comparative fit index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973).
The Chi-Square Test. Chi-square tests are tests of model
misspecification. A non-significant χ2 is indicative of a model that fits the
data well. In contrast, a significant chi-square suggests the model does not
fit the sample data (Crockett, 2012). However, when a χ2 statistic is
significant and no re-specifications are theoretically meaningful, other fit
statistics can be used to support that the model fits the data well. One
drawback of the χ2 statistic is that it is sensitive to violations of normality
and to sample size. For example, the larger the sample size, the more likely
the p-value associated with the χ2 will result a significant difference between
the model and the data (Crockett, 2012; Kline, 2011). As a result,
160
researchers have argued that multiple indices of overall model fit be used in
conjunction with the χ2 goodness-of-fit test.
Absolute and incremental fit indices. Fit indices can be used to
quantify the degree of fit along a continuum. These indices provide an
overall summary statistic that examines how well a particular covariance
model explains sample data (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The most commonly
reported are the SRMR and RMSEA, which are classified as absolute fit
indices, and the CFI, which is classified as an incremental fit index (Hu &
Bentler, 1998; Ullman, 2006; Weston & Gore, 2006). Absolute fit indices
refer to how well the theoretical model reproduces the sample covariance
matrix. In addition, incremental fit indices (also known as comparative fit
indices) compare the model to a nested baseline model that is a null model,
in which all variables are uncorrelated with each other (Hu & Bentler,
1998). Ideally, for a model that fits the data the χ2 would not be significant
(p > 0.05). However, if there is a significant difference between the model
and the data, then the cut off values for the absolute fit indices of a RMSEA
and SRMR value of ≤ .08 and ≤ .05, respectively, is considered indicative of
an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum, Browne, &
Sugawara, 1996). Values between .90 and .95 were considered acceptable
on the CFI and TLI, with a value of ≥ .95 considered to be representative of
good model of fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
In addition to inspecting the model fit statistics, the number of
indicators per factor and rotated factor loadings for each factor solution
were also investigated. Kline (2011) suggested that there should be at least
three indicators per factor as factors that have only two indicators are prone
to estimation problems, especially when the sample size is small.
Furthermore, based on Stevens (1992) recommendation, significant factor
loadings were classified as .4 and higher. A-priori theory was also used to
guide factor and item removal and retention (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003).
161
If a factor solution was not ideal because: (1) a factor had no

significant factor loadings (> .4); (2) significant factor loadings were present
but too small to form a factor (< .6); (3) factors were not interpretable; or (4)
a Heywood Case or ultra-Heywood Case was present, meaning that
parameter estimates had out-of-range values (Brown, 2006; Kline, 2015),
the number of factors retained were decreased or increased to see whether a
smaller or larger factor structure represented those problematic variables.
Reliability and validity. Once the SCSI factors were finalised, the
internal consistency reliability of each of the schema coping scales was
assessed by calculating Cronbach’s coefficient alpha in SPSS Statistics 23
(IBM Corp., 2012). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha indicates how well a set of
items measure an underlying latent construct (Pallant, 2011). This statistic
provides a value that ranges from 0 to 1, with values of .7 or higher
indicating acceptable reliability (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, to assess
whether the schema coping scales measured what they were supposed to
measure, the convergent validity of the avoidance scale and the pleasing and
retaliation scales was assessed using the YRAI and YCI, respectively.
Moreover, the discriminant validity of the schema coping scales was
assessed using the Brief-Cope. Lastly, the concurrent validity of the schema
coping scales was assessed using the YSQ-SF3 and the DASS-21.
Step 6 and 7: Evaluating the items and Optimising the Scale length
The Results section below describes the results from the EFA where
the factor structure of the SCSI, as well as the reliability and validity of the
scale were evaluated (Step 6). The scale length was also optimised
throughout the evaluation analyses by eliminating problematic or redundant
items (Step 7).
162
Results
Data screening and cleaning

Prior to conducting an EFA, descriptive statistics including means,
standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values were used to check
for outliers and missing data. Once data entry errors were addressed by
cross-checking the hard copy version of questionnaires, missing data was
treated using listwise deletion in SPSS. It was not uncommon for the paper
questionnaires to be missing complete pages of data on the SCSI and other
questionnaires administered. The amount of missing data was 17.44% for
the sample (N = 281) and 6.8% for the SCSI scale. Individuals who selected
“Not Applicable” to an item on the SCSI were also treated as missing data
and deleted listwise. This brought the sample from 281 participants to 102
participants. Furthermore, some of the SCSI scales contained outliers,
however the mean and the 5% trimmed mean were compared to give an
indication of how much of a problem these outlying cases were likely to be
(Pallant, 2011). As the mean and trimmed mean were very similar for each
of the scales, the cases were retained in the data file.
The Shapiro-Wilk test was used in conjunction with an inspection of
histograms and Q-Q Plots to examine normality as this is considered an
appropriate test for smaller samples (Field, 2009). There was evidence of
nonnormality (p < .05) in the data, with the majority of SCSI items, such as
those that were designed to measure surrender, avoidance, retaliation, and
pleasing, indicating a positive skew. This suggests that fewer participants
endorsed high levels of surrender, avoidance, retaliation, or pleasing. On the
other hand, there was a negative skew for items that were designed to
measure adaptive schema coping, meaning that many participants endorsed
using this strategy. The WLSMV estimator was employed to deal with
nonnormal data.
163
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

For the surrender scale, a one-factor solution was examined based on
a priori theory. The initial one-factor model did not show a good fit to the
data: ! " (209) = 551.04, p < .001, RMSEA = .127, CFI = .871, TLI = .857,
SRMR = .125. Sixteen factor indicators (i.e., factor items) were removed
due to low correlations with other indicators, factor loadings below .40
(Field, 2009; Hair et al., 2014), high modification indices (MI), or not fitting
the factor conceptually. The remaining six indicators had moderate to strong
loadings (.45 – .87; see Table 2). Two indicators had considerably lower
factor loadings (.45 and .52) compared to the rest of the indicators on the
same factor, although make conceptual sense so they were retained. The
revised model fit for the six items (1, 2, 4, 20, 22, 23) measuring surrender
was: ! " (9) = 14.25, p = .114, indicating a good fit to the data.
Despite the surrender measure being developed based on a priori
theory, another model exploring different factor structures was also
examined to ensure that the number of factors had not been underestimated.
A scree plot suggested that the initial surrender scale has two factors. Three-
and four-factor solutions were also tried, however there were no significant
factor loadings on the last two factors. In the two-factor model the initial
model fit was: ! " (188) = 301.66, p < .001, RMSEA = .077, CFI = .957, TLI
= .947, SRMR = .075. Despite obtaining appropriate model fit statistics,
eleven items were removed due to low correlations with other items (below
.3), non-significant factor loadings below .40, significant cross loadings
with other factors, high MI’s, or not fitting the factor conceptually. The
model was re-specified and was found to be a good fit to the data: ! " (53) =
72.02, p = .042, RMSEA = .059, CFI = .989, TLI = .984, SRMR = .046,
however the two factors were difficult to interpret. The first factor appeared
to combine items relating to worrying and dependence on others and the
second factor captured compliance. The two-factor structure was relevant to
164
theory but the items in the first factor are conceptually distinct. Therefore,
the one-factor model was retained.
For the avoidance scale, a one-factor solution was examined based
on a priori theory. The initial model did not show a good fit to the data:
! " (90) = 207.74, p < .001, RMSEA = .113, CFI = .940, TLI = .930, SRMR
= .084. Five items were removed due to a combination of low correlations
with other items, low factor loadings, high MI values, and vague item
wording. For each item deleted there was another similar item that better
captured the construct (i.e., clearer item wording and stronger factor
loading). The final 10 items (25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39; see Table
2) had moderate to strong factor loadings (.53 – .82). The revised model
resulted in a good fit to the data: ! " (35) = 47.45, p = .078.
A competing model was also tried based on a scree plot suggesting
that avoidance contains two factors. A two- and three-factor solution was
run, however both solutions were poor. For the two-factor solution, the
second factor contained only two items with significant factor loadings, one
of which (item 31) was extremely high (.98) and approaching a factor
loading of 1.0 (known as a Heywood case). Similarly, the three-factor
solution only had two significant factor loadings on the second factor (item
31 again was .98), and the third factor contained no significant factor
loadings. Therefore, the one-factor solution was retained.
A one-factor solution was also examined for the retaliation scale.
The initial model did not show a good fit to the data: ! " (275) = 490.21, p
< .001, RMSEA = .088, CFI = .906, TLI = .898, SRMR = .112. Fourteen
items were removed due to unclear item wording, item redundancy, low
correlations with other items (below .2), and low factor loadings (below .4).
The remaining 11 items had moderate to strong loadings (.62 – .80; see
Table 2) on the factor solution. The revised model fit for the eleven items
165
(42, 45, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64) measuring retaliation was: ! " (44)
= 58.40, p = .072, indicating a good fit to the data.
However, as the initial scree plot suggested that retaliation has two
to three factors, both solutions were also examined. For the three-factor
model, three items on the third factor had significant factor loadings with
the first two factors. For the two-factor solution, two items (items 47 and
58) were deleted due to significant cross loadings, resulting in an acceptable
model fit: ! " (208) = 332.89, p = .001, RMSEA = .077, CFI = .944, TLI =
.931, SRMR = .080. However, as the two-factor model was not interpretable
the one-factor model was retained.
For the pleasing scale, a one-factor solution was examined based on
a priori theory. The initial model did not show a good fit to the data:
! " (104) = 246.30, p < .001, RMSEA = .116, CFI = .943, TLI = .934, SRMR
= .099. Six items were deleted due to low correlations with other items
(below .3), high MI’s, item wording, item redundancy, or not fitting the
factor conceptually. The remaining 10 items had moderate to strong
loadings (.42 – .86; see Table 2). The revised model fit for the 10 items (65,
66, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79) measuring pleasing was: ! " (35) = 47.322, p =
.08, indicating a good fit to the data.
As suggested by a scree plot, two and three factor solutions were
examined for the pleasing construct. The three-factor model had an ultra-
Heywood case (1.035), meaning that fewer factors needed to be extracted.
The two-factor model had three significant loadings on first factor and many
on second. However, there was a large break between factor loadings on the
first factor, with two of the item factor loadings above .9 and the other .5.
The two-factor solution was also uninterpretable, suggesting that the one
factor solution is the better factor structure.
For adaptive schema coping, an initial one-factor solution resulted in
poor model fit: ! " (152) = 622.76, p < .001, RMSEA = .174, CFI = .793,
166
TLI = .767, SRMR = .149. Twelve items were deleted due to item
redundancy, item wording, not conceptually fitting the construct, low
correlations with other items, non-significant factor loadings, and high MI
values. A total of seven items were retained (items 83, 85, 87, 90, 94, 97,
98) with moderate to strong factor loadings (.45 – .92; see Table 2). The
results of the one-factor model suggested a good fit to the data, ! " (14) =
15.51, p = .34. However, a scree plot suggested around two to four factors
be retained. For the four-factor model, the last factor had no significant
factor loadings so one less factor was extracted. In the three-factor model,
six items had factor loadings above .9, however the model had a good fit:
! " (42) = 48.92, p < .22, and the three factors were interpretable: problem-
focused coping (first factor), social support-seeking (second factor), and
positive reframing (third factor). however, as the scale was specifically
developed to be a one-factor unidimensional model and to be consistent
with the other scales, the re-specified one-factor solution was retained.
167
Table 2.
SCSI Final Factor Structure with Factor Loadings for Each Item
Indicators for each factor Factor

loading
Surrender
I gave in to the person/ people. .87*
I felt less able to disagree with the person/ people. .76*
I went along with what the person/ people thought. .87*
I went along with the situation. .85*
I relied on others to help me decide what to do. .46*
I put up with abuse. .52*
Avoidance
I numbed out by doing things such as playing games or watching TV. .79*
I escaped by going somewhere else. .78*
I procrastinated about what to do. .73*
I avoided expressing my feelings to the person/ people. .69*
I avoided going to public places alone because of the situation. .68*
I tried to avoid the person/ people. .63*
I chose to spend a lot of my time by myself. .75*
I tried to avoid the situation by sleeping more. .78*
I tried to dodge situations that appeared challenging. .82*
I tried to solve it on my own. .53*
Retaliation
I was highly critical towards the person/ people. .80*
I directed my anger towards the person/people. .72*
I behaved passive aggressively towards the person/ people. .75*
I blamed the other person/ people for things going wrong. .78*
I was very dominating towards the other person/ people. .79*
I found it difficult to come to an agreement with the person/ people. .80*
I placed my ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ higher than that of the other person/ .62*
people.
I bullied the person/ people into getting my own way. .64*
I became defensive. .75*
I made myself feel better by devaluing the person. .64*
I tried to come up with ways to out-think the person/ people so they .69*
could not exploit or manipulate me.
*p < .05
168
Table 2 (Continued).
SCSI Final Factor Structure with Factor Loadings for Each Item
Indicators for each factor Factor

loading
Pleasing
I overreacted by being overly positive. .42*
I tried hard to please the person/ people. .76*
I acted overly polite or nice to the person/ people. .76*
In order to be included I put on an act. .77*
I gave more to the person/ people than myself. .78*
I put on a smile and pretended as if everything was fine, even though I .61*
may have felt differently internally.
I tried to impress the person/ people. .86*
I did whatever required to make the situation better, regardless of how .58*
I felt.
I tried to appear successful (e.g., luxurious car, fancy clothing) towards .75*
the person/ people.
I tried hard to be perfect. .76*
Adaptive coping
I thought about how I might approach the situation before acting. .45*
I approached the person/ people about the situation. .61*
I tried to find a balance between my own needs and others. .49*
I focused more on the positive things in life. .46*
I asked for help from other people if needed. .63*
I kept trying to overcome the situation even if it didn’t work the first .81*
time.
I tried my best to solve the situation even if it seemed difficult. .92*
*p < .05
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Once the EFA identified the dimensionality for the 44-item SCSI, a
CFA was performed using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012) to
assess the discriminant validity of the latent constructs. When estimating the
CFA model, the residuals of indicators were assumed to be uncorrelated; all
latent factors were intercorrelated; and the first unstandardised factor
loading on each factor was fixed to 1.0 for latent factor scaling and
identification (Kline, 2011). The adequacy of the model to the data was
169
evaluated based on the model fit statistics (i.e., multiple fit indices) and the
estimated standardised factor-loading magnitudes. The fit statistics (i.e., χ2,
RMSEA, CFI, and TLI) outlined for the EFA, as well as, the weighted root
mean square residual (WRMR), were employed to evaluate model fit for the
CFA. A value of WRMR close to or less than 1.0 has been suggested as
indicative of adequate model fit (Yu, 2002).
A five-factor independent-cluster measurement model was
performed and included surrender, avoidance, retaliation, pleasing, and
adaptive coping. The aim of the full measurement model was to ensure that
items load uniquely on their respective latent construct and that latent
constructs were distinct from one another.
The initial model fit to the data was not acceptable, as the model was
statistically significant. While the RMSEA was appropriate, the CFI and
TLI were less than the recommended .90 threshold measure, ! " (892) =
1340.19, p < .001, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .871, TLI = .863, WRMR =
1.217. The item ADAPT90 had very high MIs with all the other scales.
Inspecting the item more closely, “I focused more on the positive things in
life,” could also be considered an avoidance (e.g., denial) or
overcompensation (e.g., pleasing) technique. The model was re-specified
eliminating ADAPT90 from the adaptive factor. The resultant model fit to
the data was still statistically significant and TLI just below the threshold
(.894). However, there was much improvement compared to the original
model as the CFI approached .90 and the RMSEA decreased to .63, χ2(850)
= 1197.48, p < .001, RMSEA = .063, CFI = .900, TLI = .894, WRMR =
1.119. Inspecting the correlations, standardised factor loadings, and
modification indices, ADAPT85 had several high MI values with the other
latent constructs. The wording of this item, “I approached the person/
people about the situation,” was considered vague and could fit in with
items on the retaliation scale (e.g., confronting a person). The model was re-
170
specified once removing this item from the adaptive schema coping
construct.
Finally, the final model consisted of five constructs indicated by 42
items (see Figure 9). While the model was statistically significant, the fit
indices were classified as appropriate, ! " (809) = 1102.34, p < .001,
RMSEA = .060, CFI = .916, TLI = .910, WRMR = 1.059. The standardised
loadings for each of the items on the respective latent construct were
statistically significant and ranged from a low of .47 to a high of .93. One
item, ADAPT87, had a factor loading of .33, however it was retained as it
may be stronger in larger samples and having a clear and conceptually
meaningful factor structure was important, rather than relying solely on
statistical indictors.
171
Figure 9. Independent cluster measurement model of the five schema

coping scales
172
The CFA provided partial evidence for discriminant validity for the
latent factors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Most of the correlations
between the four maladaptive schema coping factors ranged from weak to
moderate strength, with a strong correlation between surrender and
avoidance (see Table 3).
Table 3.
CFA Inter-correlations between Surrender, Avoidance, Retaliation,
Pleasing, and Adaptive Coping Styles.
SURR AVOID RET PLEAS

SURR -
AVOID .80*** -
RET .34*** .60*** -
PLEAS .70*** .76*** .44*** -
ADAPT -.00 -.03 .26* .20*
Note. N = 102. SURR = Surrender; AVOID = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLEAS =
Pleasing.
* = p < .05. ** = p < .01. *** = p < .001.
Another test of discriminant validity was employed which involved

inspecting the pattern and structure coefficients of each of the factors in the
measurement model to determine if they are empirically distinguishable
(Thompson, 1997). Pattern coefficients are the standardised factor loadings
derived from the CFA analyses. Structure coefficients, on the other hand,
were calculated by multiplying the standardised factor loading for each item
not hypothesised to comprise that factor by the latent factor correlation. For
example, to determine whether surrender was discriminant to the other four
coping constructs, the pattern coefficients of items that comprise these other
constructs was multiplied by the latent correlation between the respective
latent variable and surrender. There should be a clear break between the
173
structure coefficients for items on the hypothesised factor (e.g., surrender)

versus items that are not (e.g., other coping constructs). Table 4 shows the
factor pattern and structure coefficients for each of the SCSI factors. An
inspection of the structure coefficients for each of the five factors (bolded
values in Table 4) showed that there was 1 item for the surrender scale
(SURR 22), 2 items for the avoidance scale (AVOID 30, AVOID 39), and 3
items for the pleasing scale (PLS 65, PLS 75, PLS 77) where items from
other scales were more strongly associated with the underlying latent factor.
Nonetheless, discriminant validity between the five factors was found for
most of the items and therefore discriminant validity was assumed.
174
Table 4.
Factor Pattern and Structure Coefficients for SCSI Factors
Note: P = Pattern coefficient; S = Structure coefficient; SURR = Surrender; AVOID =

Avoidance; RETALI = Retaliation; PLEASE = Pleasing; ADAPT = Adaptive.
175
Reliability Analysis
Item reliability and internal consistency. Since an optimal factor
structure was determined, the reliability for each scale was examined by
calculating the coefficient alpha and item-total statistics in IBM SPSS
Statistics 23. The SCSI factors showed acceptable coefficient alpha values
(α = .72 to .89; see Table 5). Coefficient alpha values for the surrender and
pleasing scales could be increased if two items on the surrender scale and
one item on the pleasing scale were deleted. However, this would achieve
only a very small improvement (i.e., α = .83 to α = .84 for surrender and α =
.87 to α = .88 for pleasing).
As can be seen in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7, most of the scales
included in this study had excellent coefficient alpha values. It should be
noted, the YRAI and YCI had excellent coefficient alpha values (α = .80 and
α = .90, respectively). Because of this, no items needed to be removed.
In addition, two Brief-COPE subscales, behavioural disengagement
and acceptance, had low coefficient alphas (α = .58 and α = .46,
respectively). However, these measures were retained in the study as
coefficient alpha values are quite sensitive to the number of items in the
scale, and it is common to find low coefficient alpha values (e.g., α = .5) for
short scales (i.e., Brief-COPE only has 2 items per scale). In this case,
Pallant (2011) suggested reporting the mean inter-item correlation for the
items, with an optimal range for the inter-item correlation being between .2
to .4 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Pallant, 2011; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In
the current study, the behavioural disengagement scale had a mean inter-
item correlation of .42, and the acceptance scale had a mean inter-item
correlation is .30, both of which were within the optimal range.
Validity Analysis
As it was found that the scale: (1) conformed to its conceptual
definitions, (2) was unidimensional, (3) met the necessary levels of
176
reliability, and (4) composite scores of each scale were developed, the last
step was to verify the factor structure by establishing the construct validity
of the SCSI factors examined through IBM SPSS Statistics 23. Due to the
data having a non-normal distribution, the non-parametric test, Spearman
Rank Correlation Coefficient, was employed to examine the relationships
between the SCSI factors and YRAI, YCI, YSQ, Brief-COPE, and DASS
(Hair et al., 2014; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Convergent validity. To investigate convergent validity, avoidance
was correlated with the YRAI, and retaliation and pleasing with the YCI. A
significant moderate positive correlation between avoidance and the YRAI
was found showing satisfactory convergent validity. Moreover, retaliation
and pleasing had a significant moderate positive correlation with the YCI,
indicating satisfactory convergent validity (see Table 5).
Discriminant validity. To assess the discriminant validity of the
SCSI, the Brief-COPE was used as it is a measure of coping with stress and
not EMSs. Surrender had very weak to moderate significant positive
correlations with denial, substance abuse, emotional support, behavioural
disengagement, and self-blame. There was a non-significant relationship
between surrender and Brief-COPE subscales of instrumental support,
venting, positive reframing, planning, humour, acceptance, and religion (see
Table 5).
Avoidance had very weak to moderate significant positive
correlations with the Brief-COPE subscales of self-distraction, denial,
behavioural disengagement, substance use, and self-blame. Avoidance had a
very weak significant positive correlation with the Brief-COPE subscale of
active coping. There was a non-significant relationship between avoidance
and Brief-COPE subscales of emotional support, instrumental support,
venting, positive reframing, planning, humour, acceptance, and religion (see
Table 5).
177
Furthermore, retaliation had weak to moderate significant positive

correlations with Brief-COPE subscales of self-distraction, behavioural
disengagement, venting, and self-blame. There was a non-significant
relationship between retaliation and Brief-COPE subscales of denial, active,
substance use, emotional support, instrumental support, positive reframing,
planning, humour, acceptance, and religion (see Table 5).
Pleasing also showed very weak to moderate significant positive
correlations between Brief-COPE subscales of self-distraction, denial,
substance abuse, behavioural disengagement, humour, and self-blame.
There was a non-significant relationship between pleasing and Brief-COPE
subscales of active, emotional support, instrumental support, venting,
positive reframing, planning, acceptance, and religion (see Table 5).
Adaptive schema coping showed very weak to moderate significant
positive correlations with the Brief-Cope subscales of active, emotional
support, instrumental support, venting, planning, and acceptance. In
contrast, adaptive schema coping had a very weak significant negative
correlation with denial. Adaptive schema coping did not have a significant
correlation with Brief-COPE subscales of self-distraction, substance use,
behaviour disengagement, positive reframing, humour, religion and self-
blame (see Table 5). Taken together, these findings suggest that the SCSI
factors, which measure coping with EMSs can be considered discriminant to
the Brief-Cope subscales which measure coping with stress.
Criterion-related validity. At the schema domain level, weak to
moderate significant positive correlations were found between surrender,
avoidance, retaliation, and pleasing with all five schema domains. A non-
significant relationship between adaptive schema coping and all schema
domains was found (see Table 6).
At the schema subscale level, surrender had significant weak to
moderate positive correlations with 16 schema subscales, though a non-
significant correlation was found with the entitlement schema and emotional
178
deprivation schema. Avoidance on the other hand, had significant weak to

moderate positive correlations with all 18 schema subscales. For retaliation,
significant weak positive correlations were found with 15 of the schema
subscales, however, retaliation had non-significant relationships with
enmeshment, emotional deprivation, and self-sacrifice. Pleasing had
significant weak to moderate positive correlations with 17 of the schema
subscales, though a non-significant relationship with the dependence
schema. Lastly, adaptive schema coping had weak but significant negative
relationships with the dependence, emotional inhibition, and subjugation
schemas, and a weak significant positive correlation with unrelenting
standards. Adaptive schema coping had a non-significant relationship with
the other 14 schema subscales (see Table 7).
In regard to the DASS, surrender had significant moderate positive
correlations with depression, anxiety, and stress. Similarly, avoidance also
had significant moderate positive correlations with depression, anxiety, and
stress. Retaliation had very weak significant positive correlations with
depression and stress, but a non-significant correlation with anxiety.
Pleasing had weak to moderate positive correlations with depression,
anxiety, and stress. Adaptive schema coping had non-significant
correlations with depression, stress, and anxiety (see Table 6). Taken
together, these findings indicate that the SCSI factors show criterion-related
validity with the schema domains, various EMS subscales, and depression,
anxiety, and/or stress.
179
Table 5.
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between SCSI scales, YRAI, YCI, and Brief-COPE subscales.
Note. N = 102; r = Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. SURR = Surrender; AVOID = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLEAS = Pleasing; ADAPT = Adaptive; YRAI
= Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory; YCI = Young Compensatory Inventory; BC distract = Brief-COPE Self-Distraction subscale; BC active = Brief-COPE active
subscale; BC denial = Brief-COPE denial subscale; BC subuse = Brief-COPE substance use subscale; BC esupp = Brief-COPE emotional support subscale; BC insupp =
Brief-COPE instrumental support subscale; BC bedis = Brief-COPE behavioural disengagement subscale; BC vent = Brief-COPE venting subscale; BC pos ref = Brief-
COPE positive reframing subscale; BC plan = Brief-COPE planning subscale; BC hum = Brief-COPE humour subscale; BC accept = Brief-COPE acceptance subscale;
BC religion = Brief-COPE religion subscale; BC sblame = Brief-COPE self-blame subscale.
* p< .05. **p<.01.
180
Table 6.
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between SCSI scales, YRAI, YCI, YSQ-SF3 schema domains, and DASS-21.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
(1) SURR 1 .65** .28** .54** -.01 .25* .31** .28** .42** .27** .44** .46** .50** .40** .41**
(2) AVOID 1 .55** .63** -.006 .54** .56** .50** .50** .51** .60** .64** .63** .49** .50**
(3) RET 1 .37** .20* .37** .53** .35** .27** .42** .38** .50** .24** .07 .27**
(4) PLEAS 1 .18 .48* .47* .37** .42** .40** .54** .54** .38** .35** .47**
(5) ADAPT 1 -.03 .08 -.20 -.10 -.03 -.03 -.06 -.11 -.04 .04
(6) YRAI 1 .62** .57** .44** .56** .67** .61** .49** .44** .52**
(7) YCI 1 .53** .51** .74** .68** .62** .45** .44** .53**
(8) YSQ D1 1 .72** .49** .66**. .75** .58** .52** .47**
(9) YSQ D2 1 .50** .74** .73** .56** .59** .53**
(10) YSQ D3 1 .67** .56** 50** .43** .54**
(11) YSQ D4 1 .74** .54** .57** .53**
(12) YSQ D5 1 56** .48** .50**
(13) DASS Dep 1 .60** .69**
(14) DASS Anx 1 .60**
(15) DASS Stress 1
Factor M 2.95 2.97 2.60 2.84 4.43 3.02 2.91 2.17 1.99 2.48 2.82 2.73 .57 .46 .93
Factor SD 1.23 11.83 12.10 10.80 4.92 .51 .59 .93 .81 .76 .86 .82 .66 .57 .68
Mean Inter-Item r .45 .43 .42 .40 .35 .09 .16 .45 .37 .27 .31 .32 .63 .48 .52
Coefficient alpha .83 .88 .89 .87 .72 .80 .90 .95 .92 .79 .87 .90 .92 .87 .88
Note. N = 102; r = Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. SURR = Surrender; AVOID = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLEAS = Pleasing; ADAPT = Adaptive; YRAI
= Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory; YCI = Young Compensatory Inventory; YSQ D1 = Disconnection and Rejection (Domain 1); YSQ D2 = Impaired Autonomy and
Performance (Domain 2); YSQ D3 = Impaired Limits (Domain 3); YSQ D4 = Other-directedness (Domain 4); YSQ D5 = Overvigilance and Inhibition (Domain 5);
DASS Dep = Depression subscale; DASS Anx = Anxiety subscale; DASS Stress = Stress subscale.
* p< .05. **p<.01.
181
Table 7.
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between SCSI scales, YRAI, YCI, and YSQ-SF3 schema subscales.
Note. N = 102; r = Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. SURR = Surrender; AVOID = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLEAS = Pleasing; ADAPT = Adaptive; YSQ
ED = Emotional Deprivation schema; YSQ AB = Abandonment schema; YSQ MA = Mistrust and Abuse schema; YSQ SI = Social Isolation/ Alienation schema; YSQ
DS = Defective/ Shame schema; YSQ FA = Failure to Achieve schema; YSQ DEP = Dependence schema; YSQ VH = Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema; YSQ
EM = Enmeshment schema; YSQ SUB = Subjugation schema; YSQ EI = Emotional Inhibition schema; YSQ SS = Self-Sacrifice schema; YSQ US = Hypercriticalness/
Unrelenting Standards schema; YSQ ENT = Entitlement schema; YSQ ISC = Insufficient Self-Control schema; YSQ RS = Approval Seeking/ Recognition Seeking
schema; YSQ PESS = Pessimism schema; YSQ SP = Self-punitiveness schema.
* p< .05. **p<.01.
182
Discussion
The purpose of this pilot study was to develop a new reliable and
valid scale to measure the schema coping styles proposed by Young et al.
(2003). Initial scale items assessing surrender, avoidance, retaliation,
pleasing, and adaptive schema coping styles were generated by reviewing
schema theory, previous literature, and the items on the YRAI and YCI
scales. A discussion of the results in relation to the three research questions
is presented below.
RQ 1: What is the factor structure of the surrender, avoidance,

overcompensation (pleasing and retaliation), and adaptive schema
coping scales?
The results of the EFA on the initial schema coping scales indicated
five factors resulting in 48 items: surrender (6 items), avoidance (10 items),
retaliation (11 items), pleasing (10 items), and adaptive schema coping (7
items). Since previous studies had found various factor structures (i.e.,
Karaosmanoğlu et al., 2013; Luck et al., 2005; Spranger et al., 2001),
competing models were also tested to see if other factor solutions were a
better fit. However, the one-factor solutions worked best and were informed
by schema theory (Young et al., 2003), whereas past studies that have
examined the factor structure of the YRAI and YCI were empirically driven.
Unlike the YCI, the current study separated out the two dimensions of
overcompensation, pleasing and retaliation, and found two one-factor
models. This aligns with Alder’s (1907; 2002) and Young et al.’s (2003)
conceptualisation of overcompensation where people may overcompensate
by trying to gain power or retaliate (e.g., dominating or controlling), or by
trying to achieve status or please others (e.g., appear perfect, please others,
flaunt their success). In addition, the EFA factors of the newly developed
scales remained relatively unchanged when testing the independent cluster
183
measurement model, with the exception of two items from the adaptive
scale which indicated cross loading(s) with the other factors. Model fit
statistics for the revised five-factor independent cluster measurement model
indicated a good fit and the majority of the items across the five factors
were discriminant. Despite discriminant validity being assumed, additional
data may need to be collected to determine if the overlapping items are a
result of the small sample size, being too conservative in retaining items
with weak factor loadings (e.g., below .50 or .60), or due to sampling flukes
(Bollen, 1989; Farrell, 2010).
It should also be noted that adaptive schema coping only had
significant but very weak correlations with retaliation and pleasing. This
could be explained by overcompensation being viewed as healthy to a point,
as it is attempting to fight back against the schema so long as the behaviour
is proportionate to the situation, takes into account the feelings of others,
and can reasonably be expected to lead to a desirable outcome (Young et al.,
2003). However, overcompensators usually overstep this as their behaviour
is usually extreme and they get stuck in counterattacking. Therefore, the
schema ends up being perpetuated rather than healed (Young et al., 2003).
In contrast, avoidance and surrender were not correlated with adaptive
schema coping. This indicates that these maladaptive schema coping styles
are distinct from adaptive schema coping, which focuses more on
challenging core beliefs, such as asking for help from others when needed.
Instead, surrender and avoidance are characterised by being completely
dependent or completely independent (Young et al., 2003).
RQ 2: Are these new schema coping scales reliable?

Reliability analyses conducted on the finalised SCSI factors found
that each of the SCSI factors had acceptable internal consistency reliability,
with coefficient alpha values ranging from .72 to .89. Kline (2015) proposed
that coefficient alpha values around .70 can be interpreted as adequate,
184
values .80 can be interpreted as good, and values around .90 can be
interpreted as excellent. Based on these guidelines for interpreting
coefficient alpha values, avoidance, retaliation, and pleasing showed
excellent internal consistency reliability, followed by surrender, which
showed good internal consistency reliability. Adaptive schema coping
showed an adequate internal consistency reliability value. Previous studies
using the YRAI and YCI reported mixed reliability estimates. For instance,
poor (below. 70) to good (around .80) internal consistency reliability has
been reported for three-factors on the YCI (Luck et al., 2005; Mairet et al.,
2015; Sheffield et al., 2009), but poor internal consistency for two-factors
on the YRAI (below. 70; Luck et al., 2005; Sheffield et al., 2009).
Furthermore, Karaosmanoğlu et al. (2013) reported coefficient alphas
ranging from poor (i.e., one subscale was below .70) to good. Therefore, the
SCSI factors developed in the current study provides researchers with
reliable measures of various schema coping styles.
RQ 3: Do these new schema coping scales demonstrate construct and

The correlations between SCSI factors of avoidance and YRAI, and
retaliation and pleasing and YCI showed a moderate level of convergent
validity. It was expected this would be higher given they are supposed to be
measuring the same construct, however the YCI was not specifically
designed to assess different dimensions of overcompensation and many
items on the YRAI were unrelated to avoidance and do not capture the
intended construct well. In fact, previous studies have had to omit several
problematic items from these pre-existing scales prior to assessing the
quality of the factor structure (see Luck et al., 2005; Karaosmanoğlu et al.,
2013).
Discriminant validity analyses revealed non-significant relationships
between SCSI factors and dissimilar Brief-COPE subscales. However,
185
Brief-COPE subscales relating to types of avoidance had significant

correlations with SCSI factors of surrender, avoidance, retaliation, and
pleasing, though the strength of the correlations were generally weak
indicating evidence of discriminant validity. Young et al. (2003) purported
that surrender, avoidance, and overcompensation are based on basic
responses to threat, yet the Brief-COPE is a measure of general responses to
stress and not specific to how people cope with maladaptive schemas. The
SCSI factors of surrender, avoidance, retaliation, and pleasing also cover a
wider range of coping responses considered to be maladaptive in response
to activation of EMSs. In previous research, little attention has been paid to
behaviours considered poor coping styles and that lead to more negative
outcomes. Other coping measures, such as those in the general stress and
coping literature (e.g., Brief-COPE) do not seem to be good indicators of
coping styles and responses considered problematic (Frydenberg & Lewis,
2004).
There was evidence of criterion-related validity between the SCSI
factors and the YSQ-SF3 five schema domains and several EMS subscales.
The present study found that the SCSI factors, particularly the maladaptive
coping styles, were associated with more than one schema domain and
schema subscale, illustrating that the schema coping styles are not specific
to certain schema domains or schemas subscales. This is consistent with
Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory where individuals may use a different
coping response in relation to the same or different schemas.
Karaosmanoğlu et al. (2013) also found several significant correlations
between schema subscales and the YCI (Turkish Version), providing further
support that the schema coping styles are not specific to any given schema.
Adaptive schema coping was weakly but significantly correlated with
unrelenting standards, indicating that this sample may be able to cope
somewhat with this schema. Past researchers contend that the
hypercriticalness/ unrelenting standards schema is only considered a
186
maladaptive schema if it causes a significant degree of distress in a person

and they are unable to cope with it and establish healthy boundaries
(Sheffield & Waller, 2012; Young et al., 2003). The significant weak
negative correlations between adaptive schema coping and emotional
deprivation and emotional inhibition makes theoretical sense as based on
Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, when these schemas are activated
individuals are less likely to express their feelings or feel emotionally
supported by others.
It should be noted that, Young et al. (2003) claimed that in therapy,
surrender information can be obtained from the YSQ. This is not suitable in
research settings due to the YSQ being a measure of EMSs and not
surrender coping behaviours. The current study results showed that
surrender was related to EMSs, but the correlations were not sufficiently
high to cause concern that both scales were measuring the same construct.
Correlations between the SCSI factors and DASS-21 provided
evidence of criterion-related validity. For instance, surrender, avoidance,
and pleasing were positively correlated with depression, anxiety, and stress,
whereas retaliation was positively correlated with depression and stress
only. These associations could be explained by schema coping styles being
used when an individual accepts, tries to avoid, or fight the beliefs
associated with the schema, but instead of weakening or healing the schema
these coping styles perpetuate it and contribute to symptoms of distress. For
example, Young et al. (2003) purported that an individual may try to
overcompensate in response to an activated schema, however rather than
doing so in a healthy manner they overshoot the mark. The person may
behave by retaliating, but instead of helping to heal the schema their
behaviour drives others away, which can result in severe negative emotions.
One reason why pleasing was associated with anxiety but not
retaliation is that pleasing has similar core components to anxiety. For
instance, Mairet et al. (2015) proposed that since a core component of
187
anxiety is fear of negative evaluation, individuals may avoid schemas

associated with this by trying to appear perfect or set high standards for
themselves, which reflects the component of pleasing more so than
retaliation. As such, by distinguishing between the two styles of
overcompensation more specific associations with other measures can be
found.
Lastly, the absence of significant correlations for adaptive schema
coping with depression, anxiety, and stress indicates that there may be a
third or confounding variable that is impacting these relationships. For
instance, perhaps the activation of EMSs associated with the coping styles
are so powerful that they do not allow for reductions in depression, anxiety,
and stress (see Young et al., 2003). The issue of overpowering schemas is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
Implications
The current study’s findings contribute to future research and Study
3 of the thesis in a number of ways. Firstly, the current study is an important
contribution to research as a reliable and valid measure of avoidance,
retaliation, and pleasing, where the latter two measure different types of
overcompensation. Moreover, because these scales were more parsimonious
than the original YRAI and YCI, it enables the five new scales to be used in
conjunction with other scales, such as in the battery of questionnaires that
was employed in Study 3.
Secondly, there is currently no specifically designed psychometric
tool to measure surrender, despite being one of the main three coping styles
proposed by Young (1999). Young et al. (2003) posits that data for this
construct can be captured from the YSQ, however there are no protocols or
scoring procedures developed to calculate a surrender score from the data on
this measure. Moreover, there are potential issues associated with validity
contamination when the coping score is derived from the same items as the
188
schema score. Therefore, the current study fills a major gap in schema
coping measurement as it developed a scale to measure surrender and found
that the surrender scale is not only theoretically distinct, but also statistically
different from the YSQ-SF3. Surrender can now be implemented and tested
in future studies, in addition to avoidance and overcompensation (retaliation
and pleasing) schema coping styles, to investigate its relationship with
various EMSs.
Thirdly, this study also developed a reliable and valid measure of
adaptive schema coping, in addition to the coping styles considered to be
maladaptive. Adding this factor can enable further information about how
individuals in non-clinical populations cope with EMS activation, and
whether there are certain strategies that can buffer the negative effects.
Lastly, these findings are particularly relevant for the third study of
this thesis, which was the first study known to the student researcher to
include both the maladaptive schema coping styles and adaptive schema
coping styles when testing Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory.
Limitations and Future Research

One of the methodological limitations of the current study was the
small sample size. Despite the WLSMV estimator being used to adjust
parameter estimates and standard errors, results should be generalised with
caution. The small sample size can be attributed to the use of a paper format
questionnaire, due to the electronic restrictions placed on the schema
questionnaires (i.e., YSQ-SF, YRAI, YCI). In addition, listwise deletion
was used resulting in many participants being deleted. This was performed
because of large amounts of missing data on various measures in the paper
questionnaire due to what appears participants unintentionally skipping
pages of the questionnaire and the use of a “Not Applicable” response
option, which was treated as missing data. Despite the inclusion of such an
option being recommended by scale developers, a pitfall of this is that it is
189
often treated as missing data and results in a large reduction in sample size.
Past studies have recommended removing the Not Applicable response
option and replacing participants’ responses with the lowest response option
(Bradley et al., 1999). Therefore, in Study 3, any Not Applicable responses
were recategorised as a (1) “Completely untrue of me” response.
Because of the difficulty in obtaining an adequately sized sample,
participants aged 18 years and over were also invited to complete the
questionnaire, rather than only individuals in the age bracket that defines
emerging adulthood (18-25 years old). Future studies should replicate the
structure of the measure in an exclusively emerging adult sample.
Moreover, this study did not have enough participants to split the sample in
order to cross-validate the findings, a strategy that has been recommended
and utilised in previous research (DeVellis, 2012). Instead, Study 3 tested
the final SCSI measurement model among a different sample containing
emerging adults who identify as targets (targets-only and victims) and non-
targets of cyberbullying behaviours.
Chapter Summary
This chapter outlined the seven stages in scale development that
were used to guide the development and evaluation of the SCSI. The seven
stages included: (1) defining the test; (2) generating and constructing the
items; (3) selecting a scaling method; (4) determining scale instructions; (5)
administering and testing the items; (6) evaluating the items (factor analysis,
reliability, and validity); and (7) optimising scale length. For the first step,
theory, previous research, and pre-existing schema coping questionnaires
informed the development of each construct definition and construct
dimensionality. The five unidimensional constructs defined were surrender,
avoidance, retaliation and pleasing (as measures of overcompensation), and
adaptive schema coping. This helped inform the second step, where an item
pool was generated to tap into the content domain. This step particularly
190
focused on item writing and judging content and face validity, which
resulted in rewriting and trimming a number of the items. In the third step, a
6-point rating scale, similar to the scaling method of pre-existing schema
measures was selected, but the number of response options, wording, and
order presented was also informed by prior scale development research. In
regard to the fourth step, scale instructions were determined based on an
audit of pre-existing coping questionnaires. The fifth step was described in
the Method section, which provided an overview of how the items were
administered and tested. The Results section covered the last two stages of
scale development: (6) evaluating the items (factor analysis, reliability, and
validity) and (7) optimising scale length.
The overall findings of this study indicated that the SCSI holds
considerable promise as a means of identifying and evaluating the
maladaptive schema coping styles of surrender, avoidance, retaliation, and
pleasing, and also an adaptive schema coping style. In particular, the current
study extended on the YRAI and YCI by developing parsimonious and
reliable and valid versions of these scales. The current study also developed
a scale to measure surrender so that all maladaptive schema coping styles
proposed by Young (1999) could be investigated in future work. An
adaptive schema coping style was also developed to shed further light on
how individuals in non-clinical populations cope with schema activation.
Thus, it is hoped that these findings will facilitate future research examining
Young et al.’s (2003) schema model. In the next chapter (Chapter 7), Study
3 tested the proposed schema model in the context of cyberbullying, which
provided more insight into the relationships between EMSs, schema coping
styles, and psychological distress, as well as the psychometric properties of
the SCSI within a different sample.
191
CHAPTER 7
PHASE 2, STUDY 3: AN INVESTIGATION OF CYBERBULLYING
BEHAVIOURS, EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMAS, COPING
STYLES, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES IN EMERGING
ADULTS
Introduction
This chapter outlines how Study 3 was conducted, including the
Method and Data Analysis sections, followed by the Results, which reported
data relating to each of the research questions. Firstly, the prevalence of
cyberbullying during emerging adulthood was examined. The findings from
Study 1 were integrated, whereby a subgroup of victims was differentiated
from an overarching target category (and thus targets-only), and rates of
cyberbullying were presented for victims, targets-only, and non-targets.
Themes from coded open-ended qualitative responses were also reported to
better capture the conceptual differences between victims and targets-only.
While the main focus of this thesis was on targets of cyberbullying
behaviours (victims and targets-only) and exploring variations in
psychological distress, the results from non-targets were also reported for
comparison purposes throughout the data analysis. Second, the relationships
between EMSs (at the domain and subscale level) and psychological distress
were examined. Lastly, the moderating role of schema coping styles in the
relationship between EMSs (at the domain level) and psychological distress
were tested. To test the moderation models, first measurement models were
evaluated using CFAs (see Appendix O for measurement model results).
Once the latent constructs in the measurement models were adequately
measured by the observed variables, single indicator latent variables were
computed so the structural models based on Young et al.’s (2003) schema
theory could be specified. Similar to the last two studies, this chapter also
192
contained a Discussion section and highlighted the main findings in relation

to the research questions. This was followed by implications, limitations and
future suggestions.
Aim of the Study

The purpose of Study 3 was to understand why some targets
experience more severe adverse reactions in response to cyberbullying. The
first aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of cyberbullying
during emerging adulthood. The second aim was to examine the
relationships between EMSs (at the domain and subscale level) and
psychological distress. Lastly, the third aim of this study was to test the
moderating role of schema coping styles in the relationship between EMSs
(at the domain level) and psychological distress. Thus, there were three
research questions:
1. What is the prevalence of cyberbullying in a sample of
2. To what extent does EMS activation (at the domain and subscale
level) relate to psychological distress for victims, targets-only,
and non-targets?
3. To what extent do the schema coping styles moderate the
Conduct of Studies
Technology Human Research Ethics Subcommittee (Project number:
2016/294; see Appendix J).
193
Method
Participants
Approximately 600 questionnaires comprising 379-items were
distributed to emerging adults residing in Australia. Two hundred and
eighty questionnaires were returned (response rate = 46.6%). The final
sample comprised of 271 emerging adults (79.7% female) between 18 to 25
years of age (M = 21.2, SD = 2.45). The majority of the sample indicated
they were tertiary students (73.8% full-time students, 20.3% part-time
students), with 5.9% of participants indicating they were not studying.
Moreover, 55.7% of participants indicated that secondary school was the
highest level of education they had completed, followed by completing a
trade (25.5%), undergraduate degree (17.3%), and a postgraduate degree
(1.5%). Furthermore, 2.6% of adults were married, 71.2% were single,
25.5% were in a defacto relationship, .4% (n = 1) separated, and .4% (n = 1)
were divorced.
Measures
In the paper questionnaire (see Appendix N), participants were first
presented with demographic questions (e.g., sex, age) and questions about
ICT use. Participants then completed a battery of measures. These included:
Adapted Florence CyberBullying-CyberVictimisation Scales
(FCBCVSs; Palladino, Nocentini, & Menesini, 2015). This instrument
consisted of two scales, one for perpetration and one for victimisation. Both
scales consisted of 14 items, which were translated into English by the
developers of the scale for the purpose of this study. However, minor
corrections to item wording were invited by the questionnaire developers
and only made when the clarity of the item could be improved or match the
language used by emerging adults. Nine additional items regarding social
exclusion, impersonation, hacking another person’s account, rumour
spreading, and creating nasty webpages were also included based on the
194
qualitative findings of emerging adults in Study 1 and suggestions made by

Menesini et al. (2011). Both of the perpetration and victimisation scales
resulted in 23 items each. Participants were asked how often they had
experienced particular behaviours during the past 12 months. Each item was
evaluated on a 5-point scale, where 1 = “never,” 2 = “once or twice,” 3 =
“one or two times a month,” 4 = “once a week,” and 5 = “several times a
week.” To address the current study objectives, only responses to the
victimisation scale were examined.
Mixed response item of cyberbullying. Single-item questions
asked whether a person had been involved in cyberbullying as a perpetrator,
victim, and/or bystander “ever in your life,” “in the last 12 months,” and “in
the past 2 months.” Participants could tick Yes or No in response to each
question. Only responses to the question on victim status and experiences
within the past 12 months were analysed. To gather more information and
context about the person’s experiences of being a target (target-only or
victim) of cyberbullying, participants were then presented with an open-
ended question. They were asked:
If you indicated that you have: received certain online behaviours in
the past 12 months (as asked on pages 12-13; behaviours DONE TO YOU),
AND/OR a victim of cyberbullying in the past 12 months (as asked on page
14), please tell us a bit more about your experience below.
• What happened?
• Who was involved?
• How did this make you feel?
• What do you think were the motives of the perpetrator?
• Did you respond to the behaviour? If so, how?
• Did other people become involved or intervene? If so, what was their
behaviour?
It should be noted that a definition of cyberbullying was presented
before the single-item questions. This definition presented was based on
195
findings of Study 1 where the different perspectives of perpetrator, victim,

and bystander were incorporated into the definition in order to capture a
more valid understanding of emerging adults’ perceptions and/or
experiences of cyberbullying. The definition employed in the questionnaire
was: “Cyberbullying is defined using an information and communication
technology to target one or more people directly or indirectly, whereby: (1)
From the perpetrator’s perspective, the goal is to intentionally harm the
victim. Repetition can also help establish intentionality and cyberbullying,
in which the bully continuously carries out a harmful behaviour towards the
same victim; (2) From the victim’s perspective, the behaviour is perceived
as intentional and harmful. A once-off attack can also be considered as
cyberbullying as the negative impact on the victim may be just as severe as
frequent attacks; and (3) From the bystander’s perspective, it is observed
that a behaviour has negatively affected another person, or that such a
behaviour would likely negatively affect the bystander if directed toward
him or her. A bystander may also perceive the behaviour alone as
intentional and aggressive.” As mentioned above, only responses to the
question on victim status and experiences within the past 12 months were
analysed. This definition was presented after the FCBCVS scale in order to
identify individuals who had been targeted by cyberbullying behaviours but
do not consider themselves to be a victim, and separate these participants
from those who have not only been targeted but also identify as a victim.
Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form (YSQ-SF3; Young,
2006). A detailed description of this measure is presented in the Method
section in Chapter 6.
Schema Coping Style Inventory (SCSI; Developed and pilot
tested in Study 2). The SCSI was developed and piloted tested in Study 2
so that it could be implemented in the current study. The revised version
consisted of 42 statements measuring surrender, avoidance, retaliation,
pleasing, and adaptive schema coping. Participants were asked to think
196
about a stressful situation that they have experienced involving someone

else or a group of people. They were then asked to think of how they dealt
with this situation when responding to the questions and rate items on a 6-
point scale ranging from (1) Completely untrue of me to (6) Completely true
of me. Higher scores on these scales indicate a higher level of the respective
coping style. Excellent internal reliability for the five schema coping scales
were reported in Study 2 with a coefficient alpha of .83 for surrender, .88
for avoidance, .89 for retaliation, .87 for pleasing, and .72 for adaptive
schema coping. It should be noted that in regard to the limitations in Study
2, the N/A (not applicable) response option was recoded to the lowest
response option of (1) Completely true of me in the current study, an
approach recommended by Bradley et al. (1999). Because of the restricted
age bracket (18-25 years of age) and use of paper questionnaires in this
study, this strategy was used to maximise the sample size.
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983).
The BSI is a self-report symptom scale that is a shorter version of the
Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) comprising 53-items and measures nine
primary symptom dimensions and general psychological distress. The nine
primary symptom dimensions included depression, anxiety, phobic anxiety,
somatization, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid ideation, interpersonal
sensitivity, hostility, and psychoticism. To address the aims of the study and
minimize model complexity, only the Global Severity Index (GSI) was
used. The GSI is the average score of all 53 items and can be derived to
represent current general psychological distress. Derogatis and Melisaratos
(1983) reported a coefficient alpha of .95, which has also been confirmed by
other studies (e.g., Mohammadkhani, Dobson, Amiri, & Ghafari, 2010;
Sereda & Dembitskyi, 2016).
197
Procedure
This study followed the same recruitment and data collection
procedures used in Study 2 (see the Method section in Chapter 6 for a
detailed description). The information flyer, Consent Information Statement,
and debriefing statement used in the present study can be found in Appendix
K, L, and M, respectively. Completing the questionnaire took approximately
30-40 minutes.
Statistical Issues
Statistical issues such as data screening and assumption testing were
conducted in SPSS Version 25.0. The data were screened for out-of-range
values, outliers and missing data, followed by assumption testing of
structural equation modelling analysis, such as normality and sample size.
Univariate and multivariate outliers. The data was examined for
univariate and multivariate outliers. Univariate outliers were detected by
checking DESCRIPTIVES, specifically standardised z scores which exceed
3.29 (p < .001) and FREQUENCIES distributions by inspecting histograms
and box plots (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Multivariate outliers were
identified by calculating Mahalanobis distance statistic (p < .001) (Kline,
2015; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Missing data. Missing data can create problems for the estimation
of structural equation models. Some researchers recommend that up to 10%
missing data is unlikely to be problematic in the interpretation of the result
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), whereas other researchers suggest that even up
to 25% missing data is allowed on the condition that missing data is not
systematic and that the missing data analysis is chosen carefully (Byrne,
2001). However, it is important to note that the pattern of “missingness” is
crucial in determining the seriousness of the missing values, and in turn how
to treat missing data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
198
Missing data can be either missing at random or not at random. If the

pattern of missing values is random then this is less serious. In contrast,
missingness that is nonrandomly dispersed throughout the data matrix is a
more serious issue (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Rubin developed a set of
assumptions that cause missing data. Suppose we have two variables X and
Y, when missing values on X are unrelated to Y as well as itself (X) then
this is classified as missing completely at random (MCAR). When missing
values on X are related to Y but not to X itself, then this is referred to as
missing at random (MAR). MAR is less restrictive than MCAR and
importantly both MCAR and MAR can be considered as treatable. Missing
data when missing values on X are related to X itself, termed not missing at
random (NMAR), is a serious problem (Allison, 2003; Enders, 2001;
Schafer & Grahman, 2002).
Even though MCAR and MAR can be treated, the distinction
between them is still crucial as most traditional missing data techniques
assume the missing data is MCAR and when replaced will only yield
unbiased parameter estimates when this assumption is met (Enders, 2001).
To explore patterns of missingness in the data set and ascertain whether the
values can be considered MCAR, the Missing Values Analysis (MVA) in
SPSS was employed. This function generates Little’s MCAR test which is a
χ2 test for MCAR. A statistically non-significant result in which the p-value
is greater than .05 indicates that the data are assumed to be MCAR. If the
test statistic is significant but missing values are predictable from other
variables in the model, then this suggests that the missingness is MAR.
To date, there have been numerous procedures for handling missing
values. Traditional ad hoc methods such as listwise deletion, pairwise
deletion, and mean substitution have been commonly used to treat missing
data. However, these techniques generally assume the data is MCAR, do a
poor job of using all the available information, can significantly reduce the
sample size, and can bias parameter estimates under other missing
199
conditions, such as MAR (Allison, 2003; Peugh & Enders, 2004). In

contrast, there are now newer methods that can replace missing data that
researchers consider to be “state of the art.” These newer methods have been
found to produce much better results than conventional methods and have
nearly optimal statistical properties under a weaker assumption that the data
is MAR (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
One approach to replace missing data is the expectation–
maximization (EM) algorithm. The EM algorithm is an iterative procedure
that consists of two steps to obtain missing observations and unknown
parameter estimates in order to fill these in. The first step is an expectation
step (E-step) and the second step is the maximization step (M-step). In the
first step, missing values are substituted with the expected value of the
missing data based on a number of regression equations where each missing
variable is regressed on the remaining observed variables for a case. In the
second step, expectations formed with those initial values are maximised
(Allison, 2003; Cheema, 2014; Enders, 2001). This approach to missing
data is widely used due to being available in SPSS under MVA and because
it does not only assume MCAR as it can also be applied to data that are
MAR.
Once missing data gets higher than 5% and certainly once it exceeds
10%, the EM algorithm is recommended (Little, Jorgensen, Lang, & Moore,
2013) as it outperforms listwise and pairwise deletion substantially in terms
of reduction in missing data bias and error (Allison, 2003; Newman, 2014).
In addition, this method is also recommended when statistical power is an
issue due to a smaller sample size. Therefore, the EM algorithm was
considered an appropriate missing data technique for use in the current
study and was performed in SPSS once cases with more than 25%
missingness were deleted (Cox, McIntosh, Reason, & Terenzini, 2014;
Cunningham, 2010).
200
Normality. Multivariate analyses, particularly when maximum

likelihood (ML) is used, assumes that the data are drawn from a normally
distributed population. To test univariate normality, frequency distributions,
histograms, normal probability plots, and box plots were inspected for
skewness and kurtosis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For scores that are
normally distributed, the skewness and kurtosis values will equal zero and
the further the departure from zero, the greater the amount of skewness in
the distribution. Skewness measures how symmetrical the distribution is and
kurtosis implies the ‘peakedness’ of the distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). West, Finch, and Curran (1995) recommended that skewness and
kurtosis values of two and seven, respectively, were indicative of moderate
non-normal distributions. In addition, skewness and kurtosis values greater
than three and 10 to 20, respectively, have been defined as extreme non-
normal distributions (Kline, 2015).
Furthermore, the assessment of univariate normality can identify
multivariate normality. Multivariate kurtosis is a significant problem for
SEM when ML estimation is used. While ML estimation is said to be robust
to moderate violations of normality, severe violations of normality can
inflate the model test statistic and deflate parameter estimates and standard
errors (Anderson & Gerbing, 1984). One approach for dealing with ordinal
and non-normal data in SEM is by employing the WLSMV estimation
technique, which is the default in Mplus and specifically deals with non-
normal data (Harrington, 2009; Kline, 2011). This is the same estimation
technique used in Study 2 (see detailed overview of different estimation
techniques in Chapter 6) as it performs well with small sample sizes, ordinal
data, and non-normal distributions. Hence, this estimation technique will
also be employed in the current study.
Sample size and power. Sample sizes in excess of 200 have
generally been recommended based on the median sample size reported in
published SEM studies, with more complex models requiring larger
201
samples. Kline (2011) proposed that the number of parameters in a model

can be used to determine the minimum number of participants needed. He
recommends a 20:1 sample size to parameters estimated ratio, while
acknowledging that a 10:1 ratio may be a more realistic target. However,
Nevitt and Hancock (2004) stated that there are times when researchers are
unable to satisfy these requirements and that past research have found
acceptable models with a 3:1 or 5:1 ratio. Other researchers have also
argued that even with smaller samples of 50-100 participants, SEM models
can converge and generate stable solutions, particularly when the models are
not overly complex, statistical corrections are applied, there are three or four
indicators per construct, and the variables are reliable (Bentler & Yuan,
1999; Bollen, 1990; Iacobucci, 2010).
To reduce model complexity and therefore the sample size required,
there are certain statistical techniques that can be employed to lower the
number of parameters to be estimated, one of which is the use of single
indicator latent variables. For unidimensional constructs, single indicator
latent variables (i.e., composite variables that account for measurement
error) can be computed. These are produced by using Munck’s (1979)
formula, where the standard deviation and coefficient alpha of a composite
scale are used to calculate the regression coefficient from SD √α and
measurement error from SD2 (1−α) for each latent variable (Munck, 1979).
This method is ideal when the sample size is small (i.e., less than 200), like
in the current study, as it reduces the amount of parameters to be estimated.
It is also advantageous as it creates more parsimonious models than when
using individual items and has been shown to report regression coefficients
that are the same to those obtained from modelling latent variables at the
item level (Little et al., 2002; Sass & Smith, 2006). Thus, single indicator
latent variables were developed for each of the variables in the present
study.
202
Overview of Data Analyses

An overview of the results is presented in Figure 10, where the
results can be thought of as being separated into two main sections. The first
section focuses on the first research question, where frequencies were
conducted in SPSS statistics 25.0 to determine the prevalence of
cyberbullying. Here, a subgroup of victims was distinguished from an
overarching target category based on the findings from Study 1. This
enabled a more specific breakdown of victims of cyberbullying versus
targets-only (participants who have been targeted but do not identify as a
victim) as well as non-targets of cyberbullying. Open-ended qualitative
responses were also coded and used to obtain greater understanding of the
participant’s cyberbullying experience and whether any participant needed
to be re-categorised into a different group. All further analyses were
conducted using these three groups.
The second section examined the relationships between EMSs and
psychological distress (RQ2) and the moderating role of schema coping
styles in the relationship between EMSs (at the domain level) and
psychological distress (RQ3). It is here that the two-step approach suggested
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was applied using Mplus Version 8
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). First, measurement models were tested to
determine whether the measured variables for each of the three groups
loaded on the underlying factor in which they were intended; whether
discriminant validity amongst the factors existed; and whether the
constructs showed unidimensionality (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Once
the latent constructs in the measurement model were adequately measured
by the observed variables (see Appendix O), the second research question
regarding the relationships between maladaptive schemas and psychological
distress could be explored. Next, single indicator latent variables were
computed so the structural model could be specified. The structural models
tested for each of the three groups were based on Young et al.’s (2003)
203
schema theory and were applied to a cyberbullying context in the current

study.
Figure 10. Overview of the Study 3 results section
Categorisation and Recategorisation of Participants into

Cyberbullying Groups. The importance of presenting the cyberbullying
behaviours questionnaire first and the cyberbullying definition second,
meant that individuals who had been targeted by certain cyberbullying
behaviours, but do not identity as a victim could be identified and separated
out from victims. Participants were categorised into three groups: (1)
participants who ticked “never” for all cyberbullying behaviours and did not
indicate to be a victim of cyberbullying were classified into the “non-target”
group; (2) participants who endorsed cyberbullying behaviours but did not
indicate being a victim of cyberbullying were classified into the “target-
only” group; and (3) participants who endorsed cyberbullying behaviours
204
and also identified as being a victim of cyberbullying were classified into

the “victim” group. These groupings were based on the findings and
theoretical and methodological outcomes of Study 1. However, one
consequence of this method was that a wide range of behaviours that were
not cyberbullying were captured in addition to those about cyberbullying.
All open-ended responses were read to ensure that participants were
classified into the most appropriate grouping. Participants who were
categorised and recategorised were reviewed by a second coder who judged
whether they agreed or disagreed with the recategorisation of these
participants based on the available information. Participants were only
changed if they specifically stated they did not perceive the behaviour, in
which they were a target of, to be cyberbullying and rather the behaviour
was something more benign like friendly banter or a friendly gesture (e.g.,
an embarrassing photo of a person online downloaded and saved by another
person for the purpose of printing on a birthday mug) and it aligned with the
behaviours ticked in the FCBCVS. There were a number of participants in
the target-only group who did not leave an open-ended response and
therefore they remained in the target-only group.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). Structural Equation
Modelling is a flexible statistical technique that allows a set of relationships
between several IVs and several DVs to be examined. It can be considered a
combination of path analysis and factor analysis as the goal is to model the
relationship between measured variables (e.g. item responses) and latent
variables as well as examine the structural relationships between latent
variables (e.g. factors; Weston & Gore, 2006). An advantage of using SEM
is that it extends on conventional multivariate analyses, such as multiple
regression (MR), factor analysis (FA), path analysis (PA), and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) by accounting for measurement error and allowing
multiple measures to be used to represent constructs. SEM also has the
ability to model a number of categorical or continuous exogenous or
205
endogenous variables and provides tests of goodness-of-fit (Kline, 2011;

Ullman, 2006). A four step modelling process has been described in SEM:
model specification, model estimation, model evaluation, and model
modification (Ullman, 2006). Each step was applied in the current study and
described below.
Model specification. The first stage in model testing is model
specification. This step involves specifying hypothesised inter-relationships
between the observed variables and latent variables of interest based on
theory and research (Crocket, 2012; Kline, 2011). Anderson and Gerbing
(1988) proposed that this stage be conducted in two steps, in which
measurement models are specified (Step 1) prior to estimation of the
structural model (Step 2). This two-step modelling approach is
advantageous as measurement problems can be identified and dealt with (re-
specified) before testing the structural model.
Measurement model. The measurement model refers to relating the
measured or observed variables (e.g., items on a scale) to the latent variables
(e.g., factors). A set of observed variables on a single latent variable can be
referred to as a one-factor congeneric model and represent the simplest form
of measurement model (Joreskog, 1993; Little et al., 2013). The purpose of
specifying latent variables in measurement models is to determine whether
measured variables load on the underlying factor in which they are intended,
whether discriminant validity amongst the factors exists, and whether
constructs show unidimensionality (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Unidimensionality is a prerequisite when forming composite scales such as
single indicator latent variables, as discussed above (Bandalos & Finney,
2001; Kishton & Widaman, 1994).
In the current study, the unidimensionality and item properties of
each of the variables was assessed by testing one-factor congeneric models
using a CFA. The first set of one-factor congeneric models examined
included the 18 EMSs each estimated by five items. Once the 18 one-factor
206
congeneric models were specified and re-specified (if needed), five higher
order domains named after the core emotional needs that were theorised to
contribute to the development of specific EMSs, were examined (Young et
al., 2005). EMSs were modelled at the higher order level in order to reduce
the number of models to be tested. The second set of one-factor congeneric
models included the five schema coping styles (surrender, avoidance,
retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping), which were developed
and pilot tested in Study 2. Surrender was estimated by five items,
avoidance by 10 items, retaliation by 11 items, pleasing by 10 items, and
adaptive schema coping by five items. Once the one-factor schema coping
models were specified and re-specified (if needed), an independent cluster
measurement model was conducted to ensure unidimensionality and
discriminant validity of the constructs. The final one-factor congeneric
model tested was psychological distress and was estimated by 53 items
(Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). All CFAs were performed using Mplus
Version 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017; see Appendix O for
measurement model results for each group).
It is important to mention the topic of measurement invariance,
which is considered a logical pre-requisite when using comparison groups
(e.g., tests of group mean differences or testing whether a theoretical
structural model is invariant across groups) to ensure that researchers are
not comparing “apples and spark plugs” (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000, p.
9). This concept applied to the current study, whereby victims and targets-
only were the main focus of comparison. Equivalent true scores for a latent
construct assumes that each group are responding to the questionnaire in the
same way, and thus scores on a theoretical construct mean the same thing
for these different groups (Pendergast, von der Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund,
2017; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). There are three main steps involved in
testing measurement variance and include: (1) whether the same items on a
measure hold across groups (configural invariance), (2) that the items have
207
the same meaning for different groups (metric invariance) and, (3) that the
items are being responded to in the same way (scalar invariance). However,
researchers have argued that there are instances when testing for
measurement equivalence is not relevant and instead recommended that the
groups’ measurement and structural models are tested separately (B.
Muthen, personal communication, March 25, 2019; Vandenberg & Lance,
2000).
When considering the findings of Study 1, where it was found that
there were different groupings in response to cyberbullying (e.g., victims vs.
targets) and differences in perception, it was expected that the items on the
measures of interest would not be viewed in the same way and through the
same psychological lens. For instance, the way victims with activated EMSs
(and potentially higher levels of EMSs) respond to the items is likely to be
different to the way targets or non-targets respond. In terms of configural
invariance, it was assumed that there could be specific items measuring an
EMS that relate to one group more than the other, meaning that this test
would fail because different sets of items make up the construct. In terms of
metric invariance, certain items measuring EMSs or schema coping were
assumed to be interpreted differently amongst the groups, such as in the
case of an enmeshment schema. Victims may score high on enmeshment
because they are dependent on a significant other, whereas targets may also
score high on certain enmeshment items because they have a close and
supportive relationship with a significant other. Lastly, in terms of scalar
invariance, it was fully expected that there would be differences in item
location parameters or thresholds, which meant that individuals would be
responding differently to specific items. It was not expected that targets and
non-targets would have comparable levels of EMSs to victims, especially on
the unconditional schemas such as those in disconnection and rejection
(Domain 1), and thus have the same likelihood of shifting between response
options (Pendergast et al., 2017). Therefore, it was presumed that there
208
would be different models (measurement and structural) across the three

different groups and as a result measurement invariance testing was not
considered a necessary step. Separate statistical models (measurement and
structural models) were tested for the three groups. Comparisons and
interpretations of the results for the different groups took into consideration
differences in the underlying meaning of the measures.
Structural model. Once the latent constructs in the measurement
models were adequately measured by the observed variables and single
indicator latent variables were computed, the structural model was then
specified. The structural model specifies relationships among the latent
variables in a theoretical model, and in the case of the present study, the
moderating role of schema coping styles in the relationship between EMSs
(at the domain level) and psychological distress.
The Latent Moderated Structural Equations approach (LMS; Klein
& Moosbrugger, 2000) was employed to estimate the moderation models,
whereby psychological distress was regressed on both the independent and
moderator latent constructs (e.g., Disconnection and rejection [Domain 1]
and pleasing) and an interaction term (e.g., Disconnection and Rejection
[Domain 1] x Pleasing), produced using the XWITH command in Mplus
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). The LMS approach is robust against
moderate violations of normality and produces unbiased standard errors
(Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000).
One common method employed in moderation analysis is mean
centering, where the mean of a scale is subtracted from scores on variables
to be included in the regression (Lorah & Wong, 2018). Centering can aid
interpretation of the main effects and is often thought to reduce
multicollinearity, however the latter is a common misconception and
advised not to be used as a justification for centering (Jose, 2013; Lorah &
Wong, 2018). Furthermore, Bengt Muthen stated that centering is not a
necessary approach when using the LMS approach in Mplus and that the
209
results of centered variables would be the same as uncentered variables

(Mplus Discussion Board; May 28, 29, 2018). Based on these
recommendations, variables were not actively centered in the present study,
though it should be noted that latent variables in Mplus tend to have a mean
of zero anyway (B. Muthen, Mplus Discussion Board; August 7, 2018).
Model estimation. Once model specification was conducted,
estimation was the next step. Estimation refers to running the model and
determining the value of the parameters and the error associated with the
estimated value. For similar reasons to Study 2, the WLSMV was employed
when testing the measurement models, as it was designed specifically for
use with ordered-categorical data, small to moderate sample sizes, and when
there are deviations to normality. Once single indicator latent variables were
created, the second stage of the analysis, which tested the structural model,
used a robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator as this is appropriate
for continuous data and small samples sizes of around 60 to 120 participants
(Ullman, 2006).
Model evaluation. Once the measurement models were specified
and estimated they were then evaluated. This step involved evaluating
model fit, which means determining how well the model explained the data
(Kline, 2011). The measurement models evaluated model fit by using the
same cut-off values used in Study 2. For a detailed description of each of
the model fit indices please see Chapter 6. In regard to the structural model,
one drawback of using the LMS approach with the XWITH command in
Mplus is that these model fit indices are not yet available. Therefore, the
appropriateness of modelling an interaction was determined by examining
whether the interaction term was statistically significant and the quality of
the measures, such as inter-item or factor correlations, factor loadings, and
item variance/reliability (McNeish et al., 2017).
Model modification. After an examination of the parameters
estimated and model fit indices for each of the measurement models, model
210
modification (re-specification) was conducted to the original hypothesised

model to develop a better fitting or more parsimonious model. Helpful in
detecting model misspecification and which variables may be responsible, is
an inspection of the modification indices (MI; standardised residuals are not
available when using the WLSMV estimator in Mplus). MIs provide more
information about the extent to which the model is appropriately described,
in that this test reflects the expected drop in value of the χ2 statistic if the
specific parameter were to be estimated. MIs that exceed 3.84 for
measurement models or 10 for larger models (the critical values of the χ2
statistic for 1 df) may suggest correlated error terms or cross-loadings.
Changes to the measurement model based on MI suggestions can improve
the fit of the data to the model (Byrne, 2012; Cunningham, 2010; Kline,
2011). Because MIs are purely data driven, in the current study any changes
to the measurement model were made one at a time and only if it was based
on theory to avoid increasing the likelihood of a Type 1 error (Byrne, 2001).
MI suggestions based on covaried measurement error variances were not
pursued because this can result in an ambiguous latent variable and one of
the requirements of unidimensionality is the absence of covaried error terms
(Cunningham, 2010). In addition, bivariate item correlations were checked
for values between two items exceeding 0.80 indicating possible item
redundancy. Moreover, items with low factor loadings (e.g., < .3) and R2
values for each item were also considered for removal. Once the structural
moderation models were specified, the data were interpreted and no model
re-specifications were made.
Results
Data Screening and Assumption Testing

To check for data entry errors, frequencies, and descriptive statistics
were generated for each variable (e.g., minimum and maximum values) to
211
identify values that fall outside the range of possible values for a variable
and corrected by carefully cross-checking the error with the participant’s
original questionnaire.
In addition, standardised z scores were produced for each variable to
check for outliers and revealed one participant with a value greater than a
magnitude of 3.29 for the dependence schema. Moreover, Mahalanobis
distances were used to check for multivariate outliers which detected nine
participants as outliers. A closer inspection of the outliers revealed that all
but one of the participants were part of the target group (victim or target-
only), which is the main group of interest. For this reason, it was decided
that the outliers would be retained.
The Missing Values Analysis, which is available in SPSS 25.0 was
used to determine whether missing data from the questionnaires was
missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), or
missing not at random (MNAR). Little’s MCAR was interpreted at the
p<.05 level (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). The results showed that Little’s
MCAR test was not significant, c2 (4976) = 4985.94, p = .458, indicating
that missing data can be defined as MCAR.
Twenty-nine (10.35%) participants in the sample were partial
respondents. Of these partial respondents, nine participants had more than
25% of missing data and thus were subsequently deleted from further
analyses bringing the revised sample to 271. The amount of missing data for
the remaining 20 (7.38%) partial respondents ranged from .4 % (missing
only 1 item) to 3.6% (missing 10 items). These 20 partial respondents had
their missing data replaced with the EM algorithm available in SPSS
Version 25.0.
Next, skewness and kurtosis values, histograms, and normality plots
were visually inspected for the 18 EMS subscales, five schema coping
styles, and psychological distress. While no value was found to have
extreme skewness (3) and kurtosis values (10 to 20) several scales were
212
found to be slightly positively skewed with skewness and/or kurtosis values

just above 0. Three of the 18 EMS subscales, emotional deprivation,
defectiveness/ shame, and enmeshment were positively skewed with
skewness values of 1.111 (SE = .15), 1.051 (SE = .15), and 1.071 (SE = .15).
However, kurtosis values for these three schema subscales were not above
0. Although ML estimation is robust to moderate violations of normality,
WLSMV was employed as it is the default estimation technique in Mplus
with ordered-categorical data. It also performs well with violations to
normality by producing adjusted model test statistics and unbiased
parameter estimates and standard errors.
RQ 1: Prevalence of Cyberbullying Behaviours in Emerging Adults

Out of 271 participants, in the last 12 months 214 (79%) had been
targeted by cyberbullying behaviours. Of the 214 participants who endorsed
being a target of cyberbullying behaviours, 147 (54% of the sample)
participants indicated they had been targeted but did not go on to identify as
being a victim of cyberbullying, whereas 67 (25% of the sample)
participants not only indicated they had been targeted but also self-identified
as being a victim of cyberbullying. The remaining 57 (21%) participants
indicated they had not been a target of cyberbullying behaviours.
Open-ended responses were reviewed to gain more information and
context surrounding the situation and ensure that individuals were in the
most appropriate group. Open-ended responses revealed that there were 20
participants in the target-only group who indicated that they had been
targeted by a behaviour but did not perceive the situation to be
cyberbullying and rather interpreted it as something more benign. These 20
participants in the target-only group were reassigned to the non-target group
due to overtly writing that they did not perceive the behaviour to be
cyberbullying and rather was interpreted as a friendly gesture, friendly
banter, or an argument with their partner. For instance, one participant
213
(female, 25) ticked on the FCBCVS that they had been the target of Q13
“stolen my personal information (e.g., photos, videos, texts) in order to
reuse” but in their open-ended response indicated, “I wouldn’t call it
cyberbullying or bullying of any nature, but a colleague saved some of my
Facebook photos to use on a cup that was gifted to me.” Moreover, a
participant ticked that they had been on the receiving end of Q10
“embarrassing or compromising videos/photos/pictures of me on the
internet (e.g., e-mail, Websites, YouTube, SNS)” but in the open-ended
response wrote:
The online behaviours done to me, is just friends and family posting embarrassing
videos and photos of me on Facebook or Instagram for my birthday. I haven’t
experienced cyberbullying but I saw it once when someone made a funny video of
someone diving at a swimming carnival - they had filmed it and put music in the
background and different effects (female, 20).
Similarly, a participant (female, 21) clarified her response on the

FCBCVS by writing “I just make fun with my two best friends – Q.10 ONLY
WITH BEST FRIENDS FOR FUN, NOT CYBERBULLYING.” Another
participant (female, 18) in the target group was re-categorised into the non-
target group as they wrote in the open-ended response that they had not
experienced cyberbullying in the past 12 months.
There were a number of ambiguous open-ended comments from
participants in the target-only group, where the situation explained seemed
more like a bystander experience or occurred more than 12 months ago.
However, these explanations did not align with the behaviours ticked in the
FCBCVS. A more cautious approach was applied here, in which these
participants were retained in the target-only group. Fifty-eight participants
did not leave an open-ended response to further explain the behaviours
214
endorsed and therefore were left in the target-only group. No participants in

the non-target or victim group were reassigned.
After participants were recategorised, the revised target group
comprised of 194 participants (72%) overall, with 127 participants (47% of
the sample) indicating they had been the target of cyberbullying behaviours
but did not perceive themselves as a victim. Coded opened-ended responses
revealed that most participants in this group perceived the targeting
behaviour as an intent to harm.
Unflattering photos of me posted without my consent. They did it to hurt and

embarrass me, get likes on Facebook. I didn’t let it get to me. I just de-tagged
myself from the photos. No one else was involved, just friends who told me
that what was posted wasn’t very nice towards me (female, 22)
It was an old friendship group who were talking about me and spreading
rumours to others because I simply found a new group. The motives of the
perpetrator was to intentionally hurt me because I left (male, 18).
They wanted to intentionally hurt me. At first, I cried but then confronted the
person face to face that I had apparently said nasty things about (female, 20).
However, there were some participants that reported that despite the
targeting behaviour being harmful they were unsure of the perpetrators
motives or did not perceive harm was intended.
My mates were just making fun of me in a group chat. By definition I guess it was
cyberbullying because it hurt. Their motives were to have a laugh and not
intentionally hurt me. I didn’t directly respond (male, 18).
Moreover, the majority of participants in the target-only group said

they were not harmed by the cyberbullying behaviour or that they were only
slightly “hurt” or “annoyed” with any negative effect being short-term. For
215
instance, participants said, “I felt annoyed but only mildly” (female, 18) and
“I wasn’t really hurt or upset at any point because I have a good self-esteem
and the attackers were immature, but it was an unpleasant experience
regardless” (female, 21). There were a small number of participants who
said their experience was very hurtful but did not go on to identify as a
victim.
My Facebook account and emails were hacked by a former friend of mine I had
emails stating I had an abortion and this person sent this in private messages to 50
people in my friends list. It was done to hurt me and I don’t know why. People
that received the messages were supportive. I was very hurt, but I got over it
(female, 24).
A common theme in the open-ended responses was that participants

in the target-only group reported that they tend to cognitively reframe the
cyberbullying incident, chose to ignore it and not respond, or acted politely
but with the intention of not being friends or making an effort with these
people in the future.
Friends (not close friends) posted unflattering photos of me on Facebook. At first I

was a little upset but now I just laugh at it. Ignoring also happens. I got over it
(female, 19).
I was excluded from a group chat on Facebook and backstabbed. Five girls who I
was meant to be part of a friendship group with. They included me in a group chat
and then created another one specifically without me and then used it to bitch
about me. I didn’t care too much. I just rolled my eyes. I don’t have time for that
immature crap or people who behave like that. I stopped bothering to contact them
and took work over attending their functions. I just be nice to her but make no
effort to visit her now (female, 24).
Group of girls would mimic/ replicate pictures of myself and post it online. They
would also spread rumours about me and make sure everyone hates me. They
216
would also tell their friends to choose sides and take photos of me if I was seen
with my boyfriend. At first, I was sad and annoyed, but I told myself I did nothing
wrong, everything they are saying is false. Why should I be sad over people who
are envious of me. I had a supportive family to help me deal with this situation
(female, 18).
Participants in the target-group rarely mentioned the time-frames of

their cyberbullying experience, which may be because they were rarely
harmed by it and therefore did not pay as much attention to the behaviour,
though some participants commented that the behaviour was committed
over an hour or two.
The other 67 (25%) participants who indicated they had been
targeted by cyberbullying behaviours also identified as being a victim of
cyberbullying. The main themes from the coded open-ended responses by
participants in the victim group was that the behaviour was perceived by the
victim as intending to harm and/or was harmful to the victim.
In regard to intent to harm, participants believed that the motivations
of the perpetrator were because they were jealous of the victim, an attempt
to get an angry or negative response from the victim, because the perpetrator
felt insecure or negatively about themselves, to impress others, assert or
gain power or status, or to “get back” at the victim for some other event.
There were a couple of participants that indicated they were a victim of
cyberbullying but mentioned that they were unsure of the intentions of the
perpetrator, which generally was regarded as their friend. For example:
One friend sometimes says insulting things to us which she doesn’t realise what
she says hurt. For example, she implied that I was fat and said other really rude
things…she says stuff like this all the time (female, 18).
217
Friends always take ugly photos of each other and then send it to other friends via
Snapchat all the time. They think it’s of a joking nature but it has had a negative
impact on me and others too. It makes me feel stressed (female, 19).
In regard to the impact on a victim, the language individuals used to

express how the cyberbullying experience made them feel was much
stronger than individuals in the target-only group. Victims commonly
expressed that the cyberbullying incident made them feel “upset,” “scared,”
“helpless,” “worthless,” “betrayed,” “frustrated,” “insecure,” or
“embarrassed/humiliated,” with one participant (female, 24) also
mentioning that they were already in a “vulnerable place and it made me
feel all alone.” Participants also frequently reported that the cyberbullying
behaviour made them feel alienated or rejected from others, with common
phrases including “excluded,” “not accepted,” “alone,” “alienated,” or
“different” to their peers or work colleagues.
I have received numerous anonymous and direct messages insulting me in terms of

my appearance and achievements from my ex best friends and others who they
told to message me. I felt hurt, furious, alone, alienated, and believed the negative
things they said. Their intentions were definitely to hurt me. My self-esteem was
brought down. Random people have also told me to kill myself and objectified me
sexually for no reason, there was no trigger…I had a Sarahah account (like
Ask.FM) (female, 18).
The long-term impact and consequence cyberbullying can have on a

victim was also described, “I believe they were out to harm me and ruin my
life and I felt scared for 2 years and embarrassed” (female, 24), though one
participant (female, 20) explained that because their cyberbullying
experience was so frequent that it did not affect them as much as it once did
because they were “use to it.”
218
Moreover, it appeared that most, if not all, of the cyberbullying

incidents described by victims were repetitive, with individuals specifically
commenting that the situation occurred over time. Another common pattern
was that the incidents primarily occurred publicly online or in group chats.
I was continuously spoken bad of in a group chat and then added into to see
everything. Also happened on snapchat. It made me feel isolated, hurt, lonely
(female, 18).
Insulting and threatening messages were sent to me in a group setting as well as

individually. This made me feel as though I can never trust that one person again
as she manipulated people into thinking what I had done something wrong
(female, 18).
Rumours about certain actions I had done got spread around. The information got
manipulated and exaggerated to frame me as the bad person. These rumours got
spread around the bullying friend group and my friend group. It caused me to feel
insecure and unsafe and like lashing out at people (male, 18).
Therefore, it was apparent from the open-ended responses that a

target can be considered an overarching category to describe a person who
is a target of a cyberbullying behaviour and perceives the behaviour as
intending to harm. Victims were classified as a subgroup of the overarching
category of target. The coded open-ended responses captured some of the
differences between being a target-only versus being a victim, whereby a
target becomes a victim if, not only do they perceive that the perpetrator has
an intent to harm, but they also experience harm. The revised prevalence
rate for the non-target group was 77 (28%) participants, who did not
endorse being a target of cyberbullying.
Further highlighting the differences between these groupings,
responses to the 23 cyberbullying behaviours asked in the adapted FCBCVS
questionnaire were analysed. It was found that victims were more likely to
219
experience more single-episodes and repetitive instances of cyberbullying

behaviours compared to targets-only (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). In
regard to single-episodes, the cyberbullying behaviours of “threatening or
insulting text messages” (Q1), “threats or insults on the Internet” (Q3),
“silent or prank phone calls” (Q4), “embarrassing or compromising
videos/photos/pictures of me posted on the Internet” (Q10), and “ignored on
purpose in an online group” (Q12) were scored most highly by victims, with
approximately 35% to 50% of participants endorsing that they had been on
the receiving end of these behaviours. However, more targets-only reported
experiencing single-episodes of “ignored me on purpose in an online group”
(Q12) than victims, and one person in the target-only group indicated their
“mobile phone was stolen and contact list used” (Q17). However, no one in
the victim group indicated this had happened to them. Victims and targets-
only experienced similar rates of “embarrassing or comprising
videos/photos/pictures of me sent by mobile phone” (Q6), “violent
videos/photos/pictures posted or shared on the Internet” (Q8), and “stole my
password and used my account” (Q15).
Regarding repetitive episodes, “threatening or insulting text
messages” (Q1) and “ignored me on purpose in an online group” (Q12),
followed by “threats or insults on the Internet” (Q3) and “spread rumours
about me on the Internet” (Q14) were more highly endorsed by victims
compared to targets-only. Behaviours that victims reported frequently
experiencing that were not endorsed by the target-only group were “threats
or insults on the internet” (Q3), “manipulated my private personal data in
order to reuse” (Q11), “hacked my account and posted humiliating or mean
content pretending to come from me” (Q19), and “logged into my online
account without permission and viewed or altered my information” (Q23).
220
Figure 11. Percentage of single episodes cyberbullying behaviours experienced by victims and targets-only
221
Figure 12. Percentage of repeated episodes of cyberbullying behaviours (3 times or more) experienced by victims and targets-only.
222
Descriptive Statistics Based on Re-specified Variables

The means, standard deviations, and one-way ANOVA tests for the
re-specified variables of interest are presented in Table 8. 5
Victims reported more moderate mean scores (>3.0) on EMSs
compared to targets-only and non-targets who generally reported low levels
of EMS activation. At the domain level, one-way ANOVA tests found that
victims scored significantly higher than targets-only and non-targets for
activation of overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), followed by
disconnection and rejection (Domain 1). Impaired autonomy and
performance (Domain 2)6 mean scores were lowest across the groups
compared to the other domain scores, though victims scored significantly
higher activation for this domain than non-targets. However, there was no
significant difference between targets-only mean scores for impaired
autonomy and performance compared to victims and non-targets scores.
At the subscale level, mean scores for nine of the 18 EMS subscales
(mistrust/abuse, defectiveness, abandonment, social isolation/alienation,
enmeshment, subjugation, self-sacrifice, pessimism, hypercriticalness) were
significantly higher for victims compared to targets-only. Moreover, 15 of
the 18 EMS subscales were significantly higher for victims compared to
non-targets, though mean scores for failure to achieve, entitlement, and
emotional deprivation were not significantly different.
5
It should be noted that certain EMS subscales and schema coping scales for each
of the three groups are comprised of different items based on the measurement models.
6
Only Domain 1, 2, and 5 for victims and targets, and Domain 1, 2, 4 and 5 for
non-targets were tested due to measurement model issues with other domains (see
Appendix O for details).
223
Table 8.
Means, Standard Deviations, and One-Way ANOVA results for Victims, Targets-only, and Non-Targets
Victims Targets-Only Non-Targets
M SD a M SD a M SD a F
Domain 1 2.94 1.12 - 2.45 1.03 - 2.40 0.97 - F (2, 268) = 6.15, p < .01
Emotional Deprivation 2.33 1.26 0.80 2.04 1.22 0.82 2.32 1.53 0.76 F (2, 268) = 1.61, p = .203
Mistrust/ Abuse 3.35 1.33 0.78 2.90 1.29 0.77 2.27 1.03 0.69 F (2, 268) = 9.01, p < .000
Social Isolation/ Alienation 3.31 1.47 0.74 2.49 1.29 0.90 2.47 1.22 0.78 F (2, 268) = 8.14, p < .000
Defectiveness/ Shame 2.51 1.38 0.86 2.05 1.14 0.86 2.03 1.22 0.74 F (2, 268) = 3.66, p < .027
Abandonment 3.21 1.53 0.82 2.76 1.35 0.85 2.52 1.22 0.77 F (2, 268) = 4.73, p < .010
Domain 2 2.49 0.98 - 2.27 0.87 - 2.03 0.83 - F (2, 268) = 4.89, p < .01
Dependence 2.17 1.06 0.71 2.27 0.98 0.69 1.77 1.01 0.64 F (2, 268) = 6.05, p < .003
Vulnerability to Harm/ Illness 2.74 1.19 0.77 2.51 1.21 0.81 2.03 0.96 0.76 F (2, 268) = 7.59, p < .001
Enmeshment 2.22 1.12 0.65 1.79 0.79 0.64 1.88 0.97 0.60 F (2, 268) = 4.66, p < .010
Failure 2.83 1.39 0.83 2.52 1.15 0.87 2.42 1.26 0.86 F (2, 268) = 2.08, p = .127
Domain 3 - - - - - - - - - -
Entitlement 2.31 1.12 0.66 2.29 1.00 0.68 2.05 0.95 0.61 F (2, 268) = 1.64, p = .196
Insufficient Self-Control 3.13 1.14 0.78 2.87 0.98 0.70 2.58 0.90 0.62 F (2, 268) = 5.39, p < .005
Domain 4 - - - - - - 2.65 0.85 - -
Approval Seeking 3.25 1.15 0.79 2.99 1.07 0.80 2.79 1.16 0.75 F (2, 268) = 3.12, p < .046
Subjugation 2.84 1.14 0.71 2.22 0.95 0.66 1.99 0.91 0.74 F (2, 268) = 14.41, p < .000
Self-Sacrifice 3.88 1.26 0.82 3.26 1.10 0.75 3.18 1.11 0.83 F (2, 268) = 8.20, p < .000
Domain 5 3.27 1.11 - 2.92 0.95 - 2.57 0.91 - F (2, 268) = 8.87, p < .01
Emotional Inhibition 2.96 1.41 0.69 2.73 1.30 0.79 2.43 1.17 0.79 F (2, 268) = 3.04, p < .049
Negativity/ Pessimism 3.14 1.46 0.83 2.97 1.29 0.84 2.41 1.21 0.84 F (2, 268) = 6.58, p < .002
Hypercriticalness 3.76 1.24 0.79 3.12 1.16 0.64 3.19 1.32 0.81 F (2, 268) = 6.34, p < .002
Punitive 3.22 1.48 0.79 2.83 1.18 0.78 2.28 0.93 0.70 F (2, 268) = 11.29, p < .000
Note: Domain 1 = Disconnection and Rejection; Domain 2 = Impaired Autonomy and Performance; Domain 3 = Impaired Limits;
Domain 4 = Other-directedness; Domain 5 = Overvigilance and Inhibition
224
Means, Standard Deviations, and ANOVA results for Victims, Targets-only,
and Non-Targets
Victims Targets-Only Non-Targets

M SD a M SD a M SD a F
Surrender 3.30 1.40 0.87 2.94 1.21 0.78 3.09 1.36 0.79 F(2, 268) = 1.66, p = .193
Avoidance 3.29 1.30 0.75 3.11 1.2 0.85 2.97 1.27 0.86 F(2, 268) = 1.24, p = .292
Retaliation 3.06 1.14 0.82 3.07 1.22 0.83 2.59 1.01 0.84 F(2, 268) = 4.70, p < .01
Pleasing 3.14 1.43 0.77 3.13 1.24 0.81 3.15 1.26 0.88 F(2, 268) = .01, p = .992
Adaptive - - - 4.03 1.14 0.79 4.05 1.17 0.81 -
Psychological 2.32 0.86 0.98 2.19 0.78 0.97 1.87 0.64 0.97 F(2, 268) = 7.06, p < .001
Distress
All three groups employed a low to moderate amount of maladaptive

schema coping. In particular, the three groups had similar levels of
surrender, avoidance, and pleasing coping. The only difference between the
groups was that targets-only and victims had significantly higher levels of
retaliation coping compared to non-targets but there was no difference
between targets-only and victims mean retaliation scores. Targets-only and
non-targets employed a moderate amount of adaptive schema coping usage.7
Different patterns of correlations were found for the schema coping
styles across the three groups. For victims, the maladaptive schema coping
styles of surrender, avoidance, and pleasing were significantly and
positively correlated with the majority of EMS subscales, all three schema
domains tested in this sample (disconnection and rejection [Domain 1],
impaired autonomy and performance [Domain 2], and overvigilance and
inhibition [Domain 5]), and psychological distress. However, retaliation was
not significantly correlated with the majority of EMS subscales, only
entitlement, mistrust/abuse, and emotional deprivation. Retaliation was also
not significantly correlated with any of the schema domains listed above or
with psychological distress.
7
The adaptive schema coping scale was omitted from analyses in the victim
group.
225
For targets-only, the maladaptive schema coping styles were

significantly and positively correlated with the majority of EMS subscales
and all three schema domains tested in this sample (disconnection and
rejection [Domain 1], impaired autonomy and performance [Domain 2], and
overvigilance and inhibition [Domain 5]). In addition, the adaptive schema
coping scale did not have a significant relationship with any of the schema
domains or psychological distress but was significantly correlated to
emotional inhibition, though the strength of the correlation was very weak.
Surrender, avoidance, and retaliation were significantly and positively
correlated with psychological distress, though the strength of these
associations were very weak. In contrast, pleasing for targets-only was not
significantly correlated with distress.
For non-targets, surrender, avoidance, and pleasing were
significantly correlated with the majority of EMS subscales, and all schema
domains tested in this sample (disconnection and rejection [Domain 1],
impaired autonomy and performance [Domain 2], other-directedness
[Domain 4], and overvigilance and inhibition [Domain 5]). However, while
retaliation was significantly correlated with several EMS subscales and
impaired autonomy and performance and overvigilance and inhibition, it
was not significantly correlated with disconnection and rejection and other-
directedness. In addition, the adaptive schema coping scale did not have a
significant relationship with any of the schema domains or psychological
distress but was significantly correlated to hypercriticalness and
enmeshment, though the strength of the correlation was very weak.
Lastly, low levels of psychological distress were reported by all
groups. Victims had higher levels of psychological distress than targets-only
and non-targets, though the mean distress score for victims was not
significantly different to the target-only group. Victims and targets-only had
significantly higher psychological distress scores than non-targets.
226
Taken together, victims reported higher levels of schema activation,

particularly for schemas within disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and
overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) domains, compared to targets-only
and non-targets, who reported lower levels of schema activation. All three
groups reported employing similar levels of maladaptive coping (i.e.,
surrender, avoidance, and pleasing), though victims and targets-only scored
significantly higher for retaliation coping compared to non-targets. Targets
and non-targets both reported moderate amounts of adaptive coping usage.
Moreover, for all groups, most of the maladaptive coping styles were
associated with a range of EMSs and psychological distress, however
retaliation for victims and pleasing for targets-only were not associated with
psychological distress. Victims and targets-only had higher levels of
psychological distress than non-targets, though for all three groups
psychological distress scores could be interpreted as low.
RQ 2: The Relationship Between Early Maladaptive Schemas and

Psychological Distress
Addressing the second research question, correlations between
EMSs at both the domain and subscale levels and psychological distress
were inspected for each of the three groups (see Table 9 for victims, Table
10 for targets-only, and Table 11 for non-targets).
Victims group. At the schema domain level, disconnection and
rejection (Domain 1), impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2), and
overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) had moderate to strong significant
positive correlations with psychological distress, suggesting that higher
schema domain scores are associated with higher levels of psychological
distress.
At the subscale level, for schemas within disconnection and rejection
(Domain 1), abandonment had a strong positive correlation with
psychological distress. Defectiveness, mistrust/ abuse, and social isolation/
227
alienation had moderate significant positive correlations with psychological

distress. Emotional deprivation had a weak but significant positive
correlation with psychological distress. For schemas within impaired
autonomy and performance (Domain 2), vulnerability to harm had a strong
significant positive correlation with psychological distress, followed by
dependence and failure which had moderate significant positive correlations
with psychological distress. Enmeshment had a weak positive correlation
with psychological distress. For schemas within impaired limits (Domain 3),
insufficient self-control had a moderate significant positive correlation with
psychological distress but entitlement did not have a significant correlation
with psychological distress. For schemas within other-directness (Domain
4), approval-seeking and subjugation had moderate significant positive
correlations with psychological distress, but self-sacrifice had a weak
significant positive correlation with psychological distress. Lastly, for
schemas within overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), negativity/
pessimism had a strong significant positive correlation with psychological
distress, whereas emotional inhibition, hypercriticalness/ unrelenting
standards, and self-punitiveness had weak to moderate significant positive
correlations with psychological distress. These results suggest that, for
victims, higher levels of EMSs (except for the entitlement schema) are
associated with higher levels of psychological distress.
Target group. For targets, at the schema domain level,
disconnection and rejection (Domains 1), impaired autonomy and
performance (Domain 2), and overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) had
moderate to strong significant positive correlations with psychological
distress, suggesting that higher domain scores are associated with higher
levels of psychological distress.
(Domain 1), mistrust/ abuse, abandonment, social isolation/ alienation,
defectiveness, and emotional deprivation had moderate significant positive
228
correlations with psychological distress. For schemas within impaired

autonomy and performance (Domain 2), vulnerability to harm, dependence,
failure, and enmeshment had moderate positive significant correlations with
psychological distress. For schemas within impaired limits (Domain 3),
insufficient self-control had a moderate significant positive correlation with
psychological distress, but entitlement did not have a significant correlation
with psychological distress. For schemas within other-directedness (Domain
4), subjugation and self-sacrifice had moderate significant positive
correlations with psychological distress, but approval-seeking had a weak
significant positive correlation with psychological distress. Lastly, for
schemas within overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), pessimism had a
strong significant positive correlation with psychological distress whereas
emotional inhibition, hypercriticalness, and self-punitiveness had weak to
moderate significant positive correlations with psychological distress. These
results suggest that, for targets, higher levels of EMSs (except for the
entitlement schema) are associated with higher levels of psychological
distress.
Non-target group. For non-targets, at the schema domain level,
disconnection and rejection (Domain 1), impaired autonomy and
performance (Domain 2), other-directedness (Domain 4), and overvigilance
and inhibition (Domain 5) had moderate significant positive correlations
with psychological distress, suggesting that higher domain scores are
associated with higher levels of psychological distress.
(Domain 1), mistrust/ abuse, abandonment, social isolation/ alienation, and
defectiveness had moderate significant positive correlations with
psychological distress, whereas emotional deprivation had a very weak but
significant positive correlation with psychological distress. For schemas
within impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2), vulnerability to
harm had a strong significant positive correlation with psychological
229
distress. Dependence, failure, and enmeshment had moderate significant

positive correlations with psychological distress. For schemas within
impaired limits (Domain 3), insufficient self-control had a moderate
significant positive correlation with psychological distress but entitlement
did not have a significant correlation with psychological distress. For
schemas within other-directedness (Domain 4), approval-seeking,
subjugation, and self-sacrifice had weak to moderate significant positive
correlations with psychological distress. Lastly, for schemas within
overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), pessimism, self-punitiveness, and
emotional inhibition had moderate significant positive correlations with
psychological distress. Hypercriticalness had a weak significant correlation
with psychological distress. As with victims and targets-only, these results
suggest that, for non-targets, higher levels of EMSs (except for the
entitlement schema) are associated with higher levels of psychological
distress.
Overall, for the three groups, all schemas at the domain and subscale
level, except for the entitlement schema, were associated with psychological
distress. This suggests that individuals with higher levels of schemas at the
domain or subscale level also have higher levels of psychological distress.
How certain schema coping styles moderate the relationship between EMSs
(at the domain level) and psychological distress, and any differences across
the groups are presented next in a series of moderation analyses.
230
Table 9.
Pearson's Correlations for Early Maladaptive Schemas, Schema Domains, Schema Coping Styles, and Psychological Distress
for the Victim Group.
ED MIS SOC DEF AB DEP VUL ENM FAIL ENT INCO APP SUB SAC EI NEG HYP PUN D1 D2 D5 SUR AV RET PLS GSI
ED 1 .428** .472** .573** .473** .333** .388** .032 .394** .016 .367** .223 .518** .162 .296* .448** .329** .248* .720** .356** .414** .169 .359** -.143 .163 .298*
MIS 1 .662** .549** .591** .530** .653** .303* .521** .182 .372** .407** .451** .269* .605** .699** .419** .399** .803** .611** .669** .323** .516** .274* .505** .596**
SOC 1 .650** .576** .558** .673** .428** .660** .081 .395** .399** .519** .305* .465** .692** .493** .574** .842** .710** .701** .311* .463** .114 .459** .646**
DEF 1 .581** .721** .661** .237 .745** .113 .443** .383** .614** .227 .566** .767** .477** .432** .834** .725** .706** .424** .556** .051 .484** .571**
AB 1 .511** .705** .368** .583** .180 .627** .568** .626** .339** .404** .671** .336** .286* .813** .662** .536** .412** .456** .205 .424** .716**
DEP 1 .647** .398** .744** .177 .574** .434** .609** .195 .423** .608** .292* .353** .664** .842** .531** .366** .442** .077 .506** .611**
VUL 1 .433** .706** .181 .469** .500** .583** .272* .392** .786** .333** .380** .773** .850** .600** .426** .493** .181 .548** .774**
ENM 1 .473** .303* .294* .281* .463** .227 .290* .302* .246* .328** .350** .691** .368** .227 .204 .254* .392** .392**
FAIL 1 .050 .516** .425** .593** .262* .455** .697** .373** .469** .727** .902** .631** .373** .439** .124 .450** .632**
ENT 1 .246* .202 .176 .324** .199 .096 .271* .161 .145 .207 .223 .282* .210 .343** .345** .063
INCO 1 .541** .537** .179 .256* .452** .109 .124 .554** .563** .300* .402** .293* .199 .241* .470**
APP 1 .532** .151 .419** .538** .330** .231 .501** .499** .477** .445** .173 .202 .530** .479**
SUB 1 .379** .504** .515** .472** .441** .681** .682** .606** .547** .393** .054 .462** .513**
SAC 1 .152 .220 .535** .319** .328** .292* .375** .058 .036 .036 .231 .256*
EI 1 .558** .600** .461** .581** .476** .818** .180 .396** .132 .392** .445**
NEG 1 .434** .365** .820** .734** .745** .415** .477** .163 .526** .699**
HYP 1 .701** .512** .381** .843** .120 .150 .039 .268* .399**
PUN 1 .485** .470** .792** .179 .150 -.072 .210 .366**
D1 1 .770** .755** .413** .586** .131 .511** .714**
D2 1 .653** .424** .482** .192 .573** .734**
D5 1 .285* .373** .082 .440** .602**
SUR 1 .467** .288* .481** .375**
AV 1 .274* .481** .425**
RET 1 .340** .165
PLS 1 .476**
GSI 1
Note: ED = Emotional Deprivation schema; MIS = Mistrust and Abuse schema; SOC = Social Isolation/ Alienation schema; DEF = Defective/ Shame schema; AB = Abandonment schema; DEP =
Dependence schema; VUL = Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema; ENM = Enmeshment schema; ; FAIL = Failure to Achieve schema; ENT = Entitlement schema; INCO = Insufficient Self-Control
schema; APP = Approval Seeking/ Recognition Seeking schema; SUB = Subjugation schema; SAC = Self-Sacrifice schema; EI = Emotional Inhibition schema; NEG = Negativity/ Pessimism schema;
HYP = Hypercriticalness/ Unrelenting Standards schema; PUN = Self-punitiveness schema; D1 = Disconnection and Rejection; D2 = Impaired Autonomy and Performance; D5 = Overvigilance and
Inhibition; SUR = Surrender; AV = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLS = Pleasing; GSI = Psychological Distress.
**p < .01. *p < .05
231
Table 10.
for the Target-Only Group.
ED MIS SOC DEF AB DEP VUL ENM FAIL ENT INCO APP SUB SAC EI NEG HYP PUN D1 D2 D5 SUR AV RET PLS APT GSI
ED 1 .563** .548** .639** .463** .376** .447** .379** .366** .073 .329** .173 .382** .209* .571** .400** .221* .239** .777** .466** .471** .168 .338** .188* .229** -.128 .457**
MIS 1 .580** .561** .612** .584** .599** .524** .429** .231** .408** .238** .605** .368** .540** .657** .430** .391** .813** .631** .658** .112 .330** .337** .217* -.133 .684**
SOC 1 .666** .587** .535** .543** .440** .449** -.041 .296** .197* .591** .264** .504** .570** .320** .331** .826** .585** .564** .256** .328** .036 .252** -.143 .615**
DEF 1 .685** .618** .570** .445** .587** .000 .327** .286** .571** .156 .591** .543** .310** .345** .859** .665** .586** .273** .401** .103 .231** -.107 .573**
AB 1 .630** .662** .592** .563** .171 .457** .405** .592** .361** .422** .678** .411** .369** .823** .725** .612** .315** .475** .250** .324** -.007 .673**
DEP 1 .690** .489** .725** .217* .536** .451** .631** .261** .488** .664** .297** .369** .671** .868** .595** .301** .423** .164 .185* .016 .604**
VUL 1 .580** .687** .150 .513** .432** .605** .244** .481** .776** .426** .369** .691** .897** .670** .281** .362** .276** .247** -.086 .681**
ENM 1 .433** .258** .391** .392** .577** .337** .304** .532** .278** .290** .584** .707** .458** .256** .308** .313** .242** -.068 .489**
FAIL 1 .109 .546** .348** .561** .111 .370** .535** .236** .272** .584** .868** .463** .258** .375** .204* .190* .031 .491**
ENT 1 .358** .515** .167 -.023 .090 .214* .323** .315** .110 .207* .299** .074 .151 .309** .105 .002 .109
INCO 1 .501** .423** .170 .246** .504** .238** .402** .446** .596** .451** .218* .371** .286** .115 -.020 .428**
APP 1 .459** .055 .305** .413** .352** .432** .319** .480** .484** .340** .331** .319** .209* -.030 .237**
SUB 1 .282** .518** .606** .353** .382** .671** .702** .607** .448** .403** .182* .435** -.035 .569**
*
SAC 1 .204* .308** .225* .185* .337** .271** .300** .001 .164 .011 .172 -.009 .451**
EI 1 .481** .363** .320** .637** .494** .712** .231** .313** .057 .199* -.177* .464**
NEG 1 .521** .550** .700** .751** .831** .219* .340** .270** .174 -.086 .724**
HYP 1 .560** .416** .371** .777** .137 .256** .316** .267** .170 .408**
PUN 1 .410** .386** .775** .097 .268** .302** .161 .077 .389**
D1 1 .752** .707** .275** .458** .226* .308** -.125 .736**
D2 1 .655** .325** .437** .280** .255** -.030 .678**
D5 1 .224* .382** .301** .257** -.014 .648**
SUR 1 .509** .038 .586** .150 .181*
AV 1 .256** .523** .153 .290**
RET 1 .020 .182* .262**
PLS 1 .299** .126
*
APT 1 -.088
GSI 1
HYP = Hypercriticalness/ Unrelenting Standards schema; PUN = Self-punitiveness schema; D1 = Disconnection and Rejection; D2 = Impaired Autonomy and Performance; D5 = Overvigilance and
Inhibition; SUR = Surrender; AV = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLS = Pleasing; APT = Adaptive coping; GSI = Psychological Distress.
**p < .01. *p < .05
232
Table 11.
for the Non-Target Group.
ED MIS SOC DEF AB DEP VUL ENM FAIL ENT INCO APP SUB SAC EI NEG HYP PUN D1 D2 D4 D5 SUR AV RET PLS APT GSI
ED 1 .398** .420** .595** .398** .330** .325** .404** .375** .282* .320** .143 .359** .185 .406** .335** .281* .372** .752** .457** .272* .437** .105 .251* .010 .018 -.057 .252*
MIS 1 .608** .549** .589** .515** .639** .385** .566** .221 .398** .283* .577** .353** .405** .653** .561** .632** .770** .672** .487** .709** .324** .387** .379** .300** .107 .564**
SOC 1 .663** .514** .459** .549** .292** .426** .384** .407** .395** .551** .285* .617** .496** .431** .469** .818** .548** .499** .636** .296** .300** .147 .204 .069 .544**
DEF 1 .433** .485** .515** .378** .518** .089 .321** .229* .584** .333** .650** .463** .318** .501** .814** .606** .456** .603** .224* .313** .138 .245* .062 .578**
AB 1 .426** .506** .253* .438** .159 .373** .327** .479** .270* .410** .542** .314** .411** .722** .519** .435** .528** .360** .513** .230* .223 .080 .577**
DEP 1 .591** .366** .457** .112 .252* .284* .563** .126 .246* .477** .125 .376** .541** .759** .383** .377** .403** .402** .177 .168 .069 .445**
VUL 1 .471** .519** .089 .338** .473** .641** .362** .435** .810** .440** .587** .601** .807** .599** .715** .350** .578** .305** .292** .182 .739**
ENM 1 .530** .306** .369** .191 .528** .385** .291* .454** .387** .415** .432** .744** .441** .489** .150 .400** .284* .144 .227* .421**
FAIL 1 .025 .534** .328** .549** .293** .371** .543** .311** .552** .543** .827** .471** .551** .408** .408** .260* .357** .130 .489**
ENT 1 .371** .284* .240* .261* .193 .105 .306** .215 .327** .159 .328** .262* .002 .020 .053 -.061 -.092 .125
INCO 1 .439** .377** .315** .462** .371** .319** .323** .443** .487** .470** .468** .276* .277* .205 .235* -.047 .420**
APP 1 .505** .410** .247* .493** .492** .311** .333** .405** .811** .499** .353** .336** .136 .280* .155 .374**
SUB 1 .500** .424** .622** .440** .592** .628** .722** .802** .651** .455** .511** .160 .286* .184 .523**
SAC 1 .216 .335** .492** .373** .352** .368** .799** .453** .204 .301** -.081 .175 -.092 .365**
EI 1 .409** .362** .382** .617** .428** .356** .682** .161 .238* .266* .092 .045 .488**
NEG 1 .555** .734** .585** .721** .590** .849** .344** .520** .360** .241* .212 .636**
HYP 1 .568** .489** .398** .594** .806** .193 .231* .327** .200 .268* .378**
PUN 1 .582** .617** .513** .825** .326** .429** .235* .319** .121 .555**
D1 1 .674** .527** .716** .300** .404** .187 .228* .059 .603**
D2 1 .601** .676** .424** .564** .325** .315** .190 .661**
D4 1 .654** .410** .465** .083 .305** .096 .514**
D5 1 .318** .441** .382** .263* .212 .644**
SUR 1 .538** .235* .656** .291* .234*
AV 1 .413** .487** .404** .596**
RET 1 .293** .443** .342**
PLS 1 .466** .267*
APT 1 .142
GSI 1
HYP = Hypercriticalness/ Unrelenting Standards schema; PUN = Self-punitiveness schema; D1 = Disconnection and Rejection; D2 = Impaired Autonomy and Performance; D4 = Other-directedness; D5 =
Overvigilance and Inhibition; SUR = Surrender; AV = Avoidance; RET = Retaliation; PLS = Pleasing; APT = Adaptive coping; GSI = Psychological Distress.
**p < .01. *p < .05
233
RQ 3: Structural Moderation Model

The interaction effect between each of the schema domains and five
schema coping latent variables were analysed separately in order to reduce
the complexity of the model. Adaptive schema coping was not tested for the
victim group due to a poor one-factor congeneric model and a warning in
the independent cluster measurement model. Moreover, for all groups, the
individual schemas of entitlement and insufficient self-control were
analysed separately and not within their higher order factor of impaired
limits (Domain 3) due to an under-identified model (see Appendix O for
measurement model results; B. Muthen, personal communication, July 5,
2019). Furthermore, EMSs within other-directedness (Domain 4) were
modelled and analysed separately for victim and target-only groups due to a
warning message indicating potential multicollinearity in the higher order
model between subjugation and self-sacrifice and/or that the models should
be changed in some way. While these two factors could have been
combined (which would have resulted in an under-identified model),
theoretically they are distinct, so it was decided that the schemas pertaining
to other-directedness (Domain 4) would be analysed separately in these two
groups.
It should be noted that when performing the moderation analyses,
some single indicator latent variable models produced a warning. For
example, for victims, a warning appeared in the impaired autonomy and
performance domain (Domain 2), in which the vulnerability to harm and
illness schema had a factor loading of 1.0 and a negative residual variance
when pleasing was included in the model. The models that produced a
warning were tested again using only the observed variables but still with a
higher order specified for these variables. This approach was recommended
by Bengt Muthen (personal communication, May 9 2019) because in this
particular case Mplus can still determine the regression coefficients for the
234
observed variables. All other moderation analyses were performed using

single indicator latent variables and again using only the observed variables,
with the results for both outputs being exactly the same. Table 12 displays
and overview of the moderation models tested, whether a warning was
produced, and how the structural models were tested.
Table 12.
Overview of the Warnings Produced in the Moderation Models and how the
Structural Models were Tested.
Figure 13. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Pleasing on psychological distress
for the victim group.
D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Pls = Pleasing; GSI = General Severity Index; Aban =
Abandonment Schema; Def = Defectiveness/ Shame Schema; Soc = Social Isolation/ Alienation
Schema; Mis = Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; _p = single indicator
composite variable.Table 13.
composite variable.
Moderation Results for the Victim Group
The
Figure 15. Themoderation results the
relationship between forlatent
victims pertaining
variables to disconnection
of disconnection and
and rejection (Domain 1)
and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the victim group.Figure 16.
rejection
Moderation(Domain 1), impairedand
model of Disconnection autonomy
Rejectionand performance
x Pleasing (Domain
on psychological 2) and
distress for the victim
group.
overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), and individual schemas within
Abandonment Schema;
impaired limits Def = 3)
(Domain Defectiveness/
(entitlementShame
andSchema; Soc = self-control)
insufficient Social Isolation/and
Alienation
other-directedness (Domain
composite variable.Table 14. 4) (approval-seeking, subjugation, and self-
sacrifice) are presented in detail below and in Table 13.
composite variable.Table 15.
235
Table 28.
Moderation Model Results for the Victim Group.
Variable/ Scale ! SE β SE p R2
Domain 1
Domain 1 1.27 .37 .79 .09 .000
Surrender 0.02 .11 .02 .11 .846
Domain 1 x Surrender 0.07 .12 .04 .07 .548 .65
Domain 1 1.49 .49 .94 .16 .000
Avoidance -0.19 .19 -.19 .19 .313
Domain 1 x Avoidance 0.14 .13 .09 .08 .256 .66
Domain 1 1.30 .37 .80 .06 .000
Retaliation 0.03 .09 .03 .09 .732
Domain 1 x Retaliation 0.07 .10 .04 .05 .434 .66
Domain 1 1.28 .41 .79 .12 .000
Pleasing 0.02 .14 .02 .14 .912
Domain 1 x Pleasing 0.21 .12 .13 .06 .036 .66
Domain 2
Domain 2 0.88 .19 .83 .09 .000
Surrender -0.01 .10 -.01 .10 .911
Domain 2 0.90 .20 .85 .12 .000
Avoidance -0.04 .13 -.04 .13 .772
Domain 2 0.88 .17 .83 .07 .000
Retaliation 0.02 .08 .02 .08 .791
Domain 2 0.75 .17 .87 .14 .000
Pleasing -0.06 .16 -.06 .17 .701
Domain 3
Entitlement -0.09 .16 -.09 .16 .595
Surrender 0.43 .16 .44 .16 .006
Entitlement x Surrender -0.03 .20 -.03 .20 .877 .17
Entitlement -0.09 .15 -.09 .15 .554
Avoidance 0.52 .14 .52 .14 .000
Entitlement x Avoidance 0.10 .13 .10 .13 .457 .26
Entitlement 0.01 .19 .01 .19 .955
Retaliation 0.17 .17 .17 .18 .331
Entitlement x Retaliation -0.09 .26 -.09 .25 .718 .04
Entitlement -0.28 .20 -.28 .20 .162
Pleasing 0.67 .15 .68 .15 .000
Entitlement x Pleasing 0.15 .18 .15 .17 .386 .38
Insufficient Self-Control 0.67 .30 .51 .21 .018
Surrender 0.14 .23 .14 .23 .536
236
Domain 3 (Continued)
Insufficient Self-Control x -0.11 .21 -.08 .16 .601 .36
Surrender
Avoidance 0.30 .19 .31 .20 .12
Insufficient Self-Control x 0.01 .29 .01 .22 .965 .43
Avoidance
Retaliation 0.04 .17 .04 .17 .834
Retaliation
Pleasing 0.14 .23 .39 .17 .020
Insufficient Self-Control x -0.11 .21 .05 .15 .763 .35
Pleasing
Domain 4
Approval Seeking 0.46 .16 .46 .16 .005
Surrender 0.16 .18 .16 .19 .389
Approval Seeking x 0.00 .11 .00 .11 .986 .32
Surrender
Avoidance 0.40 .19 .40 .13 .001
Avoidance
Retaliation 0.06 .14 .06 .14 .680
Approval Seeking x -0.07 .06 -.07 .06 .306 .31
Retaliation
Pleasing 0.32 .23 .32 .24 .175
Approval Seeking x Pleasing 0.07 .08 .07 .08 .386 .36
Subjugation 0.65 .30 .65 .27 .015
Surrender -0.05 .28 -.05 .28 .872
Subjugation x Surrender 0.06 .10 .06 .20 .552 .39
Subjugation 0.49 .16 .49 .15 .001
Avoidance 0.23 .16 .23 .16 .144
Subjugation x Avoidance 0.04 .11 .04 .11 .685 .42
Subjugation 0.60 .12 .61 .10 .000
Retaliation 0.14 .10 .14 .10 .152
Subjugation x Retaliation -0.02 .06 -.02 .06 .740 .40
Subjugation 0.47 .17 .47 .17 .006
Pleasing 0.24 .19 .24 .19 .194
Subjugation x Pleasing 0.19 .11 .19 .11 .081 .47
Self-sacrifice 0.25 .13 .25 .12 .030
237
Surrender 0.37 .14 .38 .15 .009
Self-sacrifice x Surrender -0.11 .14 -.11 .14 .462 .23
Self-sacrifice 0.27 .12 .27 .12 .019
Avoidance 0.49 .13 .49 .12 .000
Self-sacrifice x Avoidance -0.06 .12 -.06 .12 .595 .33
Self-sacrifice 0.28 .13 .28 .12 .022
Retaliation 0.17 .14 .17 .15 .241
Self-sacrifice x Retaliation -0.26 .16 -.26 .16 .109 .18
Self-sacrifice 0.15 .16 .15 .16 .324
Pleasing 0.48 .15 .49 .15 .001
Self-sacrifice x Pleasing 0.12 .21 .12 .21 .577 .32
Domain 5
Domain 5 0.65 .27 .58 .24 .014
Surrender 0.24 .20 .24 .20 .239
Domain 5 0.57 .32 .52 .28 .066
Avoidance 0.25 .27 .26 .27 .348
Domain 5 0.70 .28 .62 .25 .012
Retaliation 0.12 .12 .13 .13 .326
Domain 5 x Retaliation -0.01 .12 -.01 .12 .916 .42
Domain 5 0.55 .36 .50 .33 .129
Pleasing 0.26 .28 .26 .29 .361
Note. Bold type indicates statistically significant interaction effect with p value based on
standardised estimates. B = unstandardised coefficients; β = standardised coefficients
generated using the STDYX option in Mplus.
Disconnection and rejection (Domain 1). The main effect of

disconnection and rejection on psychological distress was significant for all
four schema coping models. However, none of the main effects of the
schema coping styles on psychological distress were significant. Pleasing
significantly moderated the relationship between disconnection and
rejection scores and psychological distress (see Table 13). The model
238
explained a substantial amount of variance in psychological distress (R² =

.66). The SEM model can be seen in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Pleasing on psychological

distress for the victim group.
D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Pls = Pleasing; GSI = General Severity Index;
Aban = Abandonment Schema; Def = Defectiveness/ Shame Schema; Soc = Social
Isolation/ Alienation Schema; Mis = Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation
Schema; _p = single indicator composite variable.
To interpret the significant latent variable interaction of

Disconnection and Rejection x Pleasing on psychological distress, a plot of
simple slopes was created in Mplus using the LOOP plot option (see Figure
14). A line for low levels of pleasing was plotted, where low delineates 1
SD below the mean (-1 SD) of pleasing, and a line for high levels of
pleasing was plotted, where high delineates 1 SD above the mean (+1 SD)
of pleasing.
239
Figure 14. The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection and rejection
(Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the victim group.
Figure 78. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender on psychological

As seen in Figure 14, higher disconnection and rejection scores for
distress for the target-only group.
D1 = Disconnection
victims and Rejection
were associated with domain;
higher Surr = Surrender;
levels GSI = General
of psychological Severity
distress. AnIndex;
Aban = Abandonment Schema; Def = Defectiveness/ Shame Schema; Soc = Social Isolation/
inspection
Alienation of theMis
Schema; interaction revealed
= Mistrust/ that the
Abuse Schema; Edmoderator
= Emotionalvariable,
Deprivationpleasing,
Schema; _p =
single indicator composite variable; bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator
exacerbated
composite the relationship
variable.Figure 79. The between disconnection
relationship andvariables
between the latent rejection scores and
of disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the
psychological
victim group. distress. On the other hand, pleasing was found to reduce
psychological distress slightly at lower levels of disconnection and
Figure 80. Moderation
rejection. All other model of Disconnection
interaction and Rejection
terms within x Surrender
disconnection andon psychological
rejection
were
D1 not significant,
= Disconnection including,
and Rejection surrender,
domain; avoidance,
Surr = Surrender; GSIand retaliation.
= General Severity Index;
AlienationImpaired
Schema; Mis autonomy
= Mistrust/and performance
Abuse (DomainDeprivation
Schema; Ed = Emotional 2). The main
Schema; _p =
effect of variable.
composite impaired autonomy and performance on psychological distress was
significant for all four schema coping models. However, no main effects for
Figure 81. Thecoping
the schema relationship between
styles the latent variables
on psychological of disconnection
distress and rejection
were significant. There
(Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only
were also no
group.Figure 82.significant
Moderation interaction effects found
model of Disconnection betweenx impaired
and Rejection Surrender on
psychological distress for the target-only group.
autonomy
D1 and performance
= Disconnection and Rejectionand psychological
domain; distress
Surr = Surrender; GSI for any ofSeverity
= General the schema
Index;
coping styles
Alienation Schema;(seeMis
Table 13). Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; _p =
= Mistrust/
composite variable.Figure 83. The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the
victim group.
Figure 84. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender on psychological

D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Surr = Surrender; GSI = General Severity Index;
240
Impaired limits (Domain 3). For the individual EMSs that are often
categorised under impaired limits, entitlement did not have a significant
main effect on psychological distress in any of the schema coping models.
There was a significant main effect for surrender, avoidance, and pleasing
on psychological distress, but retaliation was not significant. No significant
interaction effects were found between entitlement and psychological
distress for any of the schema coping styles (see Table 13).
Insufficient self-control had a significant main effect on
psychological distress for all four schema coping models. Moreover,
pleasing had a significant main effect on psychological distress, however no
other schema coping style had a significant main effect on psychological
distress. No significant interaction effects were found between insufficient
self-control and psychological distress for any of the schema coping styles
(see Table 13).
Other-directedness (Domain 4). For the individual EMSs that are
often categorised under other-directedness, the approval seeking schema had
a significant main effect on psychological distress for the surrender,
avoidance, and retaliation schema coping models, but not for the pleasing
model. Avoidance had a significant main effect on psychological distress
but surrender, retaliation, and pleasing did not. No significant interaction
effects were found between approval seeking and psychological distress for
any of the schema coping styles (see Table 13).
The subjugation schema had a significant main effect on
psychological distress for all four schema coping models. There were no
significant main effects for any of the schema coping styles on
psychological distress. No significant interaction effects were found
between subjugation and psychological distress for any of the schema
coping styles (see Table 13).
The self-sacrifice schema had a significant main effect on
psychological distress for the surrender, avoidance, and retaliation schema
241
coping models, but not for the pleasing model. Surrender, avoidance, and
pleasing had a significant main effect on psychological distress but
retaliation was not significant. No significant interaction effects were found
between self-sacrifice and psychological distress for any of the schema
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5). Overvigilance and
inhibition had a significant main effect on psychological distress for the
surrender and retaliation schema coping models, but not for the avoidance
and pleasing models. The main effects of all four schema coping styles on
psychological distress were not significant. No significant interaction effects
were found between Overvigilance and inhibition and psychological distress
for any of the schema coping styles (see Table 13).
Moderation Results for the Target-Only Group

The moderation results for targets-only pertaining to disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1), impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2)
and overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5), and individual schemas within
impaired limits (Domain 3) (entitlement and insufficient self-control) and
other-directedness (Domain 4) (approval-seeking, subjugation, and self-
sacrifice) are presented in detail below and in Table 14.
242
Table 14.
Moderation Model Results for the Target-Only Group.

Domain 1
Domain 1 1.20 .18 .85 .05 .000
Surrender -0.07 .08 -.06 .08 .416
Domain 1 x Surrender -0.24 .10 -.17 .08 .038 .72
Domain 1 1.29 .23 .91 .07 .000
Avoidance -0.14 .11 -.14 .10 .166
Domain 1 x Avoidance -0.30 .09 -.21 .06 .001 .77
Domain 1 1.04 .20 .78 .05 .000
Retaliation 0.10 .20 .10 .10 .318
Domain 1 1.21 .19 .88 .05 .000
Pleasing -0.17 .07 -.16 .07 .016
Domain 1 x Pleasing -0.19 .09 -.14 .06 .028 .72
Domain 1 1.07 .19 .80 .04 .000
Adaptive 0.02 .15 .02 .15 .888
Domain 1 x Adaptive 0.02 .24 .01 .18 .944 .64
Domain 2
Domain 2 0.83 .10 .80 .06 .000
Surrender -0.09 .09 -.08 .09 .358
Domain 2 1.09 .15 .83 .07 .000
Avoidance -0.09 .10 -.09 .09 .338
Domain 2 0.75 .10 .73 .07 .000
Retaliation 0.05 .09 .05 .09 .576
Domain 2 0.83 .11 .79 .06 .000
Pleasing -0.08 .08 -.08 .08 .299
Domain 2 0.76 .10 .74 .06 .000
Adaptive -0.05 .11 -.04 .11 .682
Domain 3
Entitlement 0.27 .13 .35 .17 .045
Surrender -0.02 .18 -.02 .18 .905
Entitlement x Surrender 0.03 .09 .04 .11 .735 .11
Entitlement -0.09 .15 -.09 .15 .554
Avoidance 0.52 .14 .52 .14 .000
Entitlement 0.21 .08 .27 .11 .013
Retaliation 0.20 .09 .20 .09 .030
Entitlement x Retaliation -0.03 .07 -.03 .10 .735 .15
Entitlement 0.33 .12 .43 .16 .008
243
Pleasing -0.14 .14 -.15 .15 .321
Entitlement 0.29 .08 .37 .10 .000
Adaptive -0.14 .10 -.14 .10 .163
Entitlement x Adaptive 0.06 .10 .07 .13 .560 .14
Surrender 0.19 .11 .19 .11 .067
Insufficient Self-Control x .13 -.09 .13 .491 .06
-0.09
Surrender
Avoidance 0.30 .10 .30 .10 .003
Insufficient Self-Control x .10 -.07 .11 .524 .12
-0.07
Avoidance
Retaliation 0.29 .10 .29 .10 .004
Retaliation
Pleasing 0.13 .09 .13 .09 .175
Pleasing
Adaptive -0.13 .11 -.13 .10 .223
Adaptive
Domain 4
Surrender 0.07 .12 .07 .12 .538
Surrender
Avoidance 0.11 .11 .11 .12 .323
Avoidance
Retaliation 0.13 .10 .13 .11 .226
Retaliation
Pleasing 0.07 .09 .07 .09 .463
Pleasing
244
Adaptive -0.12 .11 -.12 .11 .293
Adaptive
Subjugation 0.20 .08 .23 .10 .022
Surrender 0.10 .12 .10 .13 .409
Subjugation x Surrender 0.08 .10 .09 .11 .429 .10
Subjugation 0.13 .08 .16 .10 .101
Avoidance 0.23 .10 .24 .11 .026
Subjugation x Avoidance 0.08 .09 .09 .11 .388 .13
Subjugation 0.16 .08 .19 .10 .046
Retaliation 0.22 .10 .22 .10 .027
Subjugation x Retaliation 0.05 .07 .06 .08 .511 .12
Subjugation 0.22 .07 .27 .09 .003
Pleasing 0.06 .10 .06 .10 .555
Subjugation x Pleasing 0.12 .08 .14 .10 .144 .11
Subjugation 0.23 .07 .28 .08 .001
Adaptive -0.10 .11 -.10 .11 .368
Subjugation x Adaptive -0.03 .09 -.03 .11 .744 .09
Self-sacrifice 1.17 .24 .96 .16 .000
Surrender -0.38 .18 -.38 .17 .026
Self-sacrifice x Surrender -0.03 .11 -.03 .09 .761 .61
Self-sacrifice 1.04 .20 .82 .12 .000
Avoidance -0.13 .13 -.13 .13 .309
Self-sacrifice x Avoidance -0.22 .09 -.18 .06 .005 .62
Self-sacrifice 0.84 .13 .68 .08 .000
Retaliation 0.14 .11 .14 .11 .222
Self-sacrifice x Retaliation 0.07 .14 .05 .11 .635 .53
Self-sacrifice 1.26 .29 1.01 .18 .000
Pleasing -0.45 .19 -.44 .18 .016
Self-sacrifice x Pleasing -0.10 .10 -.08 .08 .299 .69
Self-sacrifice 0.89 .13 .71 .07 .000
Adaptive -0.13 .11 -.13 .11 .234
Self-sacrifice x Adaptive -0.20 .12 -.16 .09 .085 .56
Domain 5
Domain 5 1.29 .21 .80 .04 .000
Surrender 0.00 .08 .00 .08 .994
Domain 5 1.28 .22 .81 .05 .000
Avoidance -0.02 .08 -.02 .08 .762
Domain 5 1.28 .00 .79 .05 .000
Retaliation 0.00 .98 .00 .09 .982
245
Domain 5 1.29 .22 .81 .05 .000
Pleasing -0.07 .09 -.07 .09 .434
Domain 5 1.26 .23 .78 .05 .000
Adaptive -0.09 .10 -.09 .10 .356
Domain 5 x Adaptive -0.15 .13 -.09 .08 .233 .63

five schema coping models. The main effect of pleasing on psychological
distress was significant. However, there were no significant main effects for
surrender, avoidance, retaliation, and adaptive schema coping on
psychological distress. Surrender significantly moderated the relationship
between disconnection and rejection scores and psychological distress (see
Table 14). The model explained a substantial amount of variance in
psychological distress (R² = .72). The SEM model can be seen in Figure 15.
246
Figure 15. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender on psychological distress for
the target-only group.
D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Surr = Surrender; GSI = General Severity Index; Aban =
composite variable; bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.
Figure 158.ToTheinterpret
relationship
thebetween the latent
significant variables
latent of disconnection
variable interactionand
of rejection (Domain 1)
and psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only group.Figure 159.
Disconnection
Moderation model ofand Rejectionand
Disconnection x Surrender
Rejection x on psychological
Surrender distress,
on psychological a plot
distress forof
the target-
only group.
D1simple slopes was
= Disconnection created in
and Rejection MplusSurr
domain; using the LOOP
= Surrender; GSI plot option
= General (see Figure
Severity Index; Aban =
16). Mis = Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; _p = single indicator
Schema;
Figure 160. The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection and rejection (Domain 1)
and psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only group.
Figure 161. Moderation model of Domain 1 x Pleasing on psychological distress for the target-only
group.
composite variable; bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.Figure 162.
The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and
psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only group.Figure 163.
Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender on psychological distress for the target-
only group.
and psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only group.
and psychological distress at high and low levels of surrender for the target-only group.Figure 165.
Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Surrender on psychological distress for the target-
only group.
247

targets-only were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. An
inspection of the interaction revealed that the moderator variable, surrender,
buffered the relationship between disconnection and rejection scores and
psychological distress. On the other hand, surrender was found to increase
rejection.
In addition, pleasing significantly moderated the relationship
between disconnection and rejection scores and psychological distress (see
Figure 17. Moderation model of Domain 1 x Pleasing on psychological distress for the target-only
group.
Figure 238.
To The relationship
interpret between the latent
the significant latent variables
variableofinteraction
disconnection ofand rejection (Domain 1)
and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the target-only group.Figure 239.
Disconnection
Moderation modeland Rejection
of Domain x Pleasing
1 x Pleasing on psychological
on psychological distress,
distress for a plot of
simple slopesSchema;
Abandonment was created in Mplus using
Def = Defectiveness/ ShametheSchema;
LOOPSoc plot= Social
optionIsolation/
(see Figure
Alienation
18) .
and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the target-only group.
Figure 241. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological distress
for the target-only group.
D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index; Aban =
248
(Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the target-only
group.
As Moderation
Figure 318. seen in Figure
model18, higher disconnection
of Disconnection andx Avoidance
and Rejection rejection onscores for
psychological
targets-only were and
D1 = Disconnection associated
Rejectionwith higher
domain; Av =levels of psychological
Avoidance; distress.Index;
GSI = General Severity An
inspection of the Mis
Alienation Schema; interaction revealed
= Mistrust/ that theEdmoderator
Abuse Schema; = Emotionalvariable, pleasing,
Deprivation Schema; p =
buffered the relationship between disconnection and rejection scores andvariable;
single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator composite
Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.Figure 319. The
relationship between
psychological the latent
distress. Onvariables
the otherof hand,
disconnection andwas
pleasing rejection
found(Domain 1) and
to increase
psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the target-only group.
rejection.
Figure 320. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological
Moreover,and
D1 = Disconnection avoidance
Rejection significantly moderatedGSI
domain; Av = Avoidance; the= relationship
General Severity Index;
Aban = Abandonment Schema; Def = Defectiveness/ Shame
between disconnection and rejection scores and psychological Schema; Soc = Social Isolation/
distress (see
Alienation Schema; Mis = Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; p =
Table 14). Thecomposite
single indicator model explained a substantial
variable; Avp_rev amount
= Avoidance singleofindicator
variance in
composite variable;
Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.
(Domain 1) and psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only
group.Figure 322. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on
D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index;
single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator composite variable;
Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.Figure 323. The
relationship between the latent variables of disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and
psychological distress at high and low levels of pleasing for the target-only group.
Figure 324. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological

D1 = Disconnection and Rejection domain; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index;
single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator composite variable;
249
Figure 19. Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological distress
Schema; Mis = Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; p = single indicator
composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General
Severity Index single indicator composite variable.
To interpret
and psychological distressthe
significant
at high
latentofvariable
and low levels avoidanceinteraction
of group.Figure 399.
for the target-only
Moderation model ofand
Disconnection Disconnection
Rejection and Rejection x Avoidance
x Avoidance on psychological
on psychological distress
distress, a plotfor the target-
only group.
D1of= simple
Disconnection
slopesand Rejection
was createddomain; Av =using
in Mplus Avoidance; GSI = General
the LOOP Severity
plot option (seeIndex; Aban =
FigureMis
Schema; 20).
= Mistrust/ Abuse Schema; Ed = Emotional Deprivation Schema; p = single indicator
and psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.
Figure 401. Moderation model of Impaired Autonomy and Performance x Avoidance on psychological
D2 = Impaired Autonomy and Performance domain; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index;
Fail = Failure Schema; Emn = Enmeshment Schema; Vul = Vulnerability to Harm/ Illness Schema; Dep
= Dependence Schema; _p = single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator
composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.Figure 402.
The relationship between the latent variables of disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and
psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.Figure 403.
Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological distress for the target-
only group.
Figure
Schema; 20.=The
Mis relationship
Mistrust/ Abusebetween
Schema;the
Edlatent variables
= Emotional of disconnection
Deprivation Schema;andp rejection (Domain 1)
= single indicator
and psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.
and psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.Figure 405.
Moderation model of Disconnection and Rejection x Avoidance on psychological distress for the target-
only group.
250

inspection of the interaction revealed that the moderator variable, avoidance,
buffered the relationship between disconnection and rejection scores and
psychological distress. On the other hand, avoidance was found to increase
rejection. All other interaction terms within disconnection and rejection
were not significant, including, retaliation and adaptive schema coping.
Impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2). The main
effect of impaired autonomy and performance on psychological distress was
significant for all five coping models. However, none of the main effects of
the schema coping styles on psychological distress were significant.
Avoidance significantly moderated the relationship between
impaired autonomy and performance scores and psychological distress (see
Figure 21. Moderation model of Impaired Autonomy and Performance x Avoidance on psychological
Fail = Failure Schema; Emn = Enmeshment Schema; Vul = Vulnerability to Harm/ Illness Schema;
Dep = Dependence Schema; _p = single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single
indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.
Figure 478. The relationship between the latent variables of impaired autonomy and performance
group.Figure 479. Moderation model of Impaired Autonomy and Performance x Avoidance on
Fail = Failure Schema; Emn = Enmeshment Schema; Vul = Vulnerability to Harm/ Illness Schema;
Dep = Dependence Schema; _p = single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single
indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.
251
To interpret the significant latent variable interaction of Impaired

Autonomy and Performance x Avoidance on psychological distress, a plot
of simple slopes was created in Mplus using the LOOP plot option (see
Figure 22).
Figure 22. The relationship between the latent variables of impaired autonomy and performance
group.
As seen in Figure 22, higher impaired autonomy and performance

scores for targets-only were associated with higher levels of psychological
distress. An inspection of the interaction revealed that the moderator
variable, avoidance, buffered the relationship between impaired autonomy
and performance scores and psychological distress. On the other hand,
avoidance was found to increase psychological distress slightly at lower
levels of impaired autonomy and performance. All other interaction terms
within impaired autonomy and performance were not significant, including,
surrender, retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping.
Impaired limits (Domain 3). For the individual EMSs that are often
categorised under impaired limits, the main effect of entitlement on
252
psychological distress was significant for all five coping models. There was
a significant main effect for avoidance and retaliation on psychological
distress, but surrender, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping were not
significant. No significant interaction effects were found between
entitlement and psychological distress for any of the schema coping styles
(see Table 14).
Insufficient self-control did not have a significant main effect on
psychological distress in any of the five schema coping models. Moreover,
avoidance and retaliation had a significant main effect on psychological
distress, but surrender, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping were not
significant. No significant interaction effects were found between
insufficient self-control and psychological distress for any of the schema
Other-directedness (Domain 4). For the individual EMSs that are
often categorised under other-directedness, the approval seeking schema had
a significant main effect on psychological distress for the surrender,
retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping models, but not for the
avoidance model. The main effects of all five schema coping styles on
psychological distress were not significant. No significant interaction effects
were found between approval seeking and psychological distress for any of
the schema coping styles (see Table 14).
The subjugation schema had a significant main effect on
psychological distress for the surrender, retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive
schema coping models, but not for the avoidance model. The main effects of
avoidance and retaliation on psychological distress were significant, but
surrender, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping were not significant. No
significant interaction effects were found between subjugation and
psychological distress for any of the schema coping styles (see Table 14).
The main effect of self-sacrifice on psychological distress was
significant for all five coping models. The main effects of surrender and
253
pleasing on psychological distress were significant, but avoidance,

retaliation, and adaptive schema coping were not significant. Avoidance
significantly moderated the relationship between self-sacrifice scores and
psychological distress (see Table 14). The model explained a substantial
amount of variance in psychological distress (R² = .62). The SEM model
can be found in Figure 23.
Figure 23. Moderation model of Self-Sacrifice x Avoidance on psychological distress

Sac = Self-Sacrifice Schema; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index; Sac_p =
Self-Sacrifice single indicator composite variable; Avp_rev = Avoidance single
indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator
composite variable.
254
To interpret the significant latent variable interaction of Self-

Sacrifice x Avoidance on psychological distress, a plot of simple slopes was
created in Mplus using the LOOP plot option (see Figure 24).
Figure 24. The relationship between the latent variables of self-sacrifice and psychological
distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.
As seen in Figure 24, higher self-sacrifice scores for targets-only

were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. An inspection
of the interaction revealed that the moderator variable, avoidance, buffered
the relationship between self-sacrifice scores and psychological distress. On
the other hand, avoidance was found to increase psychological distress
slightly at lower levels of self-sacrifice. All other interaction terms within
self-sacrifice were not significant, including, surrender, retaliation, pleasing,
and adaptive schema coping.
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5). The main effect of
overvigilance and inhibition on psychological distress was significant for all
five schema coping models. However, none of the main effects of the
schema coping styles on psychological distress were significant. Avoidance
significantly moderated the relationship between overvigilance and
255
inhibition scores and psychological distress (see Table 14). The model
Figure 25. Moderation model of Overvigilance and Inhibition x Avoidance on psychological distress for
D5 = Overvigilance and Inhibition domain; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index; Aban =
Abandonment Schema; Punit = Punitiveness Schema; Hyper = Hypercriticalness Schema; Neg =
Negativity/ Pessimism Schema; Ei = Emotional Inhibition; _p = single indicator composite variable;
Avp_rev = Avoidance single indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single
indicator composite variable.
Figure 558. The relationship between the latent variables of overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) and
psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.Figure 559. Moderation
model of Overvigilance and Inhibition x Avoidance on psychological distress for the target-only group.
Figure 560. The relationship between the latent variables of overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) and
psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.
Figure 561. Moderation model of Insufficient Self-Control x Avoidance on psychological distress for the
non-target group.
Contp = Insufficient Self-Control Schema; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index; Cont =
Insufficient Self-control Schema single indicator composite variable; Avd_p = Avoidance single indicator
composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single indicator composite variable.Figure 562. The
relationship between the latent variables of overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) and psychological
distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the target-only group.Figure 563. Moderation model of
Overvigilance and Inhibition x Avoidance on psychological distress for the target-only group.
256
To interpret the significant latent variable interaction of

Overvigilance and Inhibition x Avoidance on psychological distress, a plot
of simple slopes was created in Mplus using the LOOP plot option (see
Figure 26).
Figure 26. The relationship between the latent variables of overvigilance and inhibition
group.
As seen in Figure 26, higher overvigilance and inhibition scores for

buffered the relationship between overvigilance and inhibition scores and
psychological distress. On the other hand, avoidance was found to increase
rejection. All other interaction terms within disconnection and rejection
were not significant, including, surrender, retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive
schema coping.
257
Moderation Results for the Non-Target Group

The moderation results for non-targets pertaining to disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1), impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2),
other-directedness (Domain 4), and overvigilance and inhibition (Domain
5), and individual schemas within impaired limits (Domain 3) (entitlement
and insufficient self-control) are presented in detail below and in Table 15.
Table 15.
Moderation Model Results for the Non-Target Group.

Domain 1
Domain 1 1.33 .42 .79 .10 .000
Surrender -0.08 .15 -.08 .14 .553
Domain 1 0.85 .32 .53 .10 .000
Avoidance 0.39 .10 .39 .09 .000
Domain 1 1.06 .34 .67 .09 .000
Retaliation 0.19 .11 .19 .11 .105
Domain 1 1.10 .33 .70 .08 .000
Pleasing 0.09 .11 .09 .11 .426
Domain 1 1.20 .34 .73 .07 .000
Adaptive 0.21 .14 .20 .12 .113
Domain 2
Domain 2 1.42 .29 .92 .08 .000
Surrender -0.21 .14 -.21 .13 .119
Domain 2 1.05 .28 .68 .13 .000
Avoidance 0.18 .15 .18 .15 .205
Domain 2 1.21 .27 .77 .08 .000
Retaliation 0.10 .11 .09 .11 .403
Domain 2 1.25 .28 .80 .07 .000
Pleasing 0.00 .10 .00 .10 .974
Domain 2 1.28 .27 .81 .07 .000
Adaptive -0.02 .12 -.02 .12 .877
258

Domain 3
Entitlement 0.12 .15 .12 .15 .400
Surrender 0.27 .13 .27 .13 .040
Entitlement x Surrender -0.23 .19 -.23 .19 .225 .14
Entitlement 0.15 .16 .15 .16 .358
Avoidance 0.65 .11 .65 .08 .000
Entitlement 0.14 .15 .14 .15 .370
Retaliation 0.37 .13 .37 .13 .006
Entitlement x Retaliation 0.00 .18 .00 .17 .985 .16
Entitlement 0.19 .19 .19 .19 .326
Pleasing 0.31 .11 .31 .11 .006
Entitlement 0.21 .14 .21 .14 .132
Adaptive 0.19 .12 .18 .12 .139
Entitlement x Adaptive 0.17 .14 .16 .14 .226 .09
Surrender 0.06 .17 .06 .17 .729
Surrender
Avoidance 0.44 .12 .41 .11 .000
Avoidance
Retaliation 0.24 .14 .24 .14 .087
Retaliation
Pleasing 0.14 .13 .14 .13 .270
Pleasing
Adaptive 0.21 .12 .21 .12 .096
Adaptive
Domain 4
Domain 4 0.90 .32 .67 .16 .000
Surrender -0.11 .16 -.10 .15 .504
Domain 4 0.42 .23 .32 .16 .047
Avoidance 0.47 .13 .47 .12 .000
Domain 4 0.68 .23 .51 .14 .000
259
Retaliation 0.33 .12 .34 .12 .007
Domain 4 0.75 .25 .57 .15 .000
Pleasing 0.05 .15 .05 .15 .723
Domain 4 0.79 .24 .58 .13 .000
Adaptive 0.09 .13 .09 .13 .498
Domain 5
Domain 5 1.29 .40 .72 .11 .000
Surrender -0.04 .13 -.04 .13 .750
Domain 5 0.86 .27 .49 .13 .000
Avoidance 0.37 .13 .37 .13 .003
Domain 5 1.24 .42 .68 .12 .000
Retaliation 0.11 .14 .11 .11 .421
Domain 5 1.12 .33 .66 .10 .000
Pleasing 0.08 .10 .08 .10 .411
Domain 5 1.26 .40 .71 .10 .000
Adaptive 0.00 .15 .00 .15 .977

five coping models. The main effect for avoidance on psychological distress
was significant, however no other schema coping style had a significant
main effect on psychological distress. No significant interaction effects were
found between disconnection and rejection and psychological distress for
any of the schema coping styles (see Table 15).
Impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2). The main
effect of impaired autonomy and performance on psychological distress was
260
significant for all five schema coping models. However, no main effects for
the five schema coping styles on psychological distress were significant.
There were also no significant interaction effects found between impaired
autonomy and performance and psychological distress for any of the schema
Impaired limited (Domain 3). For the individual EMSs that are
often categorised under impaired limits, entitlement did not have a
significant main effect on psychological distress in any of the five schema
coping models. There was a significant main effect for surrender, avoidance,
retaliation, and pleasing on psychological distress, but adaptive schema
coping was not significant. No significant interaction effects were found
between entitlement and psychological distress for any of the schema
Insufficient self-control had a significant main effect on
psychological distress for all five schema coping models. The main effect of
avoidance on psychological distress was significant, however no other
schema coping style had a significant main effect on psychological distress.
Avoidance significantly moderated the relationship between insufficient
self-control scores and psychological distress (see Table 15). The model
261
Figure 27. Moderation model of Insufficient Self-Control x Avoidance on psychological distress

for the non-target group.
Contp = Insufficient Self-Control Schema; Av = Avoidance; GSI = General Severity Index;
Cont = Insufficient Self-control Schema single indicator composite variable; Avd_p =
Avoidance single indicator composite variable; Bsi_gsim = General Severity Index single
262
To interpret the significant latent variable interaction of Insufficient

Self-Control x Avoidance on psychological distress, a plot of simple slopes
was created in Mplus using the LOOP plot option (see Figure 28).
Figure 28. The relationship between the latent variables of insufficient self-control and
psychological distress at high and low levels of avoidance for the non-target group.
As seen in Figure 28, higher insufficient self-control scores for non-

targets were associated with higher levels of psychological distress. An
exacerbated the relationship between insufficient self-control scores and
psychological distress. On the other hand, avoidance was found to reduce
psychological distress slightly at lower levels of insufficient self-control. All
other interaction terms within insufficient self-control were not significant,
including, surrender, pleasing, retaliation, and adaptive schema coping.
Other-directedness (Domain 4). The main effect of other-
directedness on psychological distress was significant for all five schema
coping models. There was a significant main effect for avoidance and
retaliation on psychological distress, but surrender, pleasing, and adaptive
schema coping were not significant. No significant interaction effects were
263
found between other-directedness and psychological distress for any of the

schema coping styles (see Table 15).
Overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5). The main effect of
overvigilance and inhibition on psychological distress was significant for all
five schema coping models. The main effect of avoidance on psychological
distress was significant. However, there were no significant main effects for
surrender, retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive schema coping on
psychological distress. No significant interaction effects were found
between overvigilance and inhibition and psychological distress for any of
the schema coping styles (see Table 15).
Summary of the Results

The results for each of the research questions are summarised in
Table 16.
264
Table 16.
Summary of the Main Findings

Research Questions Results
RQ1. What is the prevalence of The revised target group comprised of 194 participants overall, with 127 (47%) participants indicating they had been the target
cyberbullying in a sample of of cyberbullying behaviour but did not identify as being a victim. The other 67 (25%) participants in the overarching target
Australian emerging adults? group also identified as being a victim of cyberbullying. Moreover, the revised prevalence rate for the non-target group was 77
(28%) participants. The coded open-ended responses provided some support for the findings from Study 1, whereby a target
can be seen as an overarching category to describe a person who is a target of a cyberbullying behaviour and perceives the
behaviour as intending to harm. Victims were classified as a subgroup of the overarching category of target, whereby a target
becomes a victim if, not only do they perceive that the perpetrator has an intent to harm but also experience harm. These two
groups were separated and treated as different groups for the remaining analyses.
RQ2. To what extent does EMS All schemas at the domain and subscale level, except for the entitlement schema, had significant correlations ranging from
activation (at the domain and weak to strong with psychological distress. This suggests that individuals with higher levels of schemas at the domain or
subscale level) relate to subscale level also have higher levels of psychological distress. On the other hand, the entitlement schema did not have a
psychological distress for victims, significant correlation with psychological distress for any group.
targets-only, and non-targets?
RQ3. To what extent do the schema For victims, pleasing significantly moderated the relationship between disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) scores and
coping styles moderate the psychological distress, whereby higher levels of pleasing exacerbated this relationship. No other significant interaction effects
relationship between EMS were found.
activation (at the domain level)
and psychological distress for For targets-only, surrender, avoidance, and pleasing significantly moderated the relationship between disconnection and
victims, targets-only, and non- rejection (Domain 1) and psychological distress. Moreover, avoidance significantly moderated the relationships between
targets? impaired autonomy and performance (Domain 2), self-sacrifice, and overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5) with
psychological distress. Higher levels of these schema coping styles buffered the relationship between the schema domain
scores and psychological distress.
For non-targets, avoidance significantly moderated the relationship between insufficient self-control and psychological
distress, whereby higher levels of avoidance exacerbated this relationship. No other significant interaction effects were found.
265
Discussion
The first aim of Study 3 was to determine the prevalence of

cyberbullying during emerging adulthood where prevalence rates were
presented for targets-only, victims and non-targets. Themes from coded
open-ended qualitative responses were also presented to better capture the
conceptual nuances between targets-only and victims. Over half of the
sample were identified as targets-only, whilst almost one-quarter of the
sample were identified as victims of cyberbullying. The second aim of this
study was to examine the relationships between EMSs and psychological
distress for targets-only, victims and non-targets. The results showed that all
EMSs (at the domain and subscale levels), with the exception of the
entitlement schema, were positively associated with psychological distress
across all three groups. Lastly, the third aim of this study was to evaluate
whether schema coping styles moderate the relationships between EMSs
and psychological distress. Structural equation modelling revealed that
certain schema coping styles buffered the effects of specific schema
domains on psychological distress for the targets-only group. In contrast, for
victims, the coping style of pleasing exacerbated the effects of
disconnection and rejection on psychological distress. This chapter will
discuss and interpret the results presented in the previous section in the
context of the existing literature, as well as discuss the implications,
limitations, and recommendations for future research.
RQ 1: What is the prevalence of cyberbullying in a sample of

The prevalence rates found in this study indicated that 72% of
emerging adults in this sample had been the target of cyberbullying
behaviours in the past 12 months. In particular, more than two-thirds of this
overall target group were targets-only (47% of the sample) whilst around
266
one-third were identified as victims (25% of the sample). The overall

prevalence rate found in this study is much higher than what has generally
been reported in past studies (e.g., see Kowalski et al., 2012; Kowalski,
Toth, & Morgan, 2017; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010) but is similar
to rates where a definition of cyberbullying is not provided, the term
cyberbullying is not specified prior to a scale, when multiple items are used
to capture cyberbullying as opposed to a single item (e.g., Have you been a
victim of cyberbullying?), and when the timeframe for including
cyberbullying behaviours extends over a period of weeks or months (Doane
et al., 2016; Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Ortega-Ruiz, & Casas, 2015; Gibb &
Devereux, 2016; Peluchette, Karl, Wood, & Williams, 2015). These rates
may be inclusive of individuals who otherwise may have been unaware that
certain behaviours constitute cyberbullying or hesitant to label themselves
as a “victim” (Bowling, 2005; Felix et al., 2011; Patchin & Hinduja, 2015).
The current study also employed an adapted version of the FCBCVS to
ensure that the behaviours included were in line with emerging adult’s
experiences and perceptions of cyberbullying. The inclusion of a wide range
of behavioural items in the current study that were representative of
emerging adults’ experiences may have resulted in higher prevalence rates
compared to other studies where: (1) only one or a very small number of
behavioural items were included and (2) the definition of cyberbullying and
item(s) were normed on adolescents, and thus resulted in only a fraction of
the construct being covered.
However, it should be noted that the high prevalence rates reported
in these past studies, along with those found in the current study, can be
attributed to the fact that multi-item behavioural scales are associated with
being more inclusive of behaviours that, without additional contextual
information, can easily be misinterpreted as cyberbullying. Moreover, it is
also possible that participants in past studies interpreted the behaviour
correctly, but are unable to inform the researcher, either because of no valid
267
response option (e.g., open-ended question) or because they choose not to,
that such behaviour is the result of mutual conflict or friendly banter and not
cyberbullying. For example, in a recent study, Doane et al. (2016) reported
that around 96% of emerging adults in their sample reported being victims
of cyberbullying. Doane et al. employed a multiple-item scale that included
21 cyberbullying behaviours, and no cyberbullying definition or “bully” or
“victim” labels were included. It is possible that not all of the behaviours
participants experienced were the result of cyberbullying but without the
ability to clarify their responses this information is unknown. In an attempt
to mitigate this issue, the current study included an open-ended question
after the cyberbullying measures were presented to triangulate the data and
cross-verify the allocation of participants into the target group and ensure
that their experiences were the result of cyberbullying and not other
behaviours (e.g., friendly banter). However, since not all individuals
responded to this question, their answers to the multi-item scale were not
able to be cross-checked and thus the prevalence rates for the target group
may be slightly inflated. Nonetheless, the purpose of presenting the multi-
item cyberbullying scale first, followed by a definition of cyberbullying and
single-item question about victimisation status second, was so that an
overarching target group and subgroup of victims could be captured.
However, order effects may explain as to why the overall prevalence rate
were higher than those obtained by some other past studies.
Past research has treated the overarching target group as
homogenous and used target and victim labels interchangeably, however the
current study extends on this by separating out the target group into
subgroups of victims and targets-only. The prevalence of cyberbullying
victims in the current study was similar to past studies where around 20% to
25% of college students in the United States reported being victims
(Kowalski et al., 2012; Kowalski et al., 2018; MacDonald & Roberts-
Pittman, 2010; Selkie et al., 2016). This result highlights that cyberbullying
268
is not only a phenomenon that occurs during adolescence, it also occurs

during emerging adulthood. One explanation for the prevalence of
cyberbullying among emerging adults is that cyberbullying continues from
adolescence into emerging adulthood where emerging adults are also heavy
users of mobile phones, computers and other-networked devices. They also
engage in cyberbullying for similar reasons as adolescents. For instance,
both developmental stages are characterised by identity exploration,
increasing independence, establishing and maintaining peer and romantic
relationships, making decisions about further education and employment
and considering one’s worldview, though these processes are magnified
during emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). With less external supervision
over their behaviour from parents and teachers, it is not surprising that
emerging adults continue to engage in and experience cyberbullying
(Cassidy et al., 2018; Doane et al., 2016).
It is important to note that what differentiated between victims and
targets-only in the current study was that most victims perceived behaviours
directed toward them as intended to be harmful and that caused actual harm.
In contrast, most of those participants in the targets-only group who
responded to the open-ended question about their experience perceived
behaviours directed toward them as intended to harm but did not result in
actual harm. It appeared that emerging adults who were identified as targets
have coping resources such as self-esteem and perceived support that they
can invest in the use of coping strategies that reduce or prevent harm. These
strategies included cognitive reframing, ignoring the behaviour and not
reacting to cyberbullying behaviours, but instead acting politely with no
intention of interacting with perpetrators in the future. This is consistent
with previous research where targets who have sufficient coping resources
tend to engage in problem-focused or productive coping strategies
(Raskauskas & Huynh, 2015; Völlink et al., 2013). In contrast, victims also
reported using perceived support and similar coping strategies in their open-
269
ended responses, but these did not have an effect on reducing their
psychological distress levels. Perhaps the difference lies not in the usage of
specific coping strategies but in the effectiveness of such strategies where
victims use certain strategies but these do not have the intended effect of
reducing psychological distress. This may result in the use of non-
productive coping strategies that increase psychological distress.
Furthermore, there was also a subset of the target-only group who did
experience behaviour as harmful, but were unclear of the intentions of the
perpetrator and therefore did not identify themselves as victims. With
insufficient data from this target-only subset, it is difficult to offer an
explanation without being speculative. Researchers should consider whether
the absence of repeated behaviours makes it difficult to ascertain intent to
harm, or whether there are personality or other individual differences about
this subset of people who do not label themselves as victims.
RQ 2: To what extent does EMS activation (at the domain and subscale
level) relate to psychological distress for victims, targets-only, and non-
targets?
Before answering the second research question, it is important to
note that: (1) the measurement models differed between the three groups
and (2) victims had higher levels of EMSs compared to targets-only and
non-targets. With regard to the measurement models, the one-factor
congeneric models for the 18 EMSs and five schema coping styles revealed
that there were only minor differences in the factor structures of the EMSs
and most of the coping styles including avoidance, surrender, and retaliation
across the three groups. However, there were substantial differences in
adaptive coping where it was difficult to establish an adequate measurement
model for victims, and for pleasing where the factor structure differed
between targets-only and victims. For adaptive coping, it appears that the
factor structure is limited to individuals who report lower levels of EMS
270
activation where such strategies represent different approaches to reduce

schema activation, whilst individuals who report higher levels of EMS
activation do not appear to use adaptive coping strategies in a clear and
consistent manner.
Furthermore, whereas pleasing represented status seeking for victims
(e.g., try to impress others), it was more closely related to pleasing/self-
sacrifice behaviours (e.g., being overly nice or polite towards others) for
targets. It may be that pleasing represents a maladaptive coping response for
victims where they are overcompensating for an inferior sense of self,
compared with pleasing representing more of a social norm for targets
which is not necessarily maladaptive or adaptive.
Secondly, victims reported higher levels of EMSs than both targets-
only and non-targets, particularly for schemas within the overvigilance and
inhibition domain, and the disconnection and rejection domain. The findings
relating to overvigilance and inhibition suggest that victims were more
likely to be hypercritical of themselves, worry that something negative will
happen to them or that they will be humiliated, as well as punish or blame
themselves for mistakes (Young et al., 2003). For disconnection and
rejection, victims were more likely to perceive themselves as defective, feel
rejected, alienated, and isolated from others, and perceive others as
untrustworthy and out to intentionally harm them, which is consistent with
previous research (Calvete et al., 2016; Young et al., 2003).
Consistent with schema theory (Young, 1999; Young et al., 2003),
one explanation for the higher levels of schema activation among victims is
that being exposed to cyberbullying behaviours that are stressful may
resonate with a schema and activate it, and that victims have elevated
baseline levels of schemas compared with targets-only and non-targets.
Alternatively, it may be that people who identify as victims distort their
perceptions of reality due to their elevated baseline schema levels where
neutral behaviours are perceived as intended to harm. This second
271
explanation has significant implications for the definition, identification and

prevalence of cyberbullying behaviours where non-cyberbullying
behaviours may be misattributed as cyberbullying. In other words, a person
could identify as a victim without their necessarily being a perpetrator.
In response to the second research question, all schemas at the
domain and subscale level, with the exception of the entitlement schema,
were associated with psychological distress for all groups. As mentioned
previously in Chapter 3, schema activation is associated with negative
cognitions, emotions and memories that are likely to influence how a person
perceives themselves, others and events. For instance, a person who feels
rejected may feel a deep sense of shame, feel inferior to others and can
diminish their confidence in social situations. However, the entitlement
schema did not have a significant correlation with psychological distress.
The lack of a significant correlation between entitlement and psychological
distress is consistent with previous research where it has been argued that an
individual who holds an exaggerated view of themselves and believes they
are special are unlikely to endorse items on a psychological distress scale.
According to previous research on grandiose narcissism and impression
management, individuals who hold overly positive views of themselves
often manage their impression to others by claiming desirable
characteristics and denying undesirable characteristics (Hart, Adams,
Burton, & Tortoriello, 2017). Items on a psychological distress scale are
likely to be perceived as undesirable.
In regard to psychological distress levels in the sample, victims
reported higher levels of psychological distress than targets-only and non-
targets, though it should be noted there was no significant difference
between victims and targets-only, and that overall psychological distress
was low in the sample. One possible explanation for the lack of a significant
difference between victims and targets-only was that participants were
asked to report on cyberbullying events over the past 12 months and that a
272
specific event may have occurred 11 months prior to data collection, which
means psychological distress levels may have returned to baseline levels.
Indeed, the written responses to the open-ended question indicated that
participants (especially victims) were very distressed at the time of the
cyberbullying event, but it was not clear how much time had passed since
the event or what impact this had on self-reported distress. Therefore, it is
possible that mean differences in psychological distress levels between
victims and targets-only could be identified closer to the actual event, in
which victims do indeed experience significantly higher levels of
psychological distress than targets-only. Future research should consider
whether to narrow the time interval (i.e., within the past 4 weeks) or collect
event sampling data where psychological distress levels could be captured
closer to the target behaviour. This would also provide further empirical
support for the findings in Study 1, in which participants suggested that it
means something different to be a target-only of cyberbullying (i.e., no
negative effect experienced) versus a victim (i.e., negative effect
experienced).
RQ 3: To what extent do the schema coping styles moderate the

The results from the various structural equation models revealed that
how one copes with EMS activation at the schema domain level can have
either a buffering or exacerbating effect on psychological distress, and that
this pattern of results differs depending on target or victim group status.
Victim group. For victims, each of the schema domains were
positively associated with psychological distress, except for the entitlement
schema (within Domain 3 but tested separately due to identification issues
with the higher order model) which was not found to be significant. Despite
these significant associations, only pleasing as a coping style was found to
273
moderate the relationship between the disconnection and rejection domain

and psychological distress. In particular, pleasing exacerbated the effects of
disconnection and rejection on psychological distress. This finding suggests
that victims who overcompensate by using pleasing in response to activated
schemas within the disconnection and rejection domain might try to appear
perfect or impress others in order to develop connection and acceptance so
they do not feel rejected. However, the use of pleasing may not meet their
basic psychological needs for acceptance and inclusion, and therefore have
the unintended result of the victim being further criticised or ignored by
others. In turn, this may uphold the belief that they are defective or different
and lead to higher levels of psychological distress. According to Young et
al. (2003), individuals with schemas from the disconnection and rejection
domain are often the most damaged.
The other maladaptive schema coping styles of avoidance, surrender,
and retaliation, as well as pleasing in this case, did not have a significant
moderating effect on the relationships between the other four schema
domains and psychological distress. It may be the lack of an effective
coping style could be explained by the power of schema domains in
predicting psychological distress over and above the use of avoidance,
surrender and retaliation. Indeed, the mean schema activation levels were
higher for victims than for targets-only, which may indicate the strength of
the schema may inhibit the effectiveness of the coping style.
Furthermore, it should be noted that whilst pleasing was found to
moderate the effect of the disconnection and rejection domain on
psychological distress, it was not a significant moderator for the other
schema domains. This may be because most of the other four schema
domains are generally developed after the disconnection and rejection
domain (see Young et al., 2003) and that, for these schemas, coping is likely
to have either a neutral or buffering effect on distress, but not an
exacerbating one.
274
Target-only group. For targets each of the schema domains were

positively associated with psychological distress, except for the insufficient
self-control schema (within the impaired limits domain but was tested
separately due to identification issues with the higher order model) which
was not a significant predictor of psychological distress. The coping styles
of surrender, avoidance, and pleasing were found to moderate the
relationship between the disconnection and rejection domain and
psychological distress. However, it is important to highlight that this
moderating effect was in the opposite direction compared to victims. That
is, surrender, avoidance and pleasing buffered the effects of the
disconnection and rejection domain on psychological distress. One possible
explanation for the different pattern of moderation effects for targets-only
compared to victims for the disconnection rejection domain was the lower
level of schema activation for targets only. According to Young et al.
(2003), the coping process may be a less effective when schema activation
is more intense and pervasive. Hence, the lower levels of schema activation
within the disconnection and rejection domain for targets-only may explain
why their coping responses have a buffering effect compared to victims. An
alternative explanation for the different pattern of results for pleasing for
victims compared with targets-only was that pleasing was found to have a
different factor structure. Whereas pleasing included items more about
status seeking for victims, the items were more about acting politely for
targets-only.
Similar to the disconnection and rejection domain, higher levels of
the impaired autonomy and performance domain, self-sacrifice, and the
overvigilance and inhibition domain were associated with higher levels of
psychological distress, where the coping style of avoidance had a buffering
effect on each of these relationships. The use of avoidance makes sense in
terms of protecting against not meeting the needs of others, maintaining a
sense of connection, and avoiding disapproval, which are all common needs
275
across these schema domains (and schemas). For instance, it may be that
targets-only use avoidance to prevent being criticised or receiving
disapproval from others, which reduces psychological distress in the short-
term. However, the use of avoidance strategies is not likely to be effective
for repeated coping attempts or in response to high schema activation levels,
both of which are associated with being a victim. In contrast to the use of
avoidance, the coping styles of surrender, pleasing, and retaliation were not
found to moderate the relationships between the other four schemas and
psychological distress. This is surprising given the nature of these other four
schemas, with no clear explanation for this result.
Non-target group. For non-targets, each of the domains were
positively associated with psychological distress, except for the entitlement
schema (within impaired limits domain) which was not found to be
significant. Avoidance did moderate the effect of the insufficient self-
control domain on psychological distress where high levels of avoidance
exacerbated the effect of the schema. According to Young et al. (2003), in
milder forms of this schema, individuals engage in “discomfort avoidance”
in order to avoid conflict or responsibility. However, higher levels of
avoidance could result in anger, frustration, or guilt for not expressing one’s
emotions, resulting in higher levels of psychological distress. No other
coping styles were found to moderate the effects of schemas on
psychological distress. This can be attributed to the low schema activation
levels for non-targets.
Implications
The current study has several important implications. Firstly, this
study highlighted that cyberbullying is common during emerging adulthood
and calls for more research on cyberbullying among this group, especially
since they are known to be large users of technology and emerging
adulthood is a challenging time in identity development (see Arnett, 2000).
276
This study implemented a more valid definition of cyberbullying

from the perspective of a victim, which was developed based on the Study 1
findings. It was also the first study known to the student researcher to
differentiate between targets-only and victims of cyberbullying. The coded
open-ended responses provided some support for the conceptual differences
between these two groups found in Study 1. The quantitative findings
highlighted important differences between these two groups where the
combination of specific schemas and schema coping styles had a buffering
effect on psychological distress for targets but an exacerbating effect on
psychological distress for victims. Therefore, the results illustrate that it is
important that researchers differentiate between these two groups when
investigating the role of individual differences on psychological distress.
Whereas a large proportion of previous research on cyberbullying
has been conducted in absence of theory, the current study based its
investigation on the theoretical tenets of Young et al.’s (2003) schema
theory. Currently there is only one other published study that has applied
parts of this theory when investigating cyberbullying during adolescence
(Calvete et al., 2016). The present study extends on Calvete et al.’s (2016)
work by: (1) examining all schema domains and 18 EMSs; (2) including the
schema coping styles; (3) examining the schema model in multiple
cyberbullying groups; and (4) using an emerging adult sample where EMSs
are argued to be fully developed and dysfunctional.
The results from the current study also provided empirical support
for Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, where once activated, EMS can
contribute to psychological distress and depending on the severity of EMS
schema coping styles can exacerbate psychological distress. It should be
noted that, although gender did not emerge as a key theme among emerging
adult participants in the exploratory qualitative analysis conducted in Study
1, it was therefore not explored in the current study. Future research should
not only examine the relationships between schemas, schema coping styles,
277
and psychological distress for targets (targets-only and victims) of

cyberbullying but also whether these relationships differ by gender.
Limitations and Future Research

The current study has several limitations that should be considered
when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the intention of presenting the
FCBCVS first followed by the definition of cyberbullying and a single item
question about victim status second was so that targets and victims could be
differentiated. However, this also meant that some individuals in the target
group were not targets of cyberbullying, but rather targets of other
unpleasant or benign behaviours. An alternative way of capturing
individuals who specifically identify as targets and victims of cyberbullying
has been suggested in the General Discussion (Chapter 8).
Another limitation of this study was the sample size of each of the
groups used in the SEM analyses. Of the 271 participants involved in the
current study, 127 were classified as targets-only, 67 as victims, and 77 as
non-targets. Although these sample sizes are considered adequate according
to leading authors in SEM (e.g., Bentler & Yuan, 1999; Bollen, 1990,
Iacobucci, 2010; Nevitt & Hancock, 2004), they are still regarded as small
(Kline, 2011). In order to address this limitation, efforts were employed to
reduce the complexity of each of the models tested by using single indicator
latent variables, modelling EMSs at the schema domain level instead of at a
subscale level, testing each schema domain and schema coping style in
separate models, and using an estimation technique that is robust against
small sample sizes.
The cross-sectional nature of the data makes it difficult to comment
on the direction of the effects in the structural equation models. Although
some schema coping styles were found to be significant moderators in the
relationship between schema domains and psychological distress, it is only
one plausible theoretical representation of the relationships between the
278
variables. For example, it is possible that some individuals have chronically

or permanently activated schemas and that this influences or distorts a
person’s perception and experience of certain events such as cyberbullying.
Equally, a person may be experiencing a depressive episode, which
activates EMSs. In other words, it is unknown whether schemas were
activated by the cyberbullying behaviour or whether these schemas were
already activated and distorted the person’s perceptions of reality, where
neutral or benign behaviours may be perceived as intended to harm. Future
research should test equivalent or alternate models to explore whether other
configurations or representations of the relationships between variables fit
the data just as well or if not better than the one proposed in the current
study (Kline, 2015, Tomarken & Waller, 2005; Weston & Gore, 2006).
Alternatively, a longitudinal research design could be used where the effect
of an independent variable at Time 1 on a dependent variable at Time 2
could be measured after controlling for the level of the dependent variable at
Time 1. It should also be noted that some researchers argue that one
limitation of taking on the perspective of the target is that in some cases
non-cyberbullying behaviours may be misinterpreted as cyberbullying.
While the current study was situated in a clinical and psychological
perspective and interested in understanding the phenomenology of a target,
in other contexts such as from a legal perspective, the perpetrators’
perspective or a reasonable person approach, in which a reasonable person
adopts the position of a victim, may be used when classifying intent (see
Langos, 2012 for a discussion).
The current study only examined maladaptive schemas and
psychological distress, which is potentially capturing only one aspect of the
person, especially for the target-only and non-target groups. This may have
neglected other variables such as adaptive schemas and wellbeing. For
instance, individuals who have higher levels of activated maladaptive
schemas and who also possess adaptive schemas may have different
279
outcomes to individuals with only higher levels of maladaptive schemas.

Moreover, lower levels of psychological distress does not necessarily mean
that a person has higher levels of wellbeing. Recently, a positive schemas
questionnaire has been developed to complement the YSQ, which now
makes this investigation possible (Louis, Wood, Lockwood, Ho, &
Ferguson, 2018). Nonetheless, since the current study was the first to
examine the relationships between EMSs, maladaptive and adaptive schema
coping styles, and psychological distress in a cyberbullying context, it is an
important first step in acknowledging individual differences to explain
variations in psychological distress in response to cyberbullying behaviours.
Lastly, it may also be worthwhile for future research to investigate
how EMSs specifically influence a person’s interpretation of cyberbullying
by using hypothetical vignettes. This method has been used in the past to
investigate biases in perception but have often been developed based on
children and adolescents’ cyberbullying experiences. Other studies have
employed ambiguous vignettes to assess one’s hostile attribution biases
(HAB), or maladaptive social information processing (SIP) as this is where
these biases are clearly and potentially only seen (Dodge & Crick, 1990).
Attributing intent is relatively straightforward when the cues are clear,
however in many social situations such as in cyberbullying the motivations
of the perpetrator are ambiguous and have to be inferred. The more
ambiguous the scenario, the more a person has to rely on their cognitive
schemas and biases, such as past experiences and memories to fill in this
missing information (Bergin & Bergin, 2018).
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the methods, results, and discussion for Study
3. The results regarding the first research question found that cyberbullying
is prevalent among emerging adults. In particular, 194 (72%) emerging
adults indicated that they had been a target of cyberbullying behaviours,
280
where 127 participants (47% of the sample) reported being targets-only and
67 participants (25% of the sample) identified as victims of cyberbullying.
Coded open-ended responses provided some support for the findings from
Study 1, where most of the target-only group perceived an intention to harm
but were not necessarily harmed by the incident, whilst the majority of
individuals in the victim group not only perceived an intention to harm but
also reported they were harmed by the incident. Descriptive statistics
revealed that victims reported higher levels of activated schemas (at the
domain and subscale level) compared to targets-only and non-targets,
though no mean differences were found in coping styles and psychological
distress between victims and targets-only.
The results for the second research question indicated that all EMSs,
at the domain and subscale levels, with the exception of the entitlement
schema, were shown to be positively associated with psychological distress
for all groups. Moreover, structural equation modelling was used to address
the third research question and revealed that certain schema coping styles
buffered the effect of several schema domains on psychological distress for
targets. In contrast, pleasing had an exacerbating effect on the relationship
between the disconnection and rejection domain and psychological distress
for victims. These differences can be attributed to the intensity of the
schema activation where victims reported higher levels of activated schemas
compared to targets and non-targets. Another possible explanation was that
despite the schema coping styles having the same label, they were
represented by different items. Overall, the findings provide some support
for Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory where it appears schema activation
and schema coping style affect the level of psychological distress
experienced by the different targets (victims and targets-only) of
cyberbullying.
281
The next chapter (Chapter 8) will provide a general discussion of the

thesis and theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions of the
thesis.
282
CHAPTER 8
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This thesis stems from asking the question, “why do some victims of
cyberbullying experience more severe adverse reactions than others in
response to cyberbullying behaviours?” Although past research has
examined some of the ways in which individuals cope with being
cyberbullied, this has not fully explained the variation in psychological
distress experienced by victims. It was argued that individual differences
such as EMSs may provide a better explanation as to why there are
differences in psychological distress. In this regard, Young et al.’s (2003)
schema theory was used as a theoretical framework to inform a structural
model that tested whether coping has a moderating effect on the relationship
between EMSs (at the domain level) and psychological distress.
The findings from three studies indicate that higher levels of schema
activation are associated with higher psychological distress levels for
targets-only and victims, though the coping styles of targets-only in relation
to schema activation have a different effect on psychological distress
compared with that of victims. In general, whereas the coping styles used by
targets-only buffered the effect of schema activation on psychological
distress, the coping styles employed by victims exacerbated the effect of
schema activation on psychological distress. These differences were
attributed to the level of schema activation where victims reported higher
activation levels compared to targets-only, though it should be noted the
structure of coping styles differed between targets-only and victims. This
chapter will discuss the theoretical, methodological and practical
implications of the research where recommendations for future research and
the concluding remarks are presented.
283
Theoretical Implications
The findings from this research have implications for theory where
the development of a new multifaceted definition of cyberbullying that
included the perspectives of perpetrators, targets, victims, and bystanders
was proposed. Past definitions and measures of cyberbullying have intended
to outline and capture an objective account of the phenomenon, though have
often defined cyberbullying exclusively from a perpetrator’s perspective.
The inclusion of targets, victims, and bystanders into the definition of
cyberbullying provides a more comprehensive and valid understanding of
how different people perceive and/or experience cyberbullying. This
information can be used to explain some of the similarities and differences
in people’s interpretation and responses to cyberbullying behaviour. For
instance, it seems that victims require both an intent to harm and actual
harm for a behaviour to be considered cyberbullying, whilst a target does
not require actual harm to be experienced for a behaviour to be deemed
cyberbullying. Yet, past research tends to collapse these two groups into
one. Separating out targets and victims allows for differences between these
two groups to be explored. Although beyond the scope of the current
research, the multifaceted definition also informs how we might be able to
operationalise cyberbullying and suggests that researchers triangulate data
from the different perspectives in order to produce accurate prevalence
estimates. Incorporating the other perspectives, if possible, can be used to
gain a more comprehensive understanding of the event or situation and
determine whether or not it is in fact cyberbullying.
Secondly, this was one of the very few studies to utilise schema
theory (Young et al., 2003) in a cyberbullying context. This research found
empirical support for the schema model and also extended on the model and
previous research by being the first study to include all five schema
domains, all 18 schemas, all maladaptive coping styles, and a new adaptive
coping style. Previous research has typically focused on the disconnection
284
and rejection domain at the expense of the four other domains, and at the
same time only used a subset of the schemas associated with that particular
domain. However, the current research has not only included all domains
and schemas, each of these was modelled from the perspective of victims,
targets, and non-targets, thus making a significant contribution to the
literature. Five new scales were also designed to measure schema coping
styles in order to develop more parsimonious and psychometrically sound
instruments fit for research. For instance, new avoidance and
overcompensation measures were developed where overcompensation was
separated into two scales, namely retaliation and pleasing. A new measure
of surrender was also developed and found to be reliable, valid, and
importantly distinct from the surrender items on the YSQ where they have
been sourced from in the past (see Young et al., 2003). This means that a
scale measuring surrender as a coping style can now be used in conjunction
with the YSQ. Lastly, an adaptive coping style scale was also developed to
address the absence of an existing adaptive scale in the literature. Taken
together, the current study findings have significant implications for the
existing literature in terms of the structure and measurement of EMSs and
schema coping styles.
Methodological Implications
This thesis has methodological implications for researchers wanting
to study the phenomenon of cyberbullying in understudied populations.
Given the limited research using emerging adult samples, it was important
to place these individuals at the centre of discussions and qualitatively
explore what cyberbullying means to them. By using a mixed methods
research design, focus groups revealed that emerging adults perceived
current definitions of cyberbullying to be too simplistic. Instead how
emerging adults defined cyberbullying was dependent on whether they
adopted a perpetrator, target, victim, or bystander perspective. The
285
qualitative study went a step further than previous studies as the findings
informed the development of a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying,
which incorporated the different perspectives. It also meant that a valid
definition from the victim’s perspective was used in the final quantitative
study and targets-only could be differentiated from, and compared to,
victims. Moreover, the qualitative findings also informed the adaption of the
FCBCVS, which was normed on adolescents, to reflect the cyberbullying
behaviours experienced by emerging adults. Therefore, since the qualitative
study found that there are differences in the way emerging adults define
cyberbullying and uncovered a range of cyberbullying behaviours relevant
to this group, this may also be the case with other understudied populations
(e.g., adults). Hence, it is imperative that mixed methods research designs
where the qualitative phase informs the quantitative phase (e.g., sequential
exploratory design or multi-phase design with the first study being
qualitative) are conducted to ensure that the definition and measures used
are appropriate for the population being studied.
This research provides researchers with insight into some of the
challenges when using pre-existing schema questionnaires (e.g., YSQ,
YRAI, YCI) in a research context. Due to copyright restrictions regarding
the electronic use of Young and colleagues’ scales, only paper
questionnaires can be used. This means that researchers may need a longer
recruitment phase to obtain the required sample size, especially if they are
planning on using advanced statistical techniques where large sample sizes
are needed. The five new schema coping scales developed in this thesis now
enable researchers to use these measures electronically through survey
software such as Qualtrics, whereas the YRAI and YCI cannot be used
electronically. It should also be noted that the questionnaire measuring the
five scales contains half the number of items measuring the YRAI and YCI
combined, which only measure two of the schema coping styles. Therefore,
286
researchers now have a more parsimonious way of measuring the schema

coping styles without jeopardising reliability and validity.
Administering the multi-item cyberbullying questionnaire first
followed by presenting the definition of cyberbullying from a victim’s
perspective second, targets were able to be differentiated from victims. This
is the first study within cyberbullying known to the student researcher to
separate these two groups out so between group comparisons could be
made. However, ordering the questionnaire and definition in this way meant
that a broader group of targets, such as those who had experienced benign
behaviours or friendly banter were also included in the target group, along
with those who had experienced cyberbullying. An open-ended response
asking about the person’s perception of the incident enabled some of these
participants to be reclassified as non-targets. For others, however, not all of
the behaviours endorsed were described, which meant these participants
remained in the target group. An alternative way of capturing individuals
who only identify as targets and/or victims of cyberbullying is to include the
target perspective into the multifaceted definition of cyberbullying. If the
definition containing both the target and victim perspective was presented
first, followed by a single-item question asking about target and victim
status, more valid subgroups and prevalence rates could be captured.
Given this research found that multiple schema domains were
activated and related to psychological distress, all five schema domains or
18 EMSs should be examined within cyberbullying research moving
forward. The five schema domains modelled in the current thesis were
based on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory, however it should be noted
that more recently schema therapy researchers have proposed modelling the
18 EMSs as four clusters, instead of the five schemas domains (Bach et al.,
2017). The four clusters have been referred to as conceptually similar to the
original five schema domains, though are based on factor analytic studies
and not theory. It is up to the researcher to consider the strengths and
287
weaknesses of using clusters versus domains and to decide which of these is

most suitable for the purpose of their research.
Practical Implications
This research has important practical implications for emerging
adults, practitioners, website administrators, and both educational and
employment contexts.
Emerging adults. The current research has important implications
for emerging adults. The findings highlight for emerging adults that
cyberbullying is not only an adolescent phenomenon but one that concerns
emerging adults too where cyberbullying was found to be just as prevalent
among emerging adults as it is in adolescence. With cyberbullying being
common among emerging adults it is important that these individuals reflect
on their understanding of what cyberbullying means and how their
behaviour in technology-mediated communications can impact others,
including those who the behaviour is intended for as well as those who are
witnesses to such behaviours. More specifically, emerging adults need to be
aware that others differ in how they perceive and interpret the world and
that their behaviour may be perceived as intentional harmful by one person
and not another, despite being the same behaviour. This may have
ramifications in educational, employment and social contexts.
Practitioners. The multifaceted definition provides counsellors and
psychologists with an understanding of how cyberbullying may be
perceived from the different perspectives. For practitioners, victims of
cyberbullying often report being on the receiving end of a behaviour that
was intentional and caused them significant harm. However, the same
behaviour may not result in the same level of harm for targets or interpreted
as intended to be harmful by perpetrators and bystanders. To this end, in a
psychological or clinical context, the victim’s perspective may be of interest
irrespective of whether there was an intention to harm. From this
288
perspective, what matters to the clinician is how the individual perceives the
incident in order to begin reducing psychological distress. However, the
practitioner may also work with the perpetrator to help them understand the
consequences of their actions and develop empathetic responses to deter
future cyberbullying behaviour.
For some victims of cyberbullying, universal approaches such as
education around general coping responses or cyber-specific technological
solutions may be helpful in reducing the cyberbullying situation and any
associated distress. For others, a more individual-focused approach may be
needed to complement other interventions. The findings from this research
help psychologists become more aware of specific EMSs and how certain
coping styles (e.g., pleasing) may exacerbate the effects of EMSs. As such,
other treatments like schema therapy (ST) may be a suitable intervention for
some individuals in order to weaken EMSs, build more adaptive schemas,
and change the maladaptive coping styles that perpetuate EMSs (Young et
al., 2003).
Website administrators. It is important for website or page
administrators are aware that cyberbullying is not a single construct and
individuals define it differently. For instance, emerging adults described
many instances on StalkerSpace where it is difficult to determine whether
an incident is cyberbullying or not, and from the perpetrator’s perspective it
could be intended as a harmless joke, but from the target/victim perspective
it could be perceived as intentional and harmful. Therefore, while there can
be clear instances of serious cyberbullying, in other cases it can be difficult
for an administrator or users of the website to determine if a situation is
objectively cyberbullying as it can be subjective. It has also been reported
that social media companies and website administrators are at times slow to
respond to requests or reluctant to take down offensive material that do not
align with their cyberbullying policies, which are framed from a legal
standpoint (Katz et al., 2014). As such, the findings from this research
289
provide these stakeholders with a greater understanding of how

cyberbullying can be perceived from the different perspectives, and in
particular a target or victim’s perspective. It is important that these
stakeholders are aware that from this perspective even a once-off attack can
be considered as cyberbullying and be just as harmful as multiple mild
attacks. Despite self-regulatory cyber-specific technological solutions in
place, this research calls for more active monitoring and quicker responses
by administrators to ensure they are providing an inclusive and safe space
for all.
Educational and employment contexts. The findings should also
be used to develop programs for emerging adults in educational and
employment contexts as most awareness campaigns and prevention
strategies have been aimed at helping children and adolescents make sense
of and respond to traditional bullying from a single perspective. Given this
research found that cyberbullying is multifaceted and common among
emerging adults, all stakeholders need to be educated on cyberbullying (and
not only bullying) during student orientation, workplace employee
inductions, and workplace training for management teams and staff
members. It is important that educational programs highlight the
multifaceted nature of cyberbullying and how it can be perceived from the
different perspectives (i.e., perpetrators, targets, victims, and bystanders).
Workplace cyberbullying policies and procedures also need to reflect and
accommodate for the complexity associated with defining cyberbullying and
guidelines should be reviewed regularly and developed collaboratively with
employees or students. As some individuals in the current research
described being negatively affected by their experience of cyberbullying,
employees and students need to be made aware of and directed to Employee
Assistance Programs (EAP) and student support services. Taken together,
by highlighting the different perspectives of people, it can help the various
290
stakeholders to interact more cooperatively, encourage more empathetic

development, and create healthier online or workplace environments.
Concluding Remarks
Perhaps we have been looking at cyberbullying through the lens of a
maladaptive schema. What this means is that we have attended to some
variables but not others. For instance, the focus of past research has been on
general coping styles and technological solutions that individuals use to
cope with cyberbullying and ignored other variables that may explain the
more severe adverse reactions experienced by some individuals and not
others. In this case, schema therapy would ask: (1) how can we think about
it differently? (2) what can we do that is different? and (3) what do we need
to imagine when moving forward?
Firstly, we need to challenge our thinking by examining the
evidence. The evidence from this thesis suggests that EMSs and how
individuals cope with activated schemas is one mechanism that can explain
variation in the reactions experienced by targets of cyberbullying. For
instance, overcompensating by pleasing was found to exacerbate the
relationship between disconnection and rejection and psychological distress
for victims of cyberbullying. Therefore, we may need to take a more
individual-focused approach when trying to explain variations in
psychological distress. It is also important to acknowledge here that focus
group data found that emerging adults perceive cyberbullying to be a
multifaceted construct and not a single one. Researchers need to be aware
that their participants may perceive cyberbullying differently to how it is
commonly defined, and this has implications for the interpretation of results
from research studies and the development of interventions and programs.
To this end, it is hoped that this research challenges current thinking on how
cyberbullying is defined and highlights the importance of implementing
research methodologies where laypeople’s views inform the definition.
291
Mixed methods studies may be a more appropriate design to use, especially

when samples include understudied populations.
Secondly, the focus of past research has been on examining how
people cope with cyberbullying and providing recommendations on how to
respond to such behaviour (e.g., technological tools such as blocking, report
button). However, the findings from this research highlight that we also
need to focus on individual differences such as EMSs, which are related to
cyberbullying but use a different coping process. This research also
identified that we cannot only concentrate on changing one’s behavioural
responses as the same coping behaviours can have different outcomes for
different people. For some individuals, the focus needs to be on changing
the intensity of their EMSs as this can influence the effectiveness of coping
responses on psychological distress.
Finally, we need to imagine cyberbullying from the perspectives of
others (e.g., perpetrators, targets, victims, and bystanders) to better
understand how specific behaviours impact others and how the perception
of a behaviour might be different from how it was intended. The current
research separated out the definition of cyberbullying into the perspectives
of perpetrators, targets-only, victims, and bystanders, which provides
various stakeholders with a better understanding of how individuals may
interpret cyberbullying behaviours and how it can make them feel. Where in
schema therapy there is imagery to enhance perspective taking, this
multifaceted definition can be seen as one approach to promote greater
understanding and empathy for each of the perspectives. Moreover, as
researchers we do not want to minimise the effects of cyberbullying and
certainly not blame the victim, however, we also need to imagine other
factors that may have contributed to the victim’s current distress, which
might call for more attention on individual differences like EMSs.
292
References
Ackers, M. J. (2012). Cyberbullying: Through the eyes of children and

young people. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28, 141-157.
doi:10.1080/02667363.2012.665356
Adler, A. (2002). A study of organ inferiority. In H. Stein (Ed.), Journal
Articles: 1898– 1909 (pp. 115– 192). San Francisco: Classical
Adlerian Translation Project. (Original work published 1907.)
Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students' perspectives
on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 59-60.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003
Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545–557.
doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.4.545
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on
convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for
maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika,
49, 155–173. doi:10.1007/bf02294170
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.103.3.411
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P.
(1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions
of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a
community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176
293
Arıcak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor of

cyberbullying among university students. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 34(1), 167-184. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer
/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=741a368e-4021-407c-96e5-
9f11a20d9972%40sessionmgr4009
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the
late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.5.469
Arnett, J. J. (Ed.). (2015). The oxford handbook of emerging adulthood.
New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795574.001.0001.
Bäckman, L., & Dixon, R. A. (1992). Psychological compensation: A
theoretical framework. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 259–283.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.259
Balakrishnan, V. (2018). Actions, emotional reactions and cyberbullying–
From the lens of bullies, victims, bully-victims and bystanders
among Malaysian young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 35,
1190-1200. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.002
Baldasare, A., Bauman, S., Goldman, L., & Robie, A. (2012). Chapter 8
cyberbullying? Voices of college students. In L. A. Wankel & C.
Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 127-
155). doi:10.1108/s2044-9968(2012)0000005010
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural
equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker
(Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation
modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
294
Baranoff, J., Oei, T. P. S., Cho, S. H., & Kwon, S. M. (2006). Factor
structure and internal consistency of the Young Schema
Questionnaire (Short Form) in Korean and Australian samples.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 93, 133–140.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2006.03.003
Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among
adolescent bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of
violence, and empathy. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 37–51. doi:10.1002/casp.2137
Barlett, C. P., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Attacking others online: The
formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychology of
Popular Media Culture, 1, 123–135. doi:10.1037/a0028113
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barry, C. M., Madsen, S. D., Nelson, L. J., Carroll, J. S., & Badger, S.
(2009). Friendship and romantic relationship qualities in emerging
adulthood: Differential associations with identity development and
achieved adulthood criteria. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 209–
222. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9067-x
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social
psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, S., & Newman, M. L. (2013). Testing assumptions about
cyberbullying: Perceived distress associated with acts of
conventional and cyber bullying. Psychology of Violence, 3, 27–38.
doi:10.1037/a0029867
295
Bauman, S. A., Underwood, M. K., & Card, N. A. (2012). Definitions:

Another perspective and a proposal for beginning with
cyberaggression. In S. Bauman., D. Cross., & J. Walker. Principles
of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology
(pp. 41-45). New York: Routledge.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Oxford,
England: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., & Haigh, E. A. P. (2014). Advances in cognitive theory and
therapy: The generic cognitive model. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 10, 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153734
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, B. K. (1996). Beck depression
inventory manual. (2nd ed.) San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
therapy of depression. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K. H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with
small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34,
181–197. doi:10.1207/s15327906mb340203
Besley, B. (2009). Cyberbullying. Retrieved from www.cyberbullying.ca.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for
an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32,
265–277. doi:10.2190/8yqm-b04h-pg4d-bllh
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2008). The relationship between cyberbullying and
school bullying. The Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 16.
doi:10.21913/jsw.v1i2.172
Bergin, C. C., & Bergin, D. A. (2018). Child and adolescent development in
your classroom, topical approach (3rd ed.). Boston: Massachusetts:
Cengage Learning.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment, Vol. 1. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
296
Bollen, KA. (1989). Structural equation models with latent variables. New
York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing
difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of
bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 685–697.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1
Boulton, M., Lloyd, J., Down, J., & Marx, H. (2012). Predicting
undergraduates' self-reported engagement in traditional and
cyberbullying from attitudes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 15, 141-147. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0369
Bowen, N. K., & Masa, R. D. (2015). Conducting measurement invariance
tests with ordinal data: A guide for social work researchers. Journal
of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 229–249.
doi:10.1086/681607
Bowling, A. (2005). Just one question: If one question works, why ask
several?. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, 342-
345. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.021204
Brack, K., & Caltabiano, N. (2014). Cyberbullying and self-esteem in
Australian adults. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 8, 12-22. doi:10.5817/cp2014-2-7
Bradley, C., Todd, C., Gorton, T., Symonds, E., Martin, A., & Plowright, R.
(1999). The development of an individualized questionnaire measure
of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: The ADDQoL.
Quality of Life Research, 8(1-2), 79-91.
doi:10.1023/a:1026485130100
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
297
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the
development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of
Personality, 54, 106–148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.
New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Bryce, J., & Fraser, J. (2013). “It's common sense that it's wrong”: Young
people's perceptions and experiences of cyberbullying.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 783-787.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0275
Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., Musitu, G., & Torralba, E. (2015). Cyberbullying
aggressors among Spanish secondary education students: An
exploratory study. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12,
100–115. doi:10.1108/itse-08-2014-0025
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge
Calvete, E., Estévez, A., López de Arroyabe, E., & Ruiz, P. (2005). The
Schema Questionnaire - Short Form. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 21, 90–99. doi:10.1027/1015-
5759.21.2.90
Calvete, E., Fernández-González, L., González-Cabrera, J. M., & Gámez-
Guadix, M. (2017). Continued bullying victimization in adolescents:
Maladaptive schemas as a mediational mechanism. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 47, 650–660. doi:10.1007/s10964-017-0677-5
298
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Hankin, B. L. (2014). A longitudinal test of the
vulnerability-stress model with early maladaptive schemas for
depressive and social anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 85–99.
doi:10.1007/s10862-014-9438-x
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & González-Diez, Z. (2013). An examination of the
structure and stability of early maladaptive schemas by means of the
Young Schema Questionnaire-3. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 29, 283–290. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000158
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2016). Cyberbullying
victimization and depression in adolescents: The mediating role of
body image and cognitive schemas in a one-year prospective
study. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 271-
284. doi:10.1007/s10610-015-9292-8
Cámara, M., & Calvete, E. (2012). Early maladaptive schemas as
moderators of the impact of stressful events on anxiety and
depression in university students. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 34, 58-68. doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9261-6
Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new
guise? Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 15, 68-
76. doi:10.1375/ajgc.15.1.68
Campbell, M., & Bauman, S. (2018) Cyberbullying: Definition,
consequences, prevalence. In S. Bauman, & M. Campbell (Eds.),
Reducing cyberbullying in schools (1st Edition): International
evidence-based best practices (pp. 3-16). Academic Press, United
Kingdom.
299
Campbell, M. A., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012).
Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the
psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 389-401.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704316
Campbell, M. A., Cross, D., Spears, B., & Slee, P. (2010). Cyberbullying:
Legal implications for schools. The Centre for Strategic Education,
118. Retrieved from
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/40772/1/COVERSHEETC40772.pdf
Campbell, M. A., Whiteford, C., & Hooijer, J. (2018). Teachers’ and
parents’ understanding of traditional and cyberbullying. Journal of
School Violence, 18, 388-402. doi:10.1080/15388220.2018.1507826
Carlucci, L., D’Ambrosio, I., Innamorati, M., Saggino, A., & Balsamo, M.
(2018). Co-rumination, anxiety, and maladaptive cognitive schemas:
When friendship can hurt. Psychology Research and Behavior
Management, 11, 133. doi:10.2147/prbm.s144907
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too
long: Consider the Brief Cope. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 4, 92–100. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.56.2.267
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (Eds.). (2018). Cyberbullying at
university in international context. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
300
Cecero, J. J., Beitel, M., & Prout, T. (2008). Exploring the relationships
among early maladaptive schemas, psychological mindedness and
self‐reported college adjustment. Psychology and Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, 81, 105-118.
doi:10.1348/147608307x216177
Cénat, J. M., Hébert, M., Blais, M., Lavoie, F., Guerrier, M., & Derivois, D.
(2014). Cyberbullying, psychological distress and self-esteem
among youth in Quebec schools. Journal of Affective Disorders,
169, 7–9. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.019
Cénat, J. M., Smith, K., Hébert, M., & Derivois, D. (2019).
Cybervictimization and suicidality among French undergraduate
students: A mediation model. Journal of Affective Disorders, 249,
90-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.02.026
Chandrashekhar, A. M., Muktha, G. S., & Anjana, D. K. (2016).
Cyberstalking and cyberbullying: Effects and prevention measures.
Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(3), 95-102.
Retrieved from: http://www.onlinejournal.in/IJIRV2I3/017.pdf
Cheema, J. R. (2014). A review of missing data handling methods in
education research. Review of Educational Research, 84, 487-508.
doi:10.3102/0034654314532697
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., Turner, L. (2015). Research methods,
design, and analysis (12th ed.). Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in
objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of
exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
doi:10.1177/1094428103251541
301
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory

and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Cox, B. E., McIntosh, K., Reason, R. D., & Terenzini, P. T. (2014).
Working with missing data in higher education research: A primer
and real-world example. The Review of Higher Education, 37, 377-
402. doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0026
Crockett, S. A. (2012). A five-step guide to conducting SEM analysis in
counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and
Evaluation, 3, 30-47. doi:10.1177/2150137811434142
Crosslin, K., & Crosslin, M. (2014). Cyberbullying at a Texas university-A
mixed methods approach to examining online aggression. Texas
Public Health Journal, 66(3), 26-31. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer
/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=81e22544-7138-4f06-bc6c-
7d366f2190a1%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”–
College students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in
Human Behavior, 41, 14-20. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.007
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative
inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130.
doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011) Designing and Conducting
Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
302
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E.

(2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cui, L., Lin, W., & Oei, T. P. (2011). Factor structure and psychometric
properties of the Young Schema Questionnaire (Short Form) in
Chinese undergraduate students. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 9, 645-655. doi:10.1007/s11469-010-9283-4
Cunningham, E. (2010). A practical guide to Structural Equation Modelling
using AMOS. Melbourne: Statsline.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why,
when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1-19.
doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
Daza, P., Novy, D. M., Stanley, M. A., & Averill, P. (2002). The
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21: Spanish translation and
validation with a Hispanic sample. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 24, 195-205. doi:10.1023/a:1016014818163
Dehue, F. (2013). Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative
methodologies. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1–6.
doi:10.1002/casp.2139
Del Rey, R., Elipe, P., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2012). Bullying and
cyberbullying: Overlapping and predictive value of the co-
occurrence. Psicothema, 24, 608-613. Retrieved from
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/727/72723959016.pdf
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Secord, S. M., & Lyell, K. M. (2013).
Agreement among students', teachers', and parents' perceptions of
victimization by bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 35,
2091-2100. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.018
303
Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Nichols, R., & Storch, E. A. (2009).

Differences between peer victimization in cyber and physical
settings and associated psychosocial adjustment in early
adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 962-972.
doi:10.1002/pits.20437
Denzin, N. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative
inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 21, 315-325. doi:10.1080/09518390802136995
Derogatis, L. (1983). SCL-90-R administration, scoring and procedures
manual-11 for the revised version and other instruments of the
psychopathology rating scale series. Towson, MD: Clinical
Psychometric Research.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory:
An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595.
doi:10.1017/s0033291700048017
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications.
Dillman, D.A., 2007. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method
(2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley Co.
Dilmac, B. (2009). Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A
preliminary report on college students. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 9(3), 1307-1325. Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ858926.pdf
Doane, A. N., Boothe, L. G., Pearson, M. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2016). Risky
electronic communication behaviors and cyberbullying
victimization: An application of Protection Motivation Theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 508–513.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.010
304
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases

of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8–22. doi:10.1177/0146167290161002
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-
face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of
Psychology, 217, 182-188. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
Doucette, J. D. (2013). Gender and grade differences in how high school
students experience and perceive cyberbullying. Electronic Thesis
and Dissertation Repository. 1250.
Doyle, L., Brady, A. M., & Byrne, G. (2009). An overview of mixed
methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14, 175-185.
doi:10.1177/1744987108093962
Dozois, D. J., Martin, R. A., & Faulkner, B. (2013). Early maladaptive
schemas, styles of humor and aggression. Humor - International
Journal of Humor Research 26, 97-116. doi:10.1515/humor-2013-
0006
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & De la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Cyberbullying in
social networking sites: An adolescent victim’s perspective.
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 13-20.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026
Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from: https://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Casas, J. A. (2015).
Perceived emotional intelligence as a moderator variable between
cybervictimization and its emotional impact. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 486-497. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00486
Enders, C. K. (2001). The performance of the full information maximum
likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing
data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 713-740.
doi:10.1177/0013164401615001
305
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-
989x.4.3.272
Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on
Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business
Research, 63, 324–327. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003
Feinstein, B. A., Bhatia, V., & Davila, J. (2014). Rumination mediates the
association between cyber-victimization and depressive
symptoms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1732-1746.
doi:10.1177/0886260513511534
Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Green, J. G., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D.
(2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of
bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization
Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 234-247. doi:10.1002/ab.20389
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.).
London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A
report on the nation's youth. National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children Bulletin - #6-00-020. Alexandria, VA.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university
campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483.
doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative
methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal
data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. doi:10.1037/1082-
989x.9.4.466
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A
theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 839–852. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.839
306
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged

community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219.
doi:10.2307/2136617
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A
study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college
examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
150–170. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
Foody, M., Samara, M., & Carlbring, P. (2015). A review of cyberbullying
and suggestions for online psychological therapy. Internet
Interventions, 2, 235-242. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2015.05.002
Fox, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 30–45.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.30
Francisco, S. M., Veiga Simão, A. M., Ferreira, P. C., & Martins, M. J. das
D. (2015). Cyberbullying: The hidden side of college students.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.045
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2004). Adolescents least able to cope: How do
they respond to their stresses? British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 32, 25-37. doi:10.1080/03069880310001648094
Gallagher, B. V., & Gardner, F. L. (2007). An examination of the
relationship between early maladaptive schemas, coping, and
emotional response to athletic injury. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 1, 47-67. doi:10.1123/jcsp.1.1.47
307
Garland, E. L., Gaylord, S. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Positive

reappraisal mediates the stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: An
upward spiral process. Mindfulness, 2, 59-67. doi:10.1007/s12671-
011-0043-8
Glaser, B. A., Campbell, L. F., Calhoun, G. B., Bates, J. M., & Petrocelli, J.
V. (2002). The Early maladaptive Schema Questionnaire-Short
Form: A construct validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 35, 2–13.
doi:10.1080/07481756.2002.12069043
Gibb, Z. G., & Devereux, P. G. (2016). Missing link: Exploring repetition
and intentionality of distress in cyberbullying behaviors within a
college population. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2,
313–322. doi:10.1037/tps0000083
Gillespie, A. A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The
legal response. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28, 123-
136. doi:10.1080/09649060600973772
Gregory, R. J. (2011). Psychological testing: History, principles, and
applications (6th ed.). Boston: Massachusetts. Allyn and Bacon.
Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of
cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in
Schools, 20, 143-156. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the
stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–
275. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
Guerin, S., & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 249–261.
doi:10.1007/bf03173535
308
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014).

Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition.
Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell,
J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224–235.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224
Harris, A. E., & Curtin, L. (2002). Parental perceptions, early maladaptive
schemas, and depressive symptoms in young adults. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 26, 405-416. doi:10.1023/a:1016085112981
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York, New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Hart, W., Adams, J., Burton, K. A., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2017). Narcissism
and self-presentation: Profiling grandiose and vulnerable Narcissists'
self-presentation tactic use. Personality and Individual Differences,
104, 48-57. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.062
Hawke, L. D., & Provencher, M. D. (2012). Early Maladaptive Schemas
among patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 136, 803-811. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.036
Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P. L. (2006). A meta-analytic
review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 74, 797–816. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.74.5.797
Hemphill, S. A., & Heerde, J. A. (2014). Adolescent predictors of young
adult cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among Australian
youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 580-587.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.04.014
Herring, S. (2001). Gender and power in online communication. Center for
Social Informatics Working Papers. Retrieved from:
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/1024/WP0
1-05B.html
309
Hjertass, T. (2006). Overcompensation in Adlerian Theory. In S. Slavik & J.

Carlson (Eds.), Readings in the theory of individual psychology (pp.
277–293). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online
victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School
Violence, 6, 89-112. doi:10.1300/j202v06n03_06
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide.
Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 206-221.
doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513
Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Hedley, L. M., Wang, C. E., Holthe, H., Haugum, J.
A., ... & Holte, A. (2005). The structure of maladaptive schemas: A
confirmatory factor analysis and a psychometric evaluation of
factor-derived scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 627-644.
doi:10.1007/s10608-005-9630-0
Holfeld, B. (2014). Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyber
bullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 1-7.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.012
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students' perceptions of and
responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 46, 395-413. doi:10.2190/EC.46.4.e
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424
310
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers,
A., Vandenberg, R. J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 667-683.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199711)18:6<667::AID-
JOB874>3.0.CO;2-T
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample
size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-
98. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
Jack, E. P., & Raturi, A. S. (2006). Lessons learned from methodological
triangulation in management research. Management Research
News, 29, 345-357. doi:10.1108/01409170610683833
Jenaro, C., Flores, N., & Frías, C. P. (2018). Systematic review of empirical
studies on cyberbullying in adults: What we know and what we
should investigate. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 113–122.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.12.003
Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale development: Sample
size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 70, 394-400. doi:10.1177/0013164409355692
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative
research. Education, 118(2), 282-292. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Johnson3/publication/24612
6534_Examining_the_Validity_Structure_of_Qualitative_Research/l
inks/54c2af380cf219bbe4e93a59.pdf
311
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE publications, Inc.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A
research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher,
33, 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a
definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1, 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
Jose, P. E. (2013). Doing statistical mediation and moderation. New York,
New York: Guilford Publications
Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models. In K. A.
Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp.
294-316). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—
bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78,
496-505. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x
Jovev, M., & Jackson, H. J. (2004). Early maladaptive schemas in
personality disordered individuals. Journal of Personality Disorders,
18, 467-478. doi:10.1521/pedi.18.5.467.51325
Kaeding, A., Sougleris, C., Reid, C., van Vreeswijk, M. F., Hayes, C.,
Dorrian, J., & Simpson, S. (2017). Professional burnout, early
maladaptive schemas, and physical health in clinical and counselling
psychology trainees. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73, 1782-1796.
doi:10.1002/jclp.22485
Kanetsuna, T. (2016). Comparisons between English bullying and Japanese
ijime. In P. K. Smith, K. Kwak, & Y. Toda (Eds.), School bullying in
different cultures: Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 153-169).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
312
Kanetsuna, T., Smith, P. K., & Morita, Y. (2006). Coping with bullying at
school: Children's recommended strategies and attitudes to school‐
based interventions in England and Japan. Aggressive Behavior:
Official Journal of the International Society for Research on
Aggression, 32(6), 570-580.
Karaosmanoğlu, H. A., Soygüt, G., & Kabul, A. (2013). Psychometric
properties of the Turkish Young Compensation Inventory. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 171–179. doi:10.1002/cpp.787
Katz, I., Keeley, M., Spears, B., Taddeo, C., Swirski, T., & Bates, S. (2014).
Research on youth exposure to, and management of, cyberbullying
incidents in Australia: Synthesis report (SPRC Report 16/2014).
Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia.
Katzer, C. (2009). Cyberbullying in Germany. Journal of Psychology, 217,
222–223. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.222
Kittinger, R., Correia, C. J., & Irons, J. G. (2012). Relationship between
Facebook use and problematic Internet use among college students.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0410
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of
interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and
Illness, 16, 103–121. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain
representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical
example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757-
765. doi:10.1177/0013164494054003022
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of
latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65,
457–474. doi:10.1007/bf02296338
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, New York: Guilford Publications
313
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling

(4th ed.). New York, New York: Guilford Publications.
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., & Markos, A. (2014). Cyber-bullying:
An investigation of the psychological profile of university student
participants. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35,
204–214. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.04.001
Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and
personality correlates of Facebook bullying among university
undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 840–850.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.017
König, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Steffgen, G. (2010). Cyberbullying as an act
of revenge? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20,
210–224. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.210
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyberbullying:
Bullying in the digital age. Malden: Blackwell.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Reese, H. H. (2012).
Cyber bullying among college students: Evidence from multiple
domains of college life. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher
Education, 5, 293-321. doi:10.1108/s2044-9968(2012)0000005016
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22-S30.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and
academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13-S20.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
Kowalski, R. M., Toth, A., & Morgan, M. (2018). Bullying and
cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 158, 64-81. doi:10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402
314
Kraft, E., & Wang, J. (2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and
cyberstalking experiences and factors related to victimization of
students at a public liberal arts college. International Journal of
Technoethics, 1, 74–91. doi:10.4018/jte.2010100106
Kriston, L., Schäfer, J., Jacob, G. A., Härter, M., & Hölzel, L. P. (2013).
Reliability and validity of the German version of the Young Schema
Questionnaire–Short Form 3 (YSQ-S3). European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 29, 205–212. doi:10.1027/1015-
5759/a000143
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
537–567. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for
applied research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour,
stress, and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 25, 81–96. doi:10.1037/h0078791
Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: The challenge to define.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0588
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: New York. Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Lee, E. B. (2017). Cyberbullying: Prevalence and predictors among African
American young adults. Journal of Black Studies, 48, 57-73.
doi:10.1177/0021934716678393
Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Dunn, J. (1999). Factor structure of the schema
questionnaire in a large clinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 23, 441-451. doi:10.1023/a:1018712202933
315
Lee, J., Abell, N., & Holmes, J. L. (2017). Validation of measures of

cyberbullying perpetration and victimization in emerging adulthood.
Research on Social Work Practice, 27, 456-467. doi:
10.1177/1049731515578535
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods
research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265-275.
doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
Lewis, R., & Frydenberg, E. (2002). Concomitants of failure to cope: What
we should teach adolescents about coping. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 419-431.
doi:10.1348/000709902320634483
Louis, J. P., Wood, A. M., Lockwood, G., Ho, M. H. R., & Ferguson, E.
(2018). Positive clinical psychology and Schema Therapy (ST): The
development of the Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ)
to complement the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form
(YSQ-S3). Psychological Assessment, 30, 1199–1213.
doi:10.1037/pas0000567
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in
schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777-1791.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005
Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents' experience
related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50, 223-234.
doi:10.1080/00131880802309333
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills,
California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lindsay, M., & Krysik, J. (2012). Online harassment among college
students: A replication incorporating new Internet
trends. Information, Communication and Society, 15, 703-719.
doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.674959
316
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To

parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1
Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, E. W. G. (2013). On
the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 151–
162. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jst048
Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual research review: Harms
experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The
nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in
the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55,
635-654. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12197
Lodge, J., & Feldman, S. S. (2007). Avoidant coping as a mediator between
appearance-related victimization and self-esteem in young
Australian adolescents. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 25, 633–642. doi:10.1348/026151007x185310
Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2007). Cyber-bullying in Australian schools:
Profiles of adolescent coping and insights for school practitioners.
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 24,
45–58. doi:10.1017/s0816512200029096
Lorah, J. A., & Wong, Y. J. (2018). Contemporary applications of
moderation analysis in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 65, 629–640. doi:10.1037/cou0000290
Lovibond, S. H. & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales. (2nd. Ed.) Sydney: Psychology Foundation.
Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number
of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales.
Methodology, 4, 73–79. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73
317
Luck, A., Waller, G., Meyer, C., Ussher, M., & Lacey, H. (2005). The role
of schema processes in the eating disorders. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 29, 717–732. doi:10.1007/s10608-005-9635-8
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure
modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-
989x.1.2.130
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample
size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.
doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84
MacDonald, C. D., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among
college students: Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003-2009.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436
Machackova, H., Cerna, A., Sevcikova, A., Dedkova, L., & Daneback, K.
(2013). Effectiveness of coping strategies for victims of
cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research
on Cyberspace, 7. doi:10.5817/cp2013-3-5
Machmutow, K., Perren, S., Sticca, F., & Alsaker, F. D. (2012). Peer
victimisation and depressive symptoms: Can specific coping
strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation?
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 403–420.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704310
Mairet, K., Boag, S., & Warburton, W. (2014). How important is
temperament? The relationship between coping styles, early
maladaptive schemas and social anxiety. International Journal of
Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 14(2), 171-190. Retrieved
from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aeb6/0a7d76c750f7563f35be491cf2
812fe11bee.pdf
318
Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school

personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 323-348.
doi:10.1002/pits.20301
Mason, T., Pegues, J., Taylor, C., & Gresdo, D. (2011). Bullying in the
higher education classroom: Face-to-face and online. In M. Koehler
& P. Mishra (Eds.), Society for information technology & teacher
education international conference (pp. 508-512). Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Chesapeake,
VA.
Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., & Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff
perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: Comparing
behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educational
Research, 52, 263-282. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.504062
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
McCabe, R. E., Miller, J. L., Laugesen, N., Antony, M. M., & Young, L.
(2010). The relationship between anxiety disorders in adults and
recalled childhood teasing. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 238-
243. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.11.002
McGrath, H. (2009). Young people and technology: A review of the current
literature. Alannah and Madeline Foundation. Retrieved from:
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2009/10/apo-
nid19311-1123596.pdf
McNeish, D., Stapleton, L. M., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). On the
unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological
Methods, 22, 114–140. doi:10.1037/met0000078
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and
measurement: Some critical considerations. Journal of
Psychology, 217, 230–232. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230
319
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement of

cyberbullying: Dimensional structure and relative item severity and
discrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
14, 267-274. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0002
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-
Ruiz, R., ... & Naruskov, K. (2012). Cyberbullying definition among
adolescents: A comparison across six European
countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15,
455-463. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Milliren, A., Clemmer, F. C., Wingett, W., & Testerment, T. (2006). The
movement from “felt minus” to “perceived plus”: Understanding
Adler’s concept of inferiority. In S. Slavik & J. Carlson (Eds.),
Readings in the theory of individual psychology (pp. 277–293). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with
perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents,
teachers, and principals. Victims and Offenders, 1, 255-288.
doi:10.1080/15564880600626163
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children
and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31, 1222-1228.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
320
Mohammadkhani, P., Dobson, K. S., Amiri, M., & Ghafari, F. H. (2010).

Psychometric properties of the Brief Symptom Inventory in a sample
of recovered Iranian depressed patients. International journal of
clinical and health psychology, 10(3), 541-551. Retrieved from:
Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on YouTube.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.023
Moreno, M. A., Suthamjariya, N., & Selkie, E. (2018). Stakeholder
perceptions of cyberbullying cases: application of the uniform
definition of bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 444-449.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.289
Morgado, F. F. R., Meireles, J. F. F., Neves, C. M., Amaral, A. C. S., &
Ferreira, M. E. C. (2017). Erratum to: Scale development: Ten main
limitations and recommendations to improve future research
practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 30, 1-20.
doi:10.1186/s41155-017-0059-7
Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In P. K. Smith,
Y. Morita, J, Junger-Tos, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.),
The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp.
309-323). London: Routledge.
Munck, I. M. E. (1979). Model building in comparative education.
Applications of the LISREL method to cross-national survey data,
International Association for the Evaluation Achievement
Monograph Series No.10. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th Ed.).
Los Angeles, California: Muthén & Muthén.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th Ed.).
Los Angeles, California: Muthén & Muthén.
321
Na, H., Dancy, B. L., & Park, C. (2015). College student engaging in
cyberbullying victimization: Cognitive appraisals, coping strategies,
and psychological adjustments. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 29,
155-161. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008
Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2012). Estonian
students' perception and definition of cyberbullying. Trames: A
Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 16, 323.
doi:10.3176/tr.2012.4.02
Navarro, R., Yubero, S., Larrañaga, E., & Martínez, V. (2012). Children’s
cyberbullying victimization: Associations with social anxiety and
social competence in a Spanish sample. Child Indicators Research,
5, 281–295. doi:10.1007/s12187-011-9132-4
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006).
Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 553–576.
doi:10.1348/000709905X52229
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A
review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling
procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, California:
Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2004). Evaluating small sample approaches
for model test statistics in structural equation modelling.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 439-478.
doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3903_3
Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines.
Organizational Research Methods, 17, 372-411.
doi:10.1177/1094428114548590
322
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H.,

Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: Labels,
behaviours and definition in three European countries. Journal of
Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20, 129-142.
doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129
Nordahl, H. M., Holthe, H., & Haugum, J. A. (2005). Early maladaptive
schemas in patients with or without personality disorders: Does
schema modification predict symptomatic relief?. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 142–149. doi:10.1002/cpp.430
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper
surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 33, 301–314. doi:10.1080/02602930701293231
Oblad, T. (2019). Cyberbullying among Emerging Adults: Exploring
prevalence, impact, and coping methods. International Journal of
Criminology and Sociology, 8, 45-54. doi: 10.6000/1929-
4409.2019.08.06
Oei, T. P., & Baranoff, J. (2007). Young Schema Questionnaire: Review of
psychometric and measurement issues. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 59, 78–86. doi:10.1080/00049530601148397
Olenik-Shemesh, D., Heiman, T., & Eden, S. (2012). Cyberbullying
victimisation in adolescence: Relationships with loneliness and
depressive mood. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 361–
374. doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704227
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),
Aggressive behavior (pp. 97- 130). The Plenum Series in
Social/Clinical Psychology, Boston, MA: Springer.
Olweus, D. (2001). The bullying circle. Bergen, Norwegen. Retrieved from:
http://schools.hcdsb.org/mich/Safe%20Schools/Bully%20Circle%20
Handout.pdf
323
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying

research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143.
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic
researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and
qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 8, 375–387.
doi:10.1080/13645570500402447
Orel, A., Campbell, M., Wozencroft, K., Leong, E., & Kimpton, M. (2017).
Exploring university students’ coping strategy intentions for
cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 446-462.
doi:10.1177/0886260515586363
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A.,
Guarini, A., … Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying
and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross-national study.
Aggressive Behavior, 38, 342–356. doi:10.1002/ab.21440
Orue, I., Calvete, E., & Padilla, P. (2014). Brooding rumination as a
mediator in the relation between early maladaptive schemas and
symptoms of depression and social anxiety in adolescents. Journal
of Adolescence, 37, 1281–1291.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.004
Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2015). Psychometric
properties of the Florence CyberBullying-CyberVictimization
Scales. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18,
112–119. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0366
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS: Survival manual (4th ed.). Australia: Allen and
Unwin
324
Pandey, S. C., & Patnaik, S. (2014). Establishing reliability and validity in

qualitative inquiry: A critical examination. Jharkhand Journal of
Development and Management Studies, 12(1), 5743-5753. Retrieved
from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Satyendra_Pandey2/publication
/266676584_ESTABLISHING_RELIABILITY_AND_VALIDITY_
IN_QUALITATIVE_INQUIRY_A_CRITICAL_EXAMINATION/l
inks/543779b40cf2dc341db4d7fb/ESTABLISHING-
RELIABILITY-AND-VALIDITY-IN-QUALITATIVE-INQUIRY-
A-CRITICAL-EXAMINATION.pdf
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High school students’
perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44, 284-
306. doi:10.1177/0044118x11398881
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148–169.
doi:10.1177/1541204006286288
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem.
Journal of School Health, 80, 614-621. doi:10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2010.00548.x
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Implications
for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69-74.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
Peluchette, J. V., Karl, K., Wood, C., & Williams, J. (2015). Cyberbullying
victimization: Do victims’ personality and risky social network
behaviors contribute to the problem? Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 424–435. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.028
325
Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017).
Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical
multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school
psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65–82.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002
Pereda, N., Forns, M., & Peró, M. (2007). Dimensional structure of the
Brief Symptom Inventory with Spanish college
students. Psicothema, 19(4), 634-639. Retrieved from:
Pepler, D. J., & Slaby, R. G. (1994). Theoretical and developmental
perspectives on youth and violence. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, & P.
Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on
violence & youth (pp. 27-58). doi:10.1037/10164-001
Perren, S., & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2012). Cyberbullying and
traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral
disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 195-209.
doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.643168
Peterson, M., & Maier, S. F, & Seligman, M. E. P., (1993). Learned
helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research:
A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement.
Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556.
doi:10.3102/00346543074004525
Phizacklea, T., & Sargisson, R. J. (2018). The cyberbullying experiences
survey with New Zealand psychology students. International
Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis, 4, 1-6. doi:
10.15344/2455-3867/2018/146
326
Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.
Pieschl, S., Porsch, T., Kahl, T., & Klockenbusch, R. (2013). Relevant
dimensions of cyberbullying — Results from two experimental
studies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 241–
252. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.002
Piersma, H. L., Boes, J. L., & Reaume, W. M. (1994). Unidimensionality of
the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in adult and adolescent
inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 338–344.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_12
Pinto-Gouveia, J., Castilho, P., Galhardo, A., & Cunha, M. (2006). Early
maladaptive schemas and social phobia. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 30, 571-584. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9027-8
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary
school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution
bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 81–94.
doi:10.1002/ab.20336
Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal
for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504. doi:10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499
Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystanding
behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and
perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,
815-27. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9
327
Price, M., & Dalgleish, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and

coping strategies as described by Australian young people. Youth
Studies Australia, 29(2), 51-59. Retrieved from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.2077
&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Rafferty, R., & Vander Ven, T. (2014). “I hate everything about you”: A
qualitative examination of cyberbullying and on-line aggression in a
college sample. Deviant Behavior, 35, 364-377.
doi:10.1080/01639625.2013.849171
Raskauskas, J., & Huynh, A. (2015). The process of coping with
cyberbullying: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 118–125. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and
electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology,
43, 564–575. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564
Rezaei, M., & Ghazanfari, F. (2016). The role of childhood trauma, early
maladaptive schemas, emotional schemas and experimental
avoidance on depression: A structural equation modeling. Psychiatry
Research, 246, 407-414. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2016.10.037
Riebel, J., Jäger, R. S., & Fischer, U. C. (2009). Cyberbullying in Germany-
an exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and
coping strategies. Psychological Test and Assessment
Modeling, 51(3), 247-257. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologie-
aktuell.com/fileadmin/download/PschologyScience/3-
2009/05_riebel.pdf
Rijkeboer, M. M., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Multiple group
confirmatory factor analysis of the Young Schema-Questionnaire in
a Dutch clinical versus non-clinical population. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 30, 263–278. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9051-8
328
Riso, L. P., Froman, S. E., Raouf, M., Gable, P., Maddux, R. E., Turini-
Santorelli, N., ... & Cherry, M. (2006). The long-term stability of
early maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30,
515-529. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9015-z
Riso, L. P., & McBride, C. (2007). Introduction: A return to a focus on
cognitive schemas. In L. P. Riso, P. L. du Toit, D. J. Stein, & J. E.
Young (Eds.), Cognitive schemas and core beliefs in psychological
problems: A scientist-practitioner guide (pp. 3-9). Washington, DC,
US: American Psychological Association.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with
stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.41.7.813
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and
changing the self: A two-process model of perceived
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5–37.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5
Sakulsriprasert, C., Phukao, D., Kanjanawong, S., & Meemon, N. (2016).
The reliability and factor structure of Thai Young Schema
Questionnaire-Short Form 3. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 85-90.
doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2016.09.011
Saggino, A., Balsamo, M., Carlucci, L., Cavalletti, V., Sergi, M. R., da
Fermo, G., ... & Tommasi, M. (2018). Psychometric properties of
the Italian version of the Young Schema Questionnaire l-3:
Preliminary results. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 312.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00312
Sari, S. V. (2016). Was it just joke? Cyberbullying perpetrations and their
styles of humor. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 555–559.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.053
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2014). Design, evaluation, and analysis of
questionnaires for survey research. John Wiley & Sons.
329
Saritaş, D., & Gençö, T. (2011). Psychometric properties of Young Schema

Questionnaire-Short Form 3 in a Turkish adolescent sample. Journal
of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 11(1), 83-96. Retrieved
from:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/868867926/fulltext/2D22EE14
670F4C3DPQ/1?accountid=12001
Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional
scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation
modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 566-586.
doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1304_4
Sawyer, J. L., Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2011). The missing
voice: Parents' perspectives of bullying. Children and Youth Services
Review, 33, 1795-1803. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.010
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state
of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147. doi:10.1037/1082-
989x.7.2.147
Schenk, A. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Prevalence, psychological
impact, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students.
Journal of School Violence, 11, 21-37.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.630310
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The
schema questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric properties and
the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive
schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 295–321.
doi:10.1007/bf02230402
Schneider, S. K., O'donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012).
Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A
regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public
Health, 102, 171-177. doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300308
330
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence response

bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101–1114.
doi:10.1177/001316448104100420
Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., & Moreno, M. (2016). Cyberbullying behaviors
among female college students: Witnessing, perpetration, and
victimization. College Student Journal, 50, 278-287.
Sensis. (2016). Sensis social media report 2016: How Australian people and
businesses are using social media. Retrieved from https://irp-
cdn.multiscreensite.com/535ef142/files/uploaded/Sensis_Social_Me
dia_Report_2016.pdf
Sereda, Y., & Dembitskyi, S. (2016). Validity assessment of the symptom
checklist SCL-90-R and shortened versions for the general
population in Ukraine. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 1-11.
doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1014-3
Sheffield, A., & Waller, G. (2012). Clinical use of schema inventories. In
M. van Vreeswijk, J. Broersen, & M. Nadort (Eds.), The Wiley‐
Blackwell handbook of Schema Therapy: Theory, research and
practice (pp. 111–124). Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell.
Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., & Meyer, C. (2009). Do
schema processes mediate links between parenting and eating
pathology? European Eating Disorders Review, 17, 290–300.
doi:10.1002/erv.922
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative
research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201
Sittichai, R., & Smith, P. K. (2015). Bullying in south-east Asian countries:
A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 22-35.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.002
331
Šléglová, V., & Cerna, A. (2011). Cyberbullying in adolescent victims:

Perception and coping. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 5(2), 1-16. Retrieved
from https://journals.muni.cz/cyberpsychology/article/view/4248
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of
bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying,
and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,
26–32. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024
Smith P. K. (2019) Research on Cyberbullying: Strengths and Limitations.
In: Vandebosch, H., & Green, L. (Eds.). Narratives in Research and
Interventions on Cyberbullying among Young People. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer Publishing.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. (2002).
Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and
gender differences, in a Fourteen–Country international comparison.
Child Development, 73(4), 1119-1133. Retrieved from:
https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-
8624.00461?casa_token=Ylr1nLd1jegAAAAA:YqweHPjRgRI8byi
XEaxKg5q2hcabotHIpEK7XamRcU0_sUR9IYpOSvO90yXyUqq5p
MPUbwmsKJ_qoWbv
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett,
N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school
pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
Smith, G. S., Minor, M. A., & Brashen, H. M. (2014). Cyber bullying in
higher education: Implications and solutions. Journal of Educational
Research and Practice, 4, 50–60. doi:10.5590/JERAP.2014.04.1.05
332
Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes
and screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and
cyberbullying. Journal of Psychology, 217, 189-196.
doi:10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction.
Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Spranger, S. C., Waller, G., & Bryant-Waugh, R. (2001). Schema avoidance
in bulimic and non-eating-disordered women. International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 29, 302–306. doi:10.1002/eat.1022
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school
bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive
Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research
on Aggression, 29(3), 239-268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047
Soygüt, G., Karaosmanoğlu, A., & Çakir, Z. (2009). Assessment of early
maladaptive schemas: A psychometric study of the Turkish Young
Schema Questionnaire-Short Form-3. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry,
20(1), 75-84. Retrieved from:
http://www.turkpsikiyatri.com/C20S1/en/75-84.pdf
Staude-Müller, F., Hansen, B., & Voss, M. (2012). How stressful is online
victimization? Effects of victim's personality and properties of the
incident. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 260-
274. doi:10.1080/17405629.2011.643170
Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health,
40, 339–359. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044150
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd
ed.), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional
bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and
anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth
Adolescence, 42, 739-750. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
333
Stone, A. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., Newman, M. G., Greenberg, M. A., &

Neale, J. M. (1992). Conceptual and methodological issues in
current coping assessments. In Carpenter, B. N. (Ed.), Personal
coping: Theory, research and application (pp. 15-29). Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008).
Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by
emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29,
420–433. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.003
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 7, 321–326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Tattum, D. (1997). A whole-school response: From crisis management to
prevention. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 221-232.
doi:10.1080/03033910.1997.10558141
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the
use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, California:
Tennant, J. E., Demaray, M. K., Coyle, S., & Malecki, C. K. (2015). The
dangers of the web: Cybervictimization, depression, and social
support in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,
348–357. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.014
Thimm, J. C. (2017). Relationships between early maladaptive schemas,
mindfulness, self-compassion, and psychological
distress. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological
Therapy, 17(1), 3-17. Retrieved from: https://self-
compassion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Thimm2017.pdf
334
Thompson, B. (1997). The importance of structure coefficients in structural

equation modeling confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 57, 5–19.
doi:10.1177/0013164497057001001
Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., & Reynolds, R. V. C. (1984). Coping
strategies inventory. PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t04767-000
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review
and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers
in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling:
Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 1, 31–65.
doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144239
Topçu, Ç., Erdur-Baker, Ö., & Çapa-Aydin, Y. (2008). Examination of
cyberbullying experiences among Turkish students from different
school types. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 643–648.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0161
Topcu-Uzer, Ç., & Tanrıkulu, İ. (2017). Technological solutions for

cyberbullying. In M. Campbell & S. Bauman (Eds.), Reducing
cyberbullying in schools, International evidence-based best
practices (pp. 33- 47). United Kingdom, Elsevier, Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811423-0.00003-1
Tran, C. V., Nguyen, N. H. P., Weiss, B., Nguyen, L. V., & Nguyen, D. B.
(2018). Definition and characteristics of “cyberbullying” among
Vietnamese students. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research,
34, 1-10. doi:10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4212
Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics
and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 35–50.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03
335
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A

qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 499-503.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among
youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society,
11, 1349-1371. doi:10.1177/1461444809341263
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
recommendations for organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
Van Teijlingen, E. R., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot
studies. Nursing Standard, 16, 33–36.
doi:10.7748/ns2002.06.16.40.33.c3214
Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A. W., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. L. (2013).
Coping with cyberbullying: Differences between victims, bully-
victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, 23, 7-24. doi:10.1002/casp.2142
Wachs, S., & Wolf, K. D. (2011). Correlates of cyberbullying and bullying--
first results of a self-report study. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und
Kinderpsychiatrie, 60, 735-744. doi:10.13109/prkk.2011.60.9.735
Walburg, V., Paez, J., Henini, N., & Leroux, D. (2008). Comparison of
early maladaptive schemas among students between the beginning
and end of university studies. Journal de Therapie Comportementale
et Cognitive, 18, 53-56. doi:10.1016/j.jtcc.2008.04.002
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications
using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.
336
Wang, X., Yang, L., Yang, J., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Trait anger and
cyberbullying among young adults: A moderated mediation model
of moral disengagement and moral identity. Computers in Human
Behavior, 73, 519-526. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.073
Waller, G., Meyer, C., & Ohanian, V. (2001). Psychometric properties of
the long and short versions of the Young Schema Questionnaire:
Core beliefs among bulimic and comparison women. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 25, 137-147. doi:10.1023/A:1026487018110
Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., Eggermont, S., Van Rossem, R., & Walrave,
M. (2016). Divergent perspectives: Exploring a multiple informant
approach to cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. European
Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 235-251.
doi:10.1007/s10610-015-9287-5
Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002).
The Schema Questionnaire—Short Form: Factor analysis and
relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 26, 519-530. doi:10.1023/a:1016231902020
Weng, L. J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor
labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64, 956–972.
doi:10.1177/0013164404268674
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models
with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation
modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751.
doi:10.1177/0011000006286345
337
Whittaker, E., & Kowalski, R. M. (2015). Cyberbullying via social

media. Journal of School Violence, 14, 11-29.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.949377
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in
qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.
doi:10.1177/104973201129119299
Willard, N. (2005). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Washington: US
Department of Education. Retrieved from:
http://bcloud.marinschools.org/SafeSchools/Documents/BP-
CyberBandT.pdf
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the
challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress.
Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of
internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14-S21.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in health research. Journal of Health
Psychology, 3, 329–348. doi:10.1177/135910539800300304
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Unwanted and wanted
exposure to online pornography in a national sample of youth
Internet users. Pediatrics, 119, 247-257. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-
1891
Wood, D., Crapnell, T., Lau, L., Bennett, A., Lotstein, D., Ferris, M., &
Kuo, A. (2018). Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the life
course. In N. Halfon, C. Forrest, R. Lerner, & E. Faustman (Eds.),
Handbook of life course health development (pp. 123-143). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
338
Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber victimization and adjustment difficulties: The

mediation of Chinese and American adolescents’ digital technology
usage. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 9, 76-90. doi:10.5817/cp2015-1-7
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization
and subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer
rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 662-674.
doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3
Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and
moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87, 367–392.
doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the
overlap in Internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for
school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets,
aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth
characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
1308–1316. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00328.x
Young, J. E. (1998a). The Young Compensatory Inventory [Measurement
instrument]. New York: Schema Therapy Institute. Retrieved from:
https://www.schematherapy.org
Young, J. E. (1990). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-
focused approach. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Young, J. E. (1998b). The Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form
[Measurement instrument]. New York, NY: Schema Therapy
Institute.
Young, J. E. (1999). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-
focused approach (3rd ed.). Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.
339
Young, J. E. (2003). Young Schema Questionnaire - Long Form 3

[Measurement instrument]. New York: Schema Therapy Institute.
Retrieved from: https://www.schematherapy.org
Young, J. E. (2005). Young Schema Questionnaire - Short Form 3
Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1994). Young schema questionnaire (Second
edition). In J. E. (Ed.), Young, Cognitive therapy for personality
disorders: A schema-focused approach (pp. 63-76). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A
practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford.
Young, J. E., & Rygh, J. (1994). Young-Rygh Avoidance Inventory
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent
variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Vol. 30). Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
Zeng, K., & LeTendre, G. (1999). The dark side of …: Suicide, violence
and drug use in Japanese schools. In G. LeTendre (Ed.), Competitor
or ally: Japan’s role in American educational debates (pp. 103-
121). New York: Falmer Press.
340
Appendix A: Study 1 SUHREC Ethical Approval
Dear Stephen and Alexandra,

SUHREC 2014/023 A qualitative study of cyberbullying among young adults
A/Prof Stephen Theiler, Ms A Alipan et al
Approved duration from 01-03-2014 To 01-03-2015
I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol undertaken by a SUHREC Subcommittee
(SHESC3). Your responses to the review, as e-mailed on 21 February 2014, were put to a delegate for
consideration.
I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard on-going
ethics clearance conditions here outlined.
- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and
external regulatory standards, including the current National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.
- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to
or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and
consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely
notification and SUHREC endorsement.
- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC.
Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/ clearance.
SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected
adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c)
unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.
- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion
(or abandonment) of the project.
- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any time.
Please contact the Research Office (resethics@swin.edu.au<mailto:resethics@swin.edu.au>) if you have

any queries about on-going ethics clearance. The SUHREC project number should be quoted in
communication. Chief Investigators/Supervisors and Student Researchers should retain a copy of this
email as part of project record-keeping.
Best wishes for project.
Yours sincerely,
Ann
_____________________________________
Dr Ann Gaeth
Executive Officer (Research)
Swinburne Research (H68)
Swinburne University of Technology
P O Box 218
HAWTHORN VIC 3122
Ph +61 3 9214 8356
341
Appendix B: Study 1 Research Flyer
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS REQUIRED:
A Qualitative Study of Cyberbullying

Among Young Adults.
There is limited research on cyberbullying among young adults, despite the

fact that young adults are large users of mobile phones and networked
computers/mobile devices. Previous research has shown that one in five
young adults report being cyberbullied, with victims experiencing
mild to severe negative psychological outcomes. Given the limited
research with young adults, it is important to understand and discuss with this
population what cyberbullying means to them, what are some examples of
cyberbullying, what are the effects of cyberbullying and how do people deal
with cyberbullying.
We are asking for university students and young adults from the
wider community aged between 18 and 25 years to participate in
focus groups that will discuss general observations and opinions of
cyberbullying. Each focus group will take approximately 60 minutes to
complete and participants are only required to attend one focus group. These
focus groups will be conducted at Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn campus. If you are interested in participating in this research project,
please express your interest via the email provided below.
Thank you for your time.
Alexandra Alipan
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Student
aalipan@swin.edu.au
342
Appendix C: Study 1 Consent Information Statement (CIS)
Consent Information Statement

Project Title: A Qualitative Study of Cyberbullying Among Young Adults.
Investigators
Main Student Investigator: Alexandra Alipan (Swinburne University of Technology)
Supervising Investigator: Associate Professor Stephen Theiler (Swinburne University of
Technology)
Supervising Investigator: Dr Jason Skues (Swinburne University of Technology)
Introduction to Project and Invitation to Participate

There is limited research on cyberbullying among young adults, despite the fact that young
adults are large users of mobile phones and networked computers/mobile devices. Previous
research has shown that one in five young adults report being cyberbullied, with victims
experiencing mild to severe negative psychological outcomes. Given the limited research with
young adults, it is important to understand and discuss with this population what cyberbullying
means to them, what are some examples of cyberbullying, what are the effects of
cyberbullying and how do people deal with cyberbullying.
We are inviting university students and young adults from the wider community aged between
18 and 25 years to participate in a semi-structured focus group. If you are interested in
participating in this research project, please contact the main student investigator via the
email provided at the end. The main student investigator will liaise with participants to
organise a time to attend a focus group. Participants will be notified of the day, time, and
location of the focus group via email. A reminder email will be sent to participants one week
before the session, containing details of the focus group.
What this project is about and why it is being undertaken

This project is about gathering a wide range of observations and opinions from a group of
young adults in order to help the researchers gain a better understanding about cyberbullying
and what it means to an older age group. The aim is to find out the following information:
1. How do young adults define cyberbullying?
2. What are some examples of cyberbullying according to young adults?
3. What are the negative effects of cyberbullying according to young adults?
4. What are the general ways in which young adults cope with stress?
5. What are the specific ways in which young adults cope with cyberbullying?
By undertaking this study, focus groups will give young adults the opportunity to explain their
answers in detail. This method can also help the researchers consider new and previously
unconsidered aspects of the cyberbullying phenomenon. Once all the focus groups are
completed they will be reviewed for common themes.
What participation will involve

To participate in this study, we will ask you to attend one focus group, which is not expected
to exceed 60 minutes. The focus group will be conducted in a meeting room at Swinburne
University of Technology, Hawthorn campus and facilitated by a registered clinical and
counselling psychologist. During the focus group there will be a series of questions about
general observations and views of cyberbullying. Participants in each focus group session will
also be asked by researchers to keep the discussion confidential. The session will be audio
recorded using a digital voice recorder; this is to ensure the accuracy of the information
transcribed by the researcher. First year psychology students who participate in this study will
receive 60 minutes of credit for participating in the Research Experience Program (REP). No
other compensation will be provided.
343
Project and researcher interests

This project will form the requirements of a thesis in support of a Doctor of Philosophy (Arts, Humanities
and Social Sciences) undertaken by Alexandra Alipan at Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn.
Participant rights and interests – Risks & Benefits

Whilst the focus group is designed to find out information about your views and observations of
cyberbullying it is possible that discussing this topic may be distressing. It is important for participants to
remember that (a) your participation in a focus group is voluntary; (b) all reported data will be de-
identified; (c) you are free to withdraw from the study at any time and without explanation; and (d) you are
free to abstain from any questions you do not wish to answer. If you feel distressed during or after the
focus group you can speak to the registered clinical and counselling psychologist facilitating the session
or:
Swinburne students can contact:

• On-campus counsellors at the Student Development and Counselling service – Address:
Level 4, The George, Wakefield St, Hawthorn. Ph: 9214 8025 or
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/stuserv/counselling/contact-appointments.html
• Swinburne Online Counselling - http://www.swinburne.edu.au/stuserv/counselling/SOC.html
Non-Swinburne students can contact:
• Lifeline - ph: 13 11 14 or http://www.lifeline.org.au/Get-Help/
• Headspace - http://www.headspace.org.au/headspace-centres
Cyberbullying can be classified under Stalking laws in the Victorian Crimes Act and is a criminal offence,
which means that instances of cyberbullying should be reported to authorities. In order to avoid placing
participants at risk of legal sanctions, researchers will not ask about personal experiences of
cyberbullying, and participants are to refrain from mentioning personal experiences. The focus of this
study is on general observations and opinions of cyberbullying.
Potential benefits to participants include providing young adults with some insight into their own use of
information and communication technologies, what cyberbullying is and the behaviours considered to be
cyberbullying, how it may affect individuals, as well as some positive and negative coping strategies to
deal with perpetrators.
Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation

Prior to the commencement of each focus group, participants will be asked to read and sign a consent
form before participating in the focus group. It is important to emphasise that (a) your participation in a
focus group is voluntary; (b) all reported data will be de-identified; (c) you are free to withdraw from the
study at any time and without explanation; and (d) you are free to abstain from any questions you do not
wish to answer.
Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality

The researchers of the project will have access to the data collected for the purpose of conducting this
study. The signed consent forms, audio-recordings, and hand-written notes taken during each focus
group will all be stored separately and in locked cabinets. Each will also be saved electronically on a
password-protected computer and drive. This process will ensure data cannot be matched. Following
completion of the study the data will be retained for a minimum of five years following publication and will
be stored separately in locked cabinets and on a password-protected computer.
Research output
This research will form the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy (Arts, Humanities and Social
Sciences) program. It is expected that this research will result in a presentation at a national or
international conference. It is also anticipated that at least one article describing the findings will be
published in an academic journal. Participants’ responses may be used in the write up of the thesis and in
publications, however participants will be de-identified.
344
Further information about the project

If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact:
• Alexandra Alipan, Main Student Investigator, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design,
Swinburne University of Technology, on (03) 9241 8900 or at aalipan@swin.edu.au
• Dr. Jason Skues, Supervising Investigator, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne
University of Technology, on (03) 9241 4497 or at jskues@swin.edu.au
• Associate Professor Stephen Theiler, Supervising Investigator, Faculty of Health, Arts and
Design, Swinburne University of Technology, on (03) 9241 5002 or at
stheiler@swin.edu.au
This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics
Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can
contact:
Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68),
Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122.
Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or resethics@swin.edu.au
345
Appendix D: Study 1 Interview Guide and Focus Group Questions
Interview Guide and Focus Group Questions

• Main Student Investigator to collect signed consent forms from participants.
• Researchers to introduce themselves
This research is being undertaken due to the number of flaws in the current cyberbullying literature. One of which is
limited research with young adults. This study will address the gaps in the literature by today discussing what
cyberbullying means to you all as young adults. Your responses will help us as researchers gain a deeper
understanding about cyberbullying and what it means, as well as how people should cope when being cyberbullied.
Hopefully today will be beneficial for you too. From the discussions today, we hope we provide you with some
insight into your own use of information and communication technologies, what cyberbullying is and behaviours
considered to be cyberbullying, how it may affect an individual, as well as some positive and negative coping
strategies to deal with bullies.
The interview will take around 60 minutes. Alexandra will be taking some hand-written notes and audio recording
the session. This because we don’t want to miss any of your comments and we want to be as accurate as possible.
All responses will be kept confidential. This means that your responses will only be shared with researchers of this
study and we will ensure that any information we include in our report does not identify you as the respondent.
It is important for you to remember that (a) your participation in a focus group is voluntary; (b) all reported data will
be de-identified; (c) you are free to withdraw from the study at any time and without explanation; and (d) you are
free to abstain from any questions you do not wish to answer. If you feel distressed during or after the session you
can speak to the facilitator who is a clinical and counselling psychologist or refer to the Consent Information
Statement, which provides services for both Swinburne students and non-Swinburne students. We will not ask about
personal experiences of cyberbullying, and ask that you refrain from mentioning personal experiences.
Are there any questions?
1. How do you define cyberbullying?

2. What is the difference between cyberbullying and teasing amongst friends online?
3. What information and communication technologies are individuals mostly using to cyberbully others?
4. What are some examples of cyberbullying?
5. What is the profile of a victim/ a bully/ a bystander?
6. What are the effects, if any, of cyberbullying?
7. What are some of the ways in which you might (or others you have witnessed) cope with cyberbullying?
8. If you were cyberbullied, what should you do?
9. Sometimes people just suffer in silence, why do you think that might be?
10. Describe some of the reasons why cyberbullying may be easier or harder to cope with when older?
• Ten minutes before end of session tell participants the session is coming to a close
• Is there anything anyone would like to add?
• Let participants know that if they are feeling distressed they are welcome to speak to Steve or alternatively refer
to the consent information statement for mental health resources they can contact.
• Thank participants for their time
• Hand out debriefing form to REP students
346
Appendix E: Study 2 SUHREC Ethical Approval
To: A/Prof Stephen Theiler, FHAD
Dear Prof Theiler,
SHR Project 2014/268 The Development and Validation of an Adapted Measure of Schema Coping
A/Prof. Stephen Theiler, Ms Alexandra Alipan, Dr Jason Skues - FHAD
Approved duration: 09-04-2015 to 08-04-2016 [adjusted]
I refer to the ethical review of the above project protocol by a Subcommittee (SHESC1) of Swinburne’s
Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC). Your responses to the review, as per the emails sent on
09 December 2014 and 01 April 2015, were put to the Subcommittee delegate for consideration.
I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, the project may proceed in line with standard on-
going ethics clearance conditions here outlined.
- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external
regulatory standards, including the current National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with
respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.
- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or
associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent
procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and
SUHREC endorsement.
- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments
to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/clearance. SUHREC must be
notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on
participants any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might
affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.
- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or
abandonment) of the project. Information on project monitoring, self-audits and progress reports can be found
at: http://www.research.swinburne.edu.au/ethics/human/monitoringReportingChanges/
Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance. The
SHR project number should be quoted in communication. Researchers should retain a copy of this email
as part of project recordkeeping.
Best wishes for the project.
Yours sincerely,
Astrid Nordmann
SHESC1 Secretary
----------------------------------------------
Dr Astrid Nordmann
347
Appendix F: Study 2 Information Flyer
The Development and Validation of a Measure of Schema

Coping.
This study is being conducted to develop and test a new measure of how
people cope in response to a stressful situation.
The researchers invite all individuals aged 18 years and over to participate in this
study.
Participation in the study will involve completing a questionnaire about:

• A stressful situation involving someone else or a group of people you have
experienced within the last three months.
• How you coped with the stressful situation.
• How you view yourself and your world.
• How you have been feeling lately (i.e., stress, anxiety, depression).
• Demographic questions (e.g., age, sex etc.)
Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 60 minutes. Participation is

voluntary and all participants’ responses to the questionnaire will be anonymous.
Please contact the investigator via email if you are interested in participating in
this study and to obtain a questionnaire.
A potential benefit of participating in this study includes providing you with insight
into some of the strategies you use to cope with stress.
Alexandra Alipan
PhD Candidate
aalipan@swin.edu.au
If you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of this project or
the manner in which it is conducted, please contact one of the researchers
or the Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne
University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, HAWTHORN, VIC 3122. Tel. (03)
9214 5218.
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Schema Coping.
Validation of a Measure of
Development and
Research Project: The
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Schema Coping.
Development and
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Schema Coping.
Development and
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Coping.
Measure of Schema
Validation of an Adapted
Development and
___________
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Schema Coping.
Development and
aalipan@swin.edu.au
Email:
Schema Coping.
Development and
348
Appendix G: Study 2 Consent Information Statement (CIS)

Project Title: The Development and Validation of a Measure of Schema Coping.
Investigators
1. Main Student Investigator: Alexandra Alipan, PhD Candidate (Swinburne University
of Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)
2. Supervising Investigator: Associate Professor Stephen Theiler (Swinburne
University of Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)
3. Supervising Investigator: Dr Jason Skues (Swinburne University of Technology,
Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)

This study is being conducted to develop and test a new measure of schema coping. The
researchers invite all individuals aged 18 years and over to participate in this study.

When faced with a stressful situation, individuals can interpret it differently based on how they
view themselves and their world. Depending on how they interpret the situation can influence
the way they cope with it. Some people may freeze, some may flee, and others may fight.
However, an evidence-based questionnaire covering all of these various coping responses
and that is quick to administer is lacking. Therefore, this study is being undertaken to develop
and test a schema coping questionnaire in an Australian sample.

This project will form the requirements of a thesis in support of a Doctor of Philosophy
(Science) undertaken by Alexandra Alipan at Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn.

Participation in the study will involve completing a questionnaire about:
• A stressful situation involving someone else or a group of people you have
experienced within the last three months.
• How you coped with the stressful situation.
• Demographic questions (e.g., age, sex etc.)

There will be a lot of questions in this online questionnaire, but the purpose of the research is
to come up with a shorter scale. If you choose to participate, please try to answer every
question no matter how similar some questions may be. As participation in the questionnaire
is anonymous, please respond as honestly and accurately as possible. Try not to spend too
long answering any one question and please note that there are no right or wrong answers.
Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 60 minutes. First year psychology
students who participate in this study will receive 60 minutes of credit for participating in the
Research Experience Program (REP). No other compensation will be provided.

A potential benefit of participating in this study includes providing individuals with insight into
some of the strategies they use to cope with stress.
Even though the online questionnaire will ask questions regarding how a person copes with
stress, it is unlikely that participants will experience harm or distress. However, in the unlikely
event that any problems arise, individuals can contact:
349
Swinburne students:
• On-campus counsellors at the Student Development and Counselling service –
Address: Level 4, The George, Wakefield St, Hawthorn. Ph: 9214 8025 or
• Swinburne Online Counselling -
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/stuserv/counselling/SOC.html
Non-Swinburne students:
• Swinburne Psychology Clinic (low cost service) Level 4, George Swinburne
Building Swinburne Hawthorn Campus +61 3 9214
8653 psychclinic@swin.edu.au
• Beyond Blue – ph: 1300 22 4636 or http://www.beyondblue.org.au
Participant rights and interests – Free Consent/Withdrawal from Participation

The questionnaire will be completed only once by participants at their own convenience. Valid
consent will be implied by return of an anonymous online questionnaire. It is important to
emphasise that (a) participation in this study is voluntary, (b) all processed data will be
anonymous, (c) participants are free to discontinue participation at any time, and (d)
participants are free to omit any questions they do not wish to answer.
Participant rights and interests – Privacy & Confidentiality

All investigators will have access to the data for the purpose of conducting this study.
Returned questionnaires will be stored in a locked cabinet. The data file will be stored on the
main student investigators password-protected computer. The data file will also be backed up
to a USB and stored in a locked cabinet. Following completion of the study the returned
questionnaires and data files will be retained for a minimum of five years following publication
and will be stored separately in locked cabinets and on a password-protected computer.
Research output
This research will form the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy (Science) program. It is
expected that this research will result in a presentation at a national or international
conference. It is also anticipated that at least one article describing the findings will be
published in an academic journal. Published results will be based on group comparisons
(e.g., age, sex) and overall (aggregated) data; Individual responses to the optional open-
ended questions may be used, however as all responses are anonymous individuals’
responses will be unidentifiable.
Further information about the project

If you would like further information about the project please do not hesitate to contact:
This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee
(SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any
concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact:
350
Appendix H: Study 2 Debriefing Statement
Thank you for your participation in the research project.
This page contains more information about the research:
The main purpose of this study:

An evidence-based questionnaire, which examines the basic coping responses to stress –
freeze, flight, fight and that is quick to administer, is lacking. Therefore, the main purpose of
this study was to develop and validate a measure of schema coping called the Schema
Coping Styles Inventory.
The Independent Variable and Dependent Variables in this study:

In order to determine the validity of this measure, we will examine the relationship
between the SCS and a number of other constructs. However, because we are not
manipulating any of the variables there are no independent variables in the study. The
dependent variables are: Surrender; Avoidance; Retaliation; Pleasing; Adaptive
Coping; Problem-focused and Emotion-focused Coping; Overcompensation;
Depression, Anxiety and Stress; and Early Maladaptive Schemas.
Possible Effects and Support Services:

If you experienced any distress as a result of participating in the present study please contact:
Swinburne students:
Building Swinburne Hawthorn Campus +61 3 9214
8653 psychclinic@swin.edu.au
• Beyond Blue – ph: 1300 22 4636 or http://www.beyondblue.org.au
Further Information:
This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics
Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can
contact:
Once again, we thank you for your participation in this study.

351
Appendix I: Study 2 Questionnaire
Demographic Questions
Please answer the following demographic questions by ticking the box:
1. What is your gender? Male Female Other

Please Specify:
_________________________
2. What is your age (in years)?
______ years old
3. What is your highest education level that you have completed?
Primary
Secondary
Trade/ TAFE/ Diploma
Undergraduate Tertiary
Postgraduate Tertiary
4. What is your current employment status?
Full-time
Part-time
Casual
Not working
5. What is your current student status?
Full-time student
Part-time student
Not studying
6. What is your relationship status?
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
De facto
Single
Have you ever seen a mental health professional for a mental health issue? (e.g., psychologist,
counsellor)
Yes If yes, how long for? No
____________________________
7. Where were you born?
(Country)
8. What is your ethnic or

cultural background?
352
DASS-21
Instructions:
Please read each statement and circle a number 0, 1, 2 or 3, which indicates how much the statement applied to you
over the past week. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any statement.
The rating scale is as follows:

0 Did not apply to me at all
1 Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time
2 Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time
3 Applied to me very much, or most of the time
Did not Applied to Applied to me to a Applied to me

apply to me to some considerable very much, or
me at all degree, or degree, or a good most of the
some of the part of time time
time
1. I found it hard to wind down 0 1 2 3
2. I was aware of dryness of my mouth 0 1 2 3
3. I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all 0 1 2 3
4. I experienced breathing difficulty (eg, excessively rapid
breathing, breathlessness in the absence of physical 0 1 2 3
exertion)
5. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things 0 1 2 3
6. I tended to over-react to situations 0 1 2 3
7. I experienced trembling (eg, in the hands) 0 1 2 3
8. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy 0 1 2 3
9. I was worried about situations in which I might panic 0 1 2 3
and make a fool of myself
10. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to 0 1 2 3
11. I found myself getting agitated 0 1 2 3
12. I found it difficult to relax 0 1 2 3
13. I felt down-hearted and blue 0 1 2 3
14. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting 0 1 2 3
on with what I was doing
15. I felt I was close to panic 0 1 2 3
16. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything 0 1 2 3
17. I felt I wasn't worth much as a person 0 1 2 3
18. I felt that I was rather touchy 0 1 2 3
19. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of
physical exertion (eg, sense of heart rate increase, 0 1 2 3
heart missing a beat)
20. I felt scared without any good reason 0 1 2 3
21. I felt that life was meaningless 0 1 2 3
353
Schema Coping Styles Inventory
Instructions:
The statements below reflect different coping styles mainly related to when you are under stress or
distressed. To respond to the statements below, please take a few moments to think of a
stressful situation you have experienced involving someone else or a group of people over the
last three months (e.g., tertiary education, your job, your partner, your family, your friends, or other).
Please write a brief description of that situation in the space below (e.g., where did it happen, who
was involved, how did you feel, what were your thoughts, and why was it important to you).
1 2 3 4
Once again, when responding to each of the statements on the next page, please answer them
based on how you dealt with this stressful situation involving someone else or a group of
people.
Read each statement carefully and make sure you answer as honestly as you can. Remember that
there is no right or wrong answer and your answers are anonymous. Please respond to each
statement separately in your mind from all other statements. For each of the coping styles, rate each
statement from ‘Completely untrue of me’ to ‘Completely true of me’ to what extent you used it in the
situation. Don’t worry whether it worked or not, we are only interested in how much you either used it
or didn’t use it. The statements may not reflect all of your coping style(s) accurately so there is room
to add comments.
RATING SCALE:
Completely untrue of me; Slightly true of me; Not Applicable;
Mostly untrue of me; Mostly true of me;
Slightly untrue of me; Completely true of me;
Please try to answer every question. Please TICK the box that best corresponds to your
answer for each question.
354
When distressed or upset by the stressful situation involving someone else or a group of
people (as described at the beginning):
Completely Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly Completely Not

untrue of untrue of untrue of true of true of true of me Applicable
me me me me me
1. I gave in to the person/
people.
2. I felt less able to disagree

with the person/ people.
3. I was untrusting of others.
4. I went along with what the

person/ people thought.
5. I punished the person/

people.
6. I became dependent on
others.
7. I worried a lot about it.
8. I blamed myself.
9. I did nothing.
10. I ruminated on the negative

side of things.
11. I treated the person/

people harshly.
12. I compared myself with the

person/ people in a
negative way.
13. I felt overwhelmed.
14. I lost control of my

emotions.
15. I replayed the situation

over and over again in my
mind.
16. I often sought a lot of
reassurance.
355

me me me me me
17. I became wary of others.
18. I felt less able to stand up

for myself.
19. I constantly apologised to

the person/ people.
20. I went along with the

situation.
21. I put myself down.
22. I relied on others to help

me decide what to do.
23. I put up with abuse.
24. I prepared for the worst.
25. I numbed out by doing

things such as playing
games or watching TV.
26. I felt uncomfortable talking
about it with the person/
people.
27. I escaped by going
somewhere else.
28. I procrastinated about what

to do.
29. I avoided expressing my

feelings to the person/
people.
30. I avoided going to public
places alone because of
the situation.
31. I avoided being close with
others.
32. I tried to avoid the person/

people.
33. I chose to spend a lot of

my time by myself.
356

me me me me me
34. I avoided circumstances
that made me feel
uncomfortable.
35. I tried to avoid the situation
by sleeping more.
36. I consumed alcohol or

drugs.
37. I tried to dodge situations

that appeared challenging.
38. I avoided trusting others.
39. I tried to solve it on my

own.
40. I tried to take over when

I’m with others.
41. I put down the

achievements of the
person/ people.
42. I was highly critical towards
the person/ people.
43. When things went wrong, I

tried to make it someone
else’s fault.
44. I overreacted in a negative
way towards the person/
people.
45. I directed my anger
towards the person/
people.
46. I acted impulsively.
47. I didn’t care about what the

person/ people said about
me.
48. I put the person/ people
down to make myself feel
better.
49. I became very needy and
wanted the person/ people
all to myself.
50. I behaved passive
aggressively towards the
person/ people.
357

me me me me me
51. I excessively relied on
myself rather than others.
52. I did things so others

wouldn’t like me.
53. I blamed the other person/

people for things going
wrong.
54. I was very dominating
towards the other person/
people.
55. I found it difficult to come
to an agreement with the
person/ people.
56. I placed my ‘needs’ and
‘wants’ higher than that of
the other person/ people.
57. I took it out on my friends
and family.
58. I got payback in order to

make myself feel better.
59. I put on a strong front

towards the other person/
people to hide my
insecurities or feelings of
hurt.
60. I bullied the person/ people
into getting my own way.
61. I became defensive.
62. I overreacted by engaging

in risky behaviour.
63. I made myself feel better

by devaluing the person.
64. I tried to come up with

ways to out-think the
person/ people so they
could not exploit or
manipulate me.
65. I overreacted by being
overly positive.
358

me me me me me
66. I tried hard to please the
person/ people.
67. I worked hard to gain

approval from the person/
people.
68. I became overly gullible of
people.
69. I was overly forgiving but

felt the opposite towards
the person/ people.
70. I bragged about my
accomplishments in order
to impress the person/
people.
71. I fret over how I would best
approach the situation so I
didn’t make the wrong
decision.
72. I acted overly polite or nice
to the person/ people.
73. In order to be included I

put on an act.
74. I gave more to the person/

people than myself.
75. I put on a smile and

pretended as if everything
was fine, even though I
may have felt differently
internally.
76. I tried to impress the
person/ people.
77. I did whatever required to

make the situation better,
regardless of how I felt.
78. I constantly tried to be
positive, denying the
negatives of the situation.
79. I tried to appear successful
(e.g., luxurious car, fancy
clothing) towards the
person/ people.
359

me me me me me
80. I tried hard to be perfect.
81. I controlled my emotions

so I didn’t hurt others.
82. I expressed to the person/

people how they made me
feel.
83. I thought about how I
might approach the
situation before acting.
84. I stood up for myself.
85. I approached the person/

people about the situation.
86. I tried to see things from

the person/ peoples’ point
of view.
87. I tried to find a balance
between my own needs
and others.
88. I focused more on the
positive aspects of the
situation than the negatives.
89. I spoke with a professional
person (e.g., therapist,
counsellor).
90. I focused more on the
positive things in life.
91. I tried to resolve the

situation but not at the
expense of my own needs.
92. I asked a family member I
trust for advice.
93. I accepted advice from

other people.
94. I asked for help from other

people if needed.
95. I reminded myself of my

strengths.
360

me me me me me
96. I told myself that I can
learn from my mistakes.
97. I kept trying to overcome

the situation even if it
didn’t work the first time.
98. I tried my best to solve the
situation even if it seemed
difficult.
99. I asked a friend I trust for
advice.
If you want to add something more to these coping styles please do so here:
361
Brief COPE
Instructions:
These items deal with ways you've been coping with the stressful situation in your life, described
previously. There are many ways to try to deal with problems. These items ask what you've been
doing to cope with this one. Obviously, different people deal with things in different ways, but I'm
interested in how you've tried to deal with it. Each item says something about a particular way of
coping. I want to know to what extent you've been doing what the item says. How much or how
frequently. Don't answer on the basis of whether it seems to be working or not—just whether or not
you're doing it. Use these response choices. Try to rate each item separately in your mind from the
others. Make your answers as true FOR YOU as you can.
RATING SCALE:
1 = I haven't been doing this at all

2 = I've been doing this a little bit
3 = I've been doing this a medium amount
4 = I've been doing this a lot
1 2 3 4
I haven't been I've been I've been doing I've been
doing this at all doing this a this a medium doing this a
little bit amount lot
1. I've been turning to work or other

activities to take my mind off things.
2. I've been concentrating my efforts on

doing something about the situation I'm
in.
3. I've been saying to myself "this isn't

real".
4. I've been using alcohol or other drugs

to make myself feel better.
5. I've been getting emotional support

from others.
6. I've been giving up trying to deal with

it.
7. I've been taking action to try to make

the situation better.
8. I've been refusing to believe that it

has happened.
9. I've been saying things to let my

unpleasant feelings escape.
10. I’ve been getting help and advice

from other people.
11. I've been using alcohol or other

drugs to help me get through it.
362
1 2 3 4
12. I've been trying to see it in a different

light, to make it seem more positive.
13. I’ve been criticizing myself.
14. I've been trying to come up with a

strategy about what to do.
15. I've been getting comfort and

understanding from someone.
16. I've been giving up the attempt to

cope.
17. I've been looking for something good

in what is happening.
18. I've been making jokes about it.
19. I've been doing something to think

about it less, such as going to movies,
watching TV, reading, daydreaming,
sleeping, or shopping.
20. I've been accepting the reality of the

fact that it has happened.
21. I've been expressing my negative

feelings.
22. I've been trying to find comfort in my

religion or spiritual beliefs.
23. I’ve been trying to get advice or help

from other people about what to do.
24. I've been learning to live with it.
25. I've been thinking hard about what

steps to take.
26. I’ve been blaming myself for things

that happened.
27. I've been praying or meditating.
28. I've been making fun of the situation.

363
1 2 3 4
12. I've been trying to see it in a different

light, to make it seem more positive.
14. I've been trying to come up with a

strategy about what to do.

16. I've been giving up the attempt to

cope.
17. I've been looking for something good

in what is happening.
19. I've been doing something to think

about it less, such as going to movies,
watching TV, reading, daydreaming,
sleeping, or shopping.
20. I've been accepting the reality of the

fact that it has happened.
21. I've been expressing my negative

feelings.

23. I’ve been trying to get advice or help

from other people about what to do.
25. I've been thinking hard about what

steps to take.
26. I’ve been blaming myself for things

that happened.

364
1MFBTFOPUFUIFDIBOHFJOSBUJOHTDBMF
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
Appendix J: Study 3 SUHREC Ethical Approval
To: A/Prof Stephen Theiler, FHAD
SHR Project 2016/294 – A mixed methods investigation of cyberbullying behaviours, early maladaptive
schemas, coping styles, and psychological outcomes in young adults.
Approved duration: 19-12-2016 to 19-12-2017 [Adjusted]
A/Prof Stephen Theiler, Dr Jason Skues, Alexandra Alipan (Student) - FHAD
I refer to the ethical review of the above project by a Subcommittee (SHESC3) of Swinburne's Human
Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC). Your response to the review as e-mailed on 9 December 2016 was put
to the Subcommittee delegate for consideration.
I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, ethics clearance has been given for the above project to
proceed in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions outlined below.
- The approved duration is 19-12-2016 to 19-12-2017 unless an extension request is subsequently

approved.
- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and
external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Researchand with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.
- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel
appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions,
including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief
investigator/supervisor, and addition or removal of other personnel/students from the project,
requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement.
- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC.
Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical
appraisal/clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a)
any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed
changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of
the project.
- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the
conclusion (or abandonment) of the project. Information on project monitoring and
variations/additions, self-audits and progress reports can be found on the Research Internet pages.
Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance, citing the
Swinburne project number. A copy of this e-mail should be retained as part of project record-keeping.
Best wishes for the project.
Yours sincerely,
Sally Fried
Secretary, SHESC3
376
Appendix K: Study 3 Information Flyer
Appendix C: Research Flyer
An Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early

Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological
Outcomes in Young Adults
This study is being conducted to examine how Australian young adults interpret and
cope with cyberbullying.
The researchers invite all individuals residing in Australia and aged between 18-25
years to participate in this study.
Participation in the study will involve completing an anonymous questionnaire about:

Demographic questions (e.g., age, sex etc).
Internet use questions.
Interpretation of hypothetical scenarios.
Cyberbullying experiences.
How you coped with a stressful situation.
How you view yourself and your world.
How you have been feeling lately (i.e., stress, anxiety, depression).
Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 40 minutes. Participation is

voluntary and all participants’ responses to the questionnaire will be anonymous.
Please contact the investigator via email if you are interested in participating in this
study and to obtain a questionnaire.
A potential benefit of participating in this study includes providing individuals with

some insight into their own use of information and communication technologies, what
cyberbullying is and behaviours considered to be cyberbullying, and some of the
strategies they use to cope with stress.
Alexandra Alipan
PhD Candidate
aalipan@swin.edu.au
If you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of this project or the
manner in which it is conducted, please contact one of the researchers or the
Research Ethics Officer, Swinburne Research (H68), Swinburne University of
Technology, P.O. Box 218, HAWTHORN, VIC 3122. Tel. (03) 9214 5218.
Email: aalipan@swin.edu.au
Young Adults
Psychological Outcomes in
Coping Styles, and
Early Maladaptive Schemas,
Cyberbullying Behaviours,
An Investigation of
Young Adults
Coping Styles, and
An Investigation of
Young Adults
Coping Styles, and
An Investigation of
Young Adults
Coping Styles, and
An Investigation of
Young Adults
Coping Styles, and
An Investigation of
Young Adults
Coping Styles, and
An Investigation of
377
Appendix L: Study 3 Consent Information Statement (CIS)

Project Title: An Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive Schemas, Coping
Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in Young Adults
Investigators
Main Student Investigator: Alexandra Alipan, PhD Candidate (Swinburne University of
Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)
Supervising Investigator: Associate Professor Stephen Theiler (Swinburne University of
Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design)
Supervising Investigator: Dr Jason Skues (Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of
Health, Arts and Design)

This study is being conducted to examine how Australian young adults interpret and cope with
cyberbullying, which in turn help to explain the variation in psychological and social outcomes often
associated with cyberbullying. The researchers invite all individuals residing in Australia and aged
between 18-25 years to participate in this study.

Cyberbullying has been associated with various negative psychological and social problems, though
not all people who are targets of cyberbullying experience negative outcomes. Although researchers
have examined how targets cope with being cyberbullied by identifying the types of coping strategies
they use in response to being cyberbullied, there has been limited research investigating the different
factors that influence how people cope with being cyberbullied. Young’s (2003) Schema Therapy
Model will be used to explain the association between cyberbullying behaviours and particular coping
responses, which in turn help to explain the variation in psychological and social outcomes often
associated with cyberbullying.

This project will form the requirements of a thesis in support of a Doctor of Philosophy (Science)
undertaken by Alexandra Alipan at Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn.

Participation in the study will involve completing an anonymous questionnaire (do not put your name
on the questionnaire) about:
• Demographic questions (e.g., age, sex etc).
• Internet use questions.
• Interpretation of hypothetical scenarios.
• Cyberbullying experiences.
• How you coped with a stressful situation.

If you choose to participate, please try to answer every question. Try not to spend too long answering
any one question and please note that there are no right or wrong answers.
Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 40 minutes. First year psychology students who
participate in this study will receive 60 minutes of credit for participating in the Research Experience
Program (REP). No other compensation will be provided.

A potential benefit of participating in this study includes providing participants with some insight into
their own use of information and communication technologies, what cyberbullying is and behaviours
considered to be cyberbullying, and some of the strategies they use to cope with stress. Participation
in this study also has benefits for psychology students who will gain direct experience with survey
research methods relevant to their degree.
The questionnaire will ask questions regarding participants’ cyberbullying experiences and how they
cope with stress, which may be potentially distressing. Although it is unlikely that participants will
experience harm or distress. However, in the unlikely event that any problems arise, individuals can
contact:
378
379
Appendix M: Study 3 Debriefing Statement
Thank you for your participation in the research project.
IMPORTANT
Please keep this debriefing information page. You will need this information for your
end-of-semester document which details the Independent Variables, Dependent
Variables, and aims of the studies you participated in.
DO NOT send back this page as you will not be able to access this page in the future.
Debrief information:
The main purpose of the study is to examine how Australian young adults interpret and
cope with cyberbullying, which in turn help to explain the variation in psychological and
social outcomes often associated with cyberbullying. The independent variables in this
study are: hypothetical vignettes (each of the 6 vignettes described either a
cyberbullying situation [1 vignette], ambiguous situation [4 vignettes], or non
cyberbullying situation [1 vignette]), cyberbullying involvement, cyberbullying
behaviours and early maladaptive schemas. The dependent variables are: surrender,
avoidance, retaliation, pleasing, adaptive coping, and problem-focused and emotion-
focused coping, somatisation, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity,
depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation and psychoticism.
Please do not talk to other potential participants (e.g., first year psychology students) about
the nature of the study in advance.
Possible Effects and Support Services:

If you experienced any distress as a result of participating in the present study please contact:
Swinburne students:
Building Swinburne Hawthorn Campus +61 3 9214 8653 psychclinic@swin.edu.au
• Beyond Blue – ph: 1300 22 4636   or http://www.beyondblue.org.au
Further Information:
This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee
(SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. If you have any
concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact:
Once again, we thank you for your participation in this study.

380
Appendix N: Study 3 Questionnaire

1
Please answer the following demographic questions by ticking the box:
1. What is your gender? Male ☐ Female ☐ Other ☐

Please Specify:
_________________________
2. What is your age (in
years)? ________ years old
3. What is your highest education level that you have completed?

Primary ☐
Secondary ☐
Trade/ TAFE/ Diploma ☐
Undergraduate Tertiary ☐
Postgraduate Tertiary ☐
4. What is your current employment status?
Full-time ☐
Part-time ☐
Casual ☐
Not working ☐
5. What is your current student status?
Full-time ☐
Part-time ☐
Not studying ☐
6. What is your relationship status?
Married ☐
Divorced ☐
Separated ☐
Widowed ☐
De facto ☐
Single ☐
7. What is your ethnic or
cultural background?
8. How much time (in minutes) do you spend sending text messages via mobile phone per day?
_______________________ mins
9. How much time (in minutes) do you spend on the Internet per day, including on your mobile phone?
_______________________ mins
381
10. What do you mainly use the Internet for? (Tick all that apply)
Homework or Research ☐
Email ☐
Chat rooms ☐
Instant messaging (IM) ☐
Personal finance (online banking, stock ☐
trading)
Online shopping ☐
Current events (news, sports, weather) ☐
Online games ☐
Creating web sites ☐
Facebook or other social networking sites ☐
Other ___________________________________________________
11. How would you rate your current computer skills?
Beginner (email, basic Internet browsing) ☐

Intermediate (blogging, social networking ☐
online)
Advanced (programing, web development) ☐
12. On which social network site or sites do you have a profile or account? (Tick all that apply)
Facebook ☐
Twitter ☐
Instagram ☐
YouTube ☐
Tumblr ☐
Snapchat ☐
LinkedIn ☐
Ask.Fm/ Spring.me / Qooh.me ☐
Google Plus ☐
MySpace ☐
Other ____________________________
Don’t Know/ Don’t have own profile ☐
382
13. Thinking about your Social Networking Sites (SNSs), when, if ever, was the last time you checked your
privacy settings on your profile?
Sometime in the past week ☐
Sometime in the past month ☐
Sometime in the past year ☐
When you first created your profile ☐
You have never checked them ☐
You don’t know or you can’t remember ☐
14. Overall, how difficult is it to manage the privacy controls on your social network profile?
Extremely Difficult ☐
Very difficult ☐
Somewhat difficult ☐
Not at all difficult ☐
Do not use privacy settings ☐
15. I know how to:
a. Delete or deactivate my account Yes No
☐ ☐
b. Restrict access to profile information Yes No

such as hobbies, interests
☐ ☐
c. Make my profile not accessible via Yes No

Google
☐ ☐
d. Control if others tag my name on Yes No

pictures
☐ ☐
e. Restrict access to my postings Yes No
☐ ☐
f. Restrict access to my contact Yes No

information (e.g. name, address)
☐ ☐
g. Report offensive information to the Yes No

site administer/ SNS
☐ ☐
h. Delete or block people from Yes No

accessing my profile/ account
☐ ☐

383
10
Instructions:
Please indicate on the rating scale below, in the past 12 months how often you have done the following things to
someone?
For each of the behaviours tick the response that best describes how often these things were DONE BY YOU.
Never Only once or Two or three About once a Several times a

twice times a month week week
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. Sent threatening or insulting

text messages ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Sent violent videos/ photos/
pictures by mobile phone ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. Sent threats or insults on the
Internet (e.g., Web sites,
chatrooms, blogs, social
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
network sites)
4. Made silent/prank phone calls
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Sent threatening or insulting e-
mails ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Sent embarrassing or
compromising videos/ photos/
pictures of someone else by
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
mobile phone
7. Made threatening or insulting

phone calls ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Posted or shared violent
videos/ photos/ pictures on
the Internet (e.g., e-mail, Web ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
sites, YouTube, social network
sites)
9. Made phone calls spreading

rumours about someone ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Posted embarrassing or
compromising videos/ photos/
pictures of someone else on
the Internet (e.g., e-mail, Web
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
sites, YouTube, social network
sites)
11. Manipulated someone’s

private personal data in order ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
to reuse
384
11

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
12. Ignored someone on purpose

in an online group ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
13. Stole someone’s personal
information (e.g., images, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
photos) in order to reuse
14. Spread rumours about

someone on the Internet ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
15. Stole someone’s password and
used their account (e.g., e- ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
mail, Facebook)
16. Deliberately excluded

someone from an online group
(e.g., Web sites, chat rooms,
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
social networking sites)
17. Stole and used someone else’s

phone book ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. Blocked someone in a
chatroom or on a social
networking site in order to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
exclude him/her from the
group
19. Hacked someone’s account

(e.g., email, Facebook) and
posted humiliating or mean ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
content pretending to come
from that person
20. Created a mean or hurtful

webpage about someone (e.g., ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
hate page)
21. Created a false identity online

to gain and then violate the
trust of someone by spreading
their personal and
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
embarrassing information
22. Blackmailed someone into

sending videos or photos of a
sexual nature
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
23. Logged into another person’s
online account without
permission and viewed or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
altered their information
385
12
Instructions: PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN INSTRUCTIONS BELOW
Please indicate on the rating scale below, in the past 12 months how often someone has done the following things
to you?
For each behaviour cross the number that best describes how often these things were DONE TO YOU:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. Received threatening or
insulting text messages ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Received violent videos/
photos/ pictures by mobile ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
phone
3. Received threats or insults
on the Internet (e.g., Web
sites, chatrooms, blogs, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
social network sites)
4. Received silent/prank phone
calls
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
insulting e-mails ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Someone sent embarrassing
or compromising videos/
photos/ pictures of me by ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
mobile phone
insulting phone calls ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Received violent videos/
photos/ pictures posted or
shared on the Internet (e.g., ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
e-mail, Web sites, YouTube,
social network sites)
9. Someone made phone calls
spreading rumours about me ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Someone posted
embarrassing or
compromising videos/
photos/ pictures of me on ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
the Internet (e.g., e-mail,
Web sites, YouTube, social
network sites)
11. Someone manipulated my
private personal data in ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
order to reuse
386
13
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
12. Ignored me on purpose in an
online group ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
13. Someone stole my personal
information (e.g., images, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
photos) in order to reuse
14. Someone spread rumours
about me on the Internet ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
15. Someone stole my password
and used my account (e.g,. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
email, Facebook)
16. Deliberately excluded from
an online group (e.g., Web
sites, chatrooms, social ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
networking site)
17. Someone stole and used my
phone book ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. Someone blocked me in a
chatroom or on a social
networking site in order to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
exclude me from the group
19. Someone hacked my account
(e.g., email, Facebook) and
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
posted humiliating or mean
content pretending to come
from me
20. Someone created a mean or
hurtful webpage about me
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
(e.g., hate page)
21. Someone created a fake

identity online to gain and
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
then violate my trust by
spreading personal and
embarrassing information
about me
22. Someone blackmailed me
into sending videos or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
photos of a sexual nature
23. Someone logged into my

online account without
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
permission and viewed or
altered my information
387
14
Cyberbullying Definition
Cyberbullying is defined using an information and communication technology to target one or

more people directly or indirectly, whereby:
(1) From the bully’s perspective, the goal is to intentionally harm the victim. Repetition
can also help establish intentionality and cyberbullying, in which the bully
continuously carries out a harmful behaviour towards the same victim;
(2) From the victim’s perspective, the behaviour is perceived as intentional and harmful.
A once-off attack can also be considered as cyberbullying as the negative impact on
the victim may be just as severe as frequent attacks; and
(3) From the bystander’s perspective, it is observed that a behaviour has negatively
affected another person, or that such a behaviour would likely negatively affect the
bystander if directed toward him or her. A bystander may also perceive the behaviour
alone as intentional and aggressive.
a. Based on the bully’s In your life time In the past 12 months In the past couple of
perspective (definition 1), months
have you cyberbullied
another person? Yes ☐ Yes ☐ Yes ☐
No ☐ No ☐ No ☐
b. Based on the victim’s In your life time In the past 12 months In the past couple of
have you been a victim of
cyberbullying? Yes ☐ Yes ☐ Yes ☐
c. Based on the bystander In your life time In the past 12 months In the past couple of
have you witnessed
other people being Yes ☐ Yes ☐ Yes ☐
cyberbullied?
388
15
Instructions:
If you indicated that you have:

• Received certain online behaviours in the past 12 months (as asked on pages 12-13;
behaviours DONE TO YOU),
AND/OR
• A victim of cyberbullying in the past 12 months or past couple of months (as asked on page
14),
Please tell us a bit more about your experience below. Choose the first that comes to mind
(within the past 12 months).
• What happened?
• Who was involved?
• How did this make you feel?
• What do you think were the motives of the perpetrator?
• Did you respond to the behaviour? If so, how?
• Did other people become involved or intervene? If so, what was their behaviour?
If you indicated ‘never’ to all 23 behaviours listed on pages 12-13 (behaviours DONE TO YOU) AND
have not been a victim of cyberbullying (in the past 12 months or past couple of months; on page
14) then please skip to the next page.
389
18
Instructions:
The statements on the following page reflect different coping styles mainly related to
when you are under stress or distressed.
To respond to the statements on the following page, please take a few moments to
think of a stressful situation you have experienced involving someone else or a
group of people over the last 12 months (e.g., your colleagues, your partner, your
family, your friends, or other).
1 2 3 4
Read each statement carefully and make sure you answer as honestly as you can.
Remember that there is no right or wrong answer and your answers are
anonymous. Please respond to each statement separately in your mind from all other
statements.
For each of the coping styles, rate each statement from 1 to 6 to what extent you
used it in the situation. Don’t worry whether it worked or not, we are only interested
in how much you either used it or didn’t use it.
RATING SCALE:
Completely untrue of me
Mostly untrue of me
Slightly untrue of me
Slightly true of me
Mostly true of me
Completely true of me
Not Applicable
Please try to answer every question. Please TICK the box that best corresponds to
your answer for each question.
390
19
When distressed or upset by the stressful situation involving someone else or a group of people (as described on page 18):

untrue of untrue of untrue of true of me true of me true of me Applicable
me me me
1. I gave in to the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. I felt less able to disagree with
the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. I went along with what the
person/ people thought. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. I went along with the situation.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. I relied on others to help me
decide what to do.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. I put up with abuse.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. I numbed out by doing things
such as playing games or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
watching TV.
8. I escaped by going somewhere
else.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. I procrastinated about what to
do.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. I avoided expressing my feelings
to the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. I avoided going to public places
alone because of the situation. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. I tried to avoid the person/
people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
13. I chose to spend a lot of my time
by myself.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
14. I tried to avoid the situation by
sleeping more.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
15. I tried to dodge situations that
appeared challenging.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
16. I tried to solve it on my own.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
391
20

me me me
17. I was highly critical towards
the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. I directed my anger towards
the person/people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
19. I behaved passive aggressively
towards the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
20. I blamed the other person/
people for things going wrong.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21. I was very dominating towards
the other person/ people. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
22. I found it difficult to come to
an agreement with the
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
person/ people.
23. I placed my ‘needs’ and
‘wants’ higher than that of the
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
other person/ people.
24. I bullied the person/ people

into getting my own way.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
25. I became defensive.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
26. I made myself feel better by
devaluing the person.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
27. I tried to come up with ways
to out-think the person/
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
people so they could not
exploit or manipulate me.
28. I overreacted by being overly
positive ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
29. I tried hard to please the
person/ people
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
30. I acted overly polite or nice to
the person/ people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
31. In order to be included I put
on an act.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
392
21

me me me
32. I gave more to the person/
people than myself.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
33. I put on a smile and pretended
as if everything was fine, even
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
though I may have felt
differently internally.
34. I tried to impress the person/
people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
35. I did whatever required to
make the situation better, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
regardless of how I felt.
36. I tried to appear successful
(e.g., luxurious car, fancy
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
clothing) towards the person/
people
37. I tried hard to be perfect.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
38. I thought about how I might
approach the situation before
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
acting.
39. I tried to find a balance
between my own needs and
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
others.
40. I asked for help from other
people if needed. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
41. I kept trying to overcome the
situation even if it didn’t work
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
the first time.
42. I tried my best to solve the
situation even if it seemed
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
difficult.
393
22
Instructions: These items deal with ways you've been coping with the stressful situation in your life, described
previously. There are many ways to try to deal with problems. These items ask what you've been doing to cope with this
one. Obviously, different people deal with things in different ways, but I'm interested in how you've tried to deal with it. Each
item says something about a particular way of coping. I want to know to what extent you've been doing what the item
says. How much or how frequently. Don't answer on the basis of whether it seems to be working or not—just whether or not
you're doing it. Use these response choices. Try to rate each item separately in your mind from the others. Make your answers
as true FOR YOU as you can.
RATING SCALE:
1 = I haven't been doing this at all

2 = I've been doing this a little bit
3 = I've been doing this a medium amount
4 = I've been doing this a lot
1 2 3 4
I haven't been I've been doing I've been doing I've been doing
doing this at all this a little bit this a medium this a lot
amount
1. I've been turning to work or other activities to

take my mind off things.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. I've been concentrating my efforts on doing
something about the situation I'm in.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. I've been saying to myself "this isn't real".
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to make
myself feel better.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. I've been getting emotional support from
others.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. I've been giving up trying to deal with it.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. I've been taking action to try to make the
situation better.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. I've been refusing to believe that it has
happened.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. I've been saying things to let my unpleasant
feelings escape.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. I’ve been getting help and advice from other
people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. I've been using alcohol or other drugs to help
me get through it.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
394
23
1 2 3 4
I haven't been I've been I've been doing I've been doing
doing this at all doing this a this a medium this a lot
little bit amount
12. I've been trying to see it in a different light,

to make it seem more positive.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
14. I've been trying to come up with a strategy
about what to do.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
16. I've been giving up the attempt to cope.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17. I've been looking for something good in
what is happening.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
19. I've been doing something to think about it
less, such as going to movies, watching TV,
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping.
20. I've been accepting the reality of the fact

that it has happened.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21. I've been expressing my negative feelings.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
23. I’ve been trying to get advice or help from
other people about what to do.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
25. I've been thinking hard about what steps to
take.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
26. I’ve been blaming myself for things that
happened.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
395
396
397
398
Page 27
399
400
24
Instructions:
You are going to read a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have. For each one, please
indicate how much that problem has bothered or distressed you during the past 12 months. Please
respond whether each problem has bothered you 1 = not at all; 2 = a little bit; 3 = moderately; 4 = quite a
bit; or 5 = extremely.
Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1. Nervousness and shakiness
inside.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
2. Faintness or dizziness.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3. The idea that someone else
can control your thoughts.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4. Feeling others are to blame
for most of your troubles.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
5. Trouble remembering things.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
6. Feeling easily annoyed or
irritated. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
7. Pains in heart or chest.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
8. Feeling afraid in open places.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
9. Thoughts of ending your life.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
10. Feeling that most people
cannot be trusted.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
11. Poor appetite.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
12. Suddenly scared for no
reason.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
13. Temper outbursts that you
could not control.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
14. Feeling lonely even when you
are with people. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
15. Feeling blocked in getting
things done.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
16. Feeling lonely.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
401
25
17. Feeling blue.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
18. Feeling no interest in things.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
19. Feeling fearful.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
20. Your feelings being easily
hurt. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
21. Feeling that people are
unfriendly or dislike you.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
22. Feeling inferior or others.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
23. Nausea or upset stomach.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
24. Feeling that you are watched
or talked about by others.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
25. Trouble falling asleep.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
26. Having to check and double
check what you do.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
27. Difficulty making decisions.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
28. Feeling afraid to travel on
buses and trains. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
29. Trouble getting your breath.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
30. Hot or cold spells.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
31. Having to avoid certain
things, places or activities
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
because they frighten you.
32. Your mind going blank.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
33. Numbness or tingling in parts
of your body.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
34. The idea that you should be
punished for your sins.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

402
26
35. Feeling hopeless about the

future ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
36. Trouble concentrating.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
37. Feeling weak in parts of your
body.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
38. Feeling tense or keyed up.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
39. Thoughts of death or dying.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
40. Having urges to beat, injure
or harm someone. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

41. Having urges to break or
smash things.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
42. Feeling very self-conscious
with others.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
43. Feeling uneasy in crowds.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
44. Never feeling close to
another person.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
45. Spells of terror or panic.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
46. Getting into frequent
arguments.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
47. Feeling nervous when you are
alone.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
48. Others not giving you proper
credit for your achievements. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
49. Feeling so restless you
couldn’t sit still.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
50. Feelings of worthlessness.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
51. Feeling that people will take
advantage of you if you let ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
them.
52. Feelings of guilt.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
53. The idea that something is
wrong with your mind.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

403
Appendix O: Study 3 Measurement Models
Measurement Models: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models

Confirmatory factor analysis was estimated on each of the one-factor
and higher order latent variables (CFA; Kline, 2016) before the structural
models could be tested. All confirmatory factor analyses were performed
using Mplus Version 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017).
One-factor congeneric models. First, a CFA was performed on
each of the variables independently for each of the three groups. The scales
included each of the 18 EMSs, the five schema coping styles (surrender,
avoidance, retaliation, pleasing and adaptive schema coping), and
psychological distress.
Victim group. For victims, eight of the one-factor congeneric
models for the 18 EMSs showed acceptable model fit, though only
vulnerability to harm and insufficient self-control measurement models
were retained with their original items. Sixteen one-factor models were re-
specified after being carefully screened for goodness of fit and the quality of
the indicators. Item were omitted due to (1) item redundancy where inter-
item correlations were above .8 and common item phrasing (2) non-
significant inter-item correlations < .3, and (4) non-significant factor
loadings < .3. The results of the original and revised one-factor congeneric
models for each of the 18 EMSs for the victim group is displayed in Table
17.
404
Table 17.
One-Factor Congeneric Models for the 18 Early Maladaptive Schemas for

the Victim Group.
YSQ Subscale !" (%&) p-value RMSEA (CI) CFI TLI WRMR SRMR Comments
Emotional Deprivation 13.54 (5) .019 .160 [.059-.265] .985 .970 .320 .049 Original
6.34 (2) .042 .180 [.030-.346] .985 .955 .608 .052 Retained items: 1, 19, 37,
73. Deleted item 55
Abandonment 6.05 (5) .302 Original
3 indicators – just-identified model so no model fit statistics produced. Retained 2, 38, 74.
Deleted items 20 and 56
Mistrust and Abuse 28.13 (5) .000 .263 [.173-.361] .960 .919 .703 .080 Original
3.81 (2) .149 Retained 3, 21, 39, 75.
Deleted item 57
Social Isolation/ 5.68 (5) .339 Original
Alienation
2 items – under-identified model so no model fit statistics produced. Retained item 22 and 58.
Deleted 4, 40, 76.
Defectiveness/ Shame 14.73 (5) .012 .170 [.073-.275] .996 .992 .455 .028 Original
Deleted 23, 59
Failure 6.63 (5) 0.250 Original
Deleted 6, 60
Dependence 9.68 (5) 0.085 Original
4.70 (2) 0.096 Retained 7, 43, 61, 79.
Deleted 25
Vulnerability to Harm 6.75 (5) 0.240 Original. All 5 items
retained
Enmeshment 17.72 (5) 0.003 .195 [.102-.297] .926 .852 .589 .088 Original
1.53 (2) 0.466 Retained 9, 27, 45, 61.
Deleted item 81
Entitlement 5.81 (5) .325 Original
Deleted 50, 86
Insufficient Self- 4.31 (5) .505 Original. All 5 items
control retained
Subjugation 12.42 (5) .029 .149 [.043-.255] .952 .905 .482 .075 Original
3.73 (2) .155 Retained 28, 46, 64, 82.
Deleted item 10
Self-sacrifice 16.95 (5) .005 .189 [.095-.291] .965 .93 .498 .060 Original
2.21 (2) .331 Retained item 11, 47, 65,
83. Deleted item 29
Approval Seeking 13.64 (5) .018 .161 [.061-.266] .971 .942 .454 .065 Original
.66 (2) .720 Retained 34, 52, 70, 88.
Deleted item 16
Emotional Inhibition 33.53 (5) .000 .292 [.203-.389] .891 .783 .803 .110 Original
.95 (2) .622 Retained items 12, 30,
48, 84. Deleted item 66
Hypercriticalness 32.26 (5) .000 .285 [.196-.383] .884 .767 .765 .103 Original
3.82 (2) .148 Retained 31, 49, 67, 85.
Deleted item 13
Pessimism 6.05 (5) .301 Original
2.07 (2) .355 Retained 17, 53, 71, 89.
Deleted item 35
Self-punitiveness 18.13 (5) .003 .198 [.105-.300] .990 .980 .515 .068 Original
Deleted item 18 and 54
Note. The best fitting model is bolded.
( ), chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df, model degrees of freedom; p-value, ( ) p-value; RMSEA (CI), root-mean-square of approximation with 90%
confidence intervals; CFI, comparative fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; WRMR, weighted root mean square residual; SRMR, standardised root
mean square residual.
All models fit with robust weighted least squares estimation (WLSMV; Muthén & Muthén, 2007).
405
For the one-factor congeneric models for the five schema coping
styles, the data did not fit the model well. For surrender, the one-factor
model was not a good fit to the data, ! " (9) = 23.02, p < .006, RMSEA =
.152 [.076-.231], CFI = .988, TLI = .980, and SRMR = .055. One of the six
items (SURR 4) was removed due to the modification index indicating high
inter-item correlations and common item phrasing, and another (SURR 5)
was removed due to poor item properties and item content. For instance, the
remaining surrender items were about compliance whereas SURR 5 was
more about dependence. The re-specified model resulted in a good fit to the
data, ! " (2) = 1.40, p < .498.
For avoidance, the one-factor model was not a good fit to the data,
! " (35) = 74.84, p < .001, RMSEA = .130 [.089-.171], CFI = .910, TLI =
.884, and SRMR = .104. Three of the 10 items (AV 8, AV 9, and AV 10)
were removed due to a non-significant factor loading and inter-item
correlations (AV 10), indicating that they were not strong indicators of their
intended construct (Field, 2005), or due to a high modification index value
and item content (AV 8 and AV 9). For example, AV 8 is about sleeping
more whereas the other items are centred more around behavioural
avoidance of others and excessive autonomy. The re-specified model
resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (14) = 16.49, p < .285.
For retaliation, the one-factor model was not a good fit to the data,
! " (44) = 101.75, p < .000, RMSEA = .140 [.104-.176], CFI = .906, TLI =
.883, and SRMR = .098. Three of the 11 items (RET 2, RET 3, and RET 8)
were removed due to low inter-item correlations, modification index values
and item phrasing. For example, RET 8 was about bullying others to get
one’s own way and was highly negatively skewed indicating low
endorsement for this item compared to other items on this same scale, and
thus low inter-inter correlations. The re-specified model resulted in a good
fit to the data, ! " (20) = 27.81, p < .114.
406
For pleasing, the one-factor model was not a good fit to the data,
! " (35) = 101.77, p < .000, RMSEA = .167 [.130-.206], CFI = .913, TLI =
.889, and SRMR = .110. Of the 11 items, PLS 3 was removed due to item
redundancy with PLS 2. Both had a correlation >.8 and similar item
phrasing but PLS 2 captured the content theme of pleasing more strongly.
PLS 1 was deleted due to non-significant inter-item correlations < .3 and a
very low factor loading and reliability/variance estimate compared to other
items. PLS 5 and PLS 6 were removed due to item content as both items
were about giving in to others and while this could be related to pleasing the
items did not fit in with the remaining items, which were more about status
seeking. The re-specified model resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (9) =
14.35, p < .110.
For adaptive schema coping, the one-factor model was not a good fit
to the data, ! " (5) = 41.08, p < .000, RMSEA = .328 [.240-.425], CFI = .896,
TLI = .792, and SRMR = .134. Of the five items, APT 5 was removed due
to low and non-significant (< .3) inter-item correlations and a high
correlation (> .8) and similar item phrasing to APT 4. The re-specified
model resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (2) = 1.53, p < .464. While
deleting this item resulted in the one-factor model achieving good model fit
statistics, it should be noted that items APT 2, APT 3, and APT 4 also had
poor item properties in the victim group, with many non-significant inter-
item correlations, low factor loadings and item reliabilities/ variance (R2).
However, deleting these items either made the model fit worse or a warning
occurred.
A one-factor congeneric model with 53 items was specified to
measure psychological distress and found the data fit the model well
! " (1325) = 1712.84, p < .000, RMSEA = .066 [.057-.075], CFI = 0.955, TLI
= 0.954, and SRMR = .106.

Target-Only group. For targets, eight of the one-factor congeneric
models for the EMSs originally showed acceptable model fit, and six of
407
these one-factor models were retained with their original items (see Table
18). One item from the emotional deprivation subscale was deleted despite
obtaining good model fit for this factor due to item redundancy being
present. ED 55 had an inter-item correlation of .82 with ED 1 and > .80
correlations with several other items. Once this item was deleted the data
was a better fit to the model. In addition, two items from Entitlement were
deleted, despite obtaining good model fit due to non-significant inter-item
correlations and ENT 50 also having a non-significant factor loading (<
.30). The other 10 original one-factor congeneric EMSs models obtained
poor model fit and were re-specified by inspecting the quality and content of
the indicators, which was the same approach employed in the victim group.
All revised EMSs resulted in good model fit. The results of the original and
revised one-factor congeneric models for each of the 18 EMSs for the target
group is displayed in Table 18.
408
Table 18.

the Target-Only Group.
Emotional Deprivation 10.99 (5) .052 .097 [.000-.176] .995 .989 .335 .033 Original
5.47 (2) .065 Retained items: 1,
19, 37, 73.
Deleted item 55
Abandonment 14.30 (5) .014 .121 [.050-.197] .992 .983 .409 .036 Original
1.27 (2) .472 Retained 2, 38, 56, 74.
Deleted items 20
0.34 (2) .846 Retained 3, 21, 39, 57.
Deleted item 75
Social Isolation/ 8.66 (5) .124 Original. All 5 items
Alienation retained
Defectiveness/ Shame 11.27 (5) .046 .099 [.012-.178] .996 .992 .342 .027 Original
1.09 (2) .580 Retained 5, 41, 59, 77.
Deleted 23
Failure 3.25 (5) .662 Original. All 5 items
retained
Dependence 9.35 (5) .096 Original. All 5 items
retained
Vulnerability to Harm 3.85 (5) .572 Original. All 5 items
retained
Enmeshment 15.12 (5) .010 .126 [.056-.202] .957 .913 .492 .063 Original.
4.15 (2) .125 Retained items 27, 45,
63, 81. Deleted 9
Entitlement 6.29 (5) .279 Original
Deleted 14, 50
Insufficient Self- 3.92 (5) .561 Original. All 5 items
control retained
1.96 (2) .375 Retained 10, 28, 64, 82.
Deleted item 46
Self-sacrifice 11.30 (5) .046 .100 [.013-.178] .985 .971 .746 .043 Original
0.41 (2) .814 Retained item 29, 47, 65,
83. Deleted item 11
Approval Seeking 1.51 (5) .912 Original
Emotional Inhibition 25.26 (5) .000 .179 [.113-.251] .954 .907 .638 .068 Original
5.77 (2) .056 .122 [.000-.243] .989 .967 .615 .035 Retained items 12, 30,
48, 66.
Unrelating Standards / 16.51 (5) .001 .135 [.066-.209] .963 .926 .501 .052 Original
Hypercriticalness
.05 (2) .975 Retained 13, 49, 67, 85.
Deleted item 31
Pessimism 25.54 (5) .000 .180 [.115-.252] .971 .941 .589 .058 Original
2.82 (2) .245 Retained 17, 35, 53, 89.
Deleted item 71
Self-punitiveness 11.44 (5) .043 .101 [.016-.179] .992 .984 .738 .047 Original
1.64 (2) .440 Retained 36, 54, 72, 90.
Deleted item 18

( ), chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df, model degrees of freedom; p-value, ( ) p-value; RMSEA (CI), root-mean-square of approximation
with 90% confidence intervals; CFI, comparative fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; WRMR, weighted root mean square residual; SRMR,
standardized root mean square residual.
409
For the one-factor congeneric models for surrender, avoidance,

retaliation, and pleasing, the data did not fit the model well. For surrender,
the one-factor model could be classified as an acceptable model fit with
several of the criteria (CFI, TLI, SRMR) meeting the threshold
requirements, ! " (9) = 18.91, p < .026, RMSEA = .093 [.031-.152], CFI =
.991, TLI = .984, and SRMR = .034. However, there was a high
modification index and inter-item correlation (.80) between SURR 3 and
SURR 4, like in the victim group, due to similar item phrasing and meaning.
SURR 4 was deleted as the item phrasing was not as clear as SURR 3. The
re-specified model resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (5) = 4.51, p < .479.
Similarly, for avoidance the one-factor model could be classified as
acceptable model fit with several of the criteria (CFI, TLI, SRMR) meeting
the threshold requirements, ! " (35) = 76.50, p < .000, RMSEA = .097 [.067-
.126], CFI = .958, TLI = .946, and SRMR = .065. As in the victim group,
AV 10 and AV 8 were removed due to the same item issues (low and non-
significant factor loading and inter-item correlations and item content). The
re-specified model resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (20) = 33.52, p <
.030, RMSEA = .073 [.023-.115], CFI = .983, TLI = .976, and SRMR =
.050.
! " (44) = 165.50, p < .000, RMSEA = .147 [.124-.172], CFI = .921, TLI =
.901, and SRMR = .093. As in the victim group, RET 8 was removed due to
low inter-item correlations, high modification index values, and item
phrasing. After deleting this item, the data was still not a good fit the model.
An EFA was conducted to probe for further model changes. RET 1, RET 2,
RET 4 and RET 10 were deleted from this factor due to modification
indices indicating common phrasing among the items and in an attempt to
remove sources of misfit from the one-factor model. The re-specified model
resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (9) = 9.55, p < .388.
410
! " (35) = 150.39, p < .000, RMSEA = .161 [.135-.188], CFI = .903, TLI =
.876, and SRMR = .093. Of the 11 items, 4 items were removed (PLS 1,
PLS 9, PLS 2, and PLS 4), with PLS 1 and PLS 9 being removed due to
poor item properties (low factor loadings and inter-item correlations and
low item reliabilities/variance). PLS 2 and PLS 4 were removed due to high
modification indices and inspecting the content of the remaining items
which appeared to be more about pleasing others rather than status-seeking
items. The re-specified model resulted in a good fit to the data, ! " (9) =
12.58, p < .183.
A one-factor congeneric model with five items was specified to
measure adaptive schema coping and found the data fit the model well ! " (5)
= 8.58, p < .127.
! " (1325) = 1977.11, p < .000, RMSEA = .062 [.056-.068], CFI = .935, TLI
= .932, and SRMR = .094.

Non-target group. For non-targets, eight of the one-factor
congeneric models for the EMSs originally showed acceptable model fit,
though only five measurement models were retained with their original
items. Thirteen one-factor models were re-specified after being carefully
screened for goodness of fit and the quality of the indicators using the same
approach employed in the victim and target group due to similar issues with
the items. The results of the original and revised one-factor congeneric
models for each of the 18 EMSs for the target group is displayed in Table
19.
411
Table 19.

the Non-Target Group.
Emotional 23.14 (5) .000 .217 [.133-.310] .974 .949 .423 .056 Original
Deprivation
3 indicators – just-identified model so no model fit statistics produced. Retained items: 1, 37, 55.
Deleted item 19 and 73
Abandonment 11.04 (5) .051 Original
1.91 (2) .385 Retained 2, 20, 38, 56.
Deleted item 74
1.27 (2) .529 Retained 3, 39, 57, 75.
Deleted item 21
Social Isolation/ 5.23 (5) .389 Original
Alienation
3 indicators – just-identified model so no model fit statistics produced. Retained item 4, 22, 58.
Deleted 40 and 76
Defectiveness/ 11.36 (5) .045 .129 [.019-.229] .997 .995 .745 .040 Original
Shame
Deleted 23, 41
Failure 17.11 (5) .004 .177 [.090-.273] .988 .976 .956 .047 Original
4.09 (2) .129 Retained 6, 24, 42, 60.
Deleted 78.
Dependence 8.88 (5) .114 Original
Deleted 25 and 61
Vulnerability to 2.87 (5) .720 Original. All 5 items
Harm retained
Enmeshment 19.45 (5) .002 .194 [.108-.288] .946 .892 .649 .092 Original
2.96 (2) .228 Retained 9, 45, 61, 81.
Deleted item 27
Entitlement 46.09 (5) .000 .327 [.244-.416] .810 .620 .998 .124 Original
Deleted 14, 50,
Insufficient Self- 22.33 (5) .001 .212 [.128-.305] .908 .816 .712 .100 Original.
control
2.48 (2) .289 Retained 15, 33, 51, 69.
Deleted 87.
0.44 (2) .803 Retained 10, 46, 64, 82.
Deleted item 28
Self-sacrifice 5.79 (5) .327 Original. All 5 items
retained.
Approval Seeking 20.18 (5) .001 .199 [.113-.293] .959 .918 .516 .064 Original
Deleted item 16, 70
Emotional Inhibition 9.94 (5) .077 Original. All 5 items
retained.
Unrelating 2.30 (5) .807 Original. All 5 items
Standards/ retained.
hypercriticalness
Pessimism 18.03 (5) .003 .184 [.097-.279] .982 .964 .490 .058 Original
3.47 (2) .176 Retained 35, 53, 71, 89.
Deleted item 17
Self-punitiveness 8.37 (5) .137 Original. All 5 items
retained.
( ), chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df, model degrees of freedom; p-value, ( ) p-value; RMSEA (CI), root-mean-square of approximation
with 90% confidence intervals; CFI, comparative fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; WRMR, weighted root mean square residual; SRMR,
standardised root mean square residual.
412
For the one-factor congeneric models for surrender, avoidance,

retaliation, and pleasing, the data did not fit the model well. For surrender,
the one-factor model was not a good fit to the data, ! " (9) = 45.26, p < .000,
RMSEA = .229 [.165-.297], CFI = .969, TLI = .948, and SRMR = .081.
However, high modification indices between SURR 1 and SURR 2, SURR
3 and SURR 4, and SURR 5 and SURR 6, was due to common item
phrasing and high inter-item correlations (.80). SURR 2, SURR 4, and
SURR 6 were removed due to the remaining items having clearer item
phrasing. SURR 6 (“I put up with abuse”) also had poorer item properties
and was heavily negatively skewed in the non-target sample compared to
targets and victims, indicating this item was not relevant to this group.
Similarly, for avoidance the one-factor model could be classified as
acceptable model fit with several of the criteria (CFI, TLI, SRMR) meeting
the threshold requirements, ! " (35) = 76.50, p < .000, RMSEA = .097 [.067-
.126], CFI = .958, TLI = .946, and SRMR = .065. As in the victim group,
AV 10 and AV 8 were removed due to the same item issues (low and non-
significant factor loadings and inter-item correlations, and due to item
content). In addition, AV 1 (“I numbed out by playing video games and
watching TV”) was removed due to high modification indices with other
items and item content. In the non-target group this item does not appear to
capture the content theme as much as other remaining items, which more
specifically relate to avoidance of other people. Once these three items were
removed, the data was a good fit to the model.
! " (44) = 90.47, p < .000, RMSEA = .117 [.082-.151], CFI = .956, TLI =
.945, and SRMR = .101. Similar to the victim group, two of the 11 items
(RET 2 and RET 8) were removed due to low inter-item correlations, high
modification index values and item phrasing. An EFA also showed that
RET 2 (“I directed my anger towards the person/people”) formed a
413
separated factor to other items on same scale, which are more about trying
to control, manipulate, and dominate others.
! " (35) = 77.66, p < .000, RMSEA = .126 [.088-.164], CFI = .958, TLI =
.946, and SRMR = .084. Of the 11 items, three items were removed (PLS 1,
PLS 4, and PLS 9), which was similar to the target group, with PLS 1 and
PLS 9 being removed due to poor item properties (low factor loadings and
inter-item correlations and low item reliabilities/variance). PLS 4 was
removed due to high modification indices and after inspection of the content
of the remaining items, which appeared to be more about pleasing others
rather than status-seeking.
A one-factor congeneric model with five items was specified to
measure adaptive schema coping and found the data fit the model well ! " (5)
= 6.35, p < .273.
! " (1325) = 1611.94, p < .000, RMSEA = .053 [.043-.062], CFI = .955, TLI
= .954, and SRMR = .114.

Independent cluster measurement model: SCSI. For the schema
coping scale, a five-factor independent-cluster measurement model, which
included surrender, avoidance, retaliation, pleasing, and adaptive coping
was specified. The aim of the full measurement model was to ensure that
items load uniquely on their respective latent construct and that latent
constructs were distinct from one another.
For victims, initially a warning appeared stating that the latent
variable covariance matrix (PSI) was not positive definite, with APT item 1
having a factor loading of 1.0 and a negative residual variance. Once
deleting APT 1 from the model, other items from the adaptive scale then
produced warnings. Because of the weak item properties in the one-factor
congeneric model and the warnings produced by this scale in the
414
independent cluster, the adaptive schema coping scale was omitted from
further analyses. Once deleting the adaptive scale from the independent
cluster measurement model, the model ran without a warning but the model
fit to the data was not acceptable as the chi-square value was statistically
significant, and despite the RMSEA and CFI meeting the minimum cut-offs,
the TLI and SRMR were less than the recommended threshold measure,
χ2(269) = 371.71, p < .000, RMSEA = .075, CFI = .909, TLI = .899, SRMR
= .108. The items RET 7, AV 1 and AV 3 were removed due to non-
significant factor loadings or inter-item correlations. For example, AV 3
which is about procrastinating had low and non-significant correlations with
other avoidance items and stronger correlations with surrender items. RET
6, PLS 2 and PLS 8 were also deleted due to a high modification index with
the surrender latent factor, indicating that these items may cross-load on this
factor. An inspection of the item correlations showed that these items had
moderate to high correlations with surrender items and item content
revealed similar item content to surrender items. Once the model was re-
specified by removing these items, the data was a good fit to the model,
! " (146) = 187.90, p < .011, RMSEA = .065 [.033-.091], CFI = .951, TLI =
.942, and SRMR = .090.

For targets, an independent cluster measurement model of the five
schema coping factors was specified and found to have acceptable model fit
with a majority of the fit indices reaching the desired threshold, ! " (367) =
557.37, p < .000, RMSEA = .064 [.053-.074], CFI = .913, TLI = .903, and
SRMR = .095. No other sources of misfit were found in the model that
warranted removal.
For the non-target group, an independent cluster measurement model
of the five schema coping factors was specified and found to have
acceptable model fit with a majority of the fit indices just reaching the
desired threshold, ! " (424) = 603.57, p < .000, RMSEA = .074 [.060-.087],
415
CFI = .911, TLI = .903, and SRMR = .104. However, PLS 10 and RET 4
were removed due to high modification index values with other latent
factors. The bivariate correlation matrix for these two items also showed
moderate correlations with most of the items on other scales, some of which
were even stronger than the correlations with items measuring the same
construct. Deleting these two items resulted the five factor independent
cluster measurement model being a good fit to the data.
Higher order schema domain models. Higher order factors rather
than independent cluster measurement models were tested for the 18
individual schemas, which were categorised into their respective domain
based on Young et al.’s (2003) schema theory. High order factors were used
since each of the schema domains represent an underlying unmet core
emotional need that is the common theme of the specific schemas clustered
within that domain. Higher order models are also recommended over
independent cluster measurement models when it is expected that latent
variables would be highly correlated with one another and lack discriminant
validity (Cunningham, 2010). In saying this, there were still several weak
items considered for removal such as those with strong cross-loadings on
other factors or items with poor item properties. The same process used for
assessing model fit for the one-factor congeneric models was also employed
when dealing with misfit in the higher order models, in that, model fit
statistics, modification indices, items properties, and theory guided relevant
changes to the model. These items were cautiously removed to improve
model fit and ensure that sources of model misspecification were removed
before testing the structural model.
Victim group. For victims, the higher order model of disconnection
and rejection (Domain 1) was found to not be a good fit to the data, ! " (99) =
SRMR = .082. The mistrust/ abuse item, MIS 39, had a high modification
index value with abandonment item, AB 38, suggesting a co-varied error
416
term. In addition, an inspection of the correlation matrix showed a high

correlation (> .80) between these two items and similar item content. MIS
39 was deleted and subsequently the data resulted in a good fit to the model,
! " (85) = 117.86, p < .011, RMSEA = .076 [.038-.107], CFI = .980, TLI =
.976, and SRMR = .073.

The higher order model of impaired autonomy and performance
(Domain 2) displayed a warning regarding the latent variable covariance
matrix (PSI) was not positive definite. This warning indicated that the
model needs to be changed (Joreskog, 1993). The dependence latent factor
appeared to be contributing to this warning with a factor loading above 1.0
and negative residual variance. Dependence item, DEP 79, had a high
correlation (> .80) with FAIL 78 and contained similar item content. After
DEP 79 was removed, the model terminated without a warning and several
of the fit indices approached acceptable model fit, ! " (86) = 126.26, p < .003,
However, an effort was still made to inspect for potential sources of misfit,
resulting in the enmeshment item, EMN 27, being deleted. This was due to a
modification index value indicating to covary the error terms of this item
with that of several items on the dependence and vulnerability to harm
scales. The phrasing of ENM 27 is more general than other items measuring
this same construct, which capture how the enmeshment with significant
others makes an individual feel. In addition, ENM 27 also had a lower R2
value indicating lower item reliability/ variance. Once this item was
removed, the data had achieved good model fit, ! " (73) = 90.73, p < .078.
The higher order model of impaired limits (Domain 3) displayed a
warning regarding the model not being identified. Bengt Muthen explained
that second or third order models with only two factors or indicators results
in a model that is not identified and thus the regression estimates will not be
trustworthy. He suggests that this model should not be used in any analysis
(B. Muthen, personal communication, July 5, 2019). Therefore, a decision
417
was made to run the two EMSs within this domain, entitlement and
insufficient self-control, separately (see one-factor congeneric model results
in Table 17).
The higher order model of other-directedness (Domain 4) displayed
a warning regarding the latent variable covariance matrix (PSI) not being
positive definite. The subjugation latent factor appeared to be contributing
to this warning with a factor loading above 1.0 and negative residual
variance. An inspection of the correlation matrix showed that subjugation
items are just as or if not more highly correlated with items on approval
seeking and self-sacrifice compared to the correlations among its own items.
After trying an EFA to further determine the causes of model misfit, it also
showed that subjugation was highly related with approval seeking and self-
sacrifice but that approval seeking and self-sacrifice were not significantly
correlated. Many items measuring self-sacrifice also appeared to
significantly cross-load on the subjugation factor. Because higher order
models need more than two factor indicators to be identified and for the
estimates to be trustworthy, it was decided to test the individual schemas
within this domain (i.e., subjugation, approval seeking, and self-sacrifice)
separately to avoid multicollinearity issues (see one-factor congeneric
model results in Table 17).
The higher order model of overvigilance and inhibition (Domain 5)
was found to not be a good fit to the data, ! " (86) = 220.27, p < .000,
RMSEA = .153 [.128-.178], CFI = .874, TLI = .846, and SRMR = .125. The
emotional inhibition items, EMIN 48 and EMIN 12, self-punitiveness item,
PUN 90, and pessimism item, PESS 17, showed modification indices with
other latent factors, indicating potential cross-loading of the items on to
other factors. After removal of these items to address model misfit, poor fit
was still obtained, ! " (40) = 103.04, p < .000, RMSEA = .153 [.117-.190],
CFI = .920, TLI = .890, and SRMR = .093. No other changes to the model
were made, nor made sense.
418
Targets-only group. For targets-only, the higher order model of

disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) obtained several model fit indices
that approached acceptable model fit, ! " (184) = 308.56, p < .000, RMSEA =
.073 [.059-.087], CFI = .968, TLI = .964, and SRMR = .069. However,
inspection of the modification indices and item properties showed that MIS
39 (similar to the victim group) and SOC 22 had moderate to high
correlations with items that measure other scales compared to the
correlations between the items that form their respective scale. These two
items were deleted which resulted in stronger model fit indices, ! " (147) =
SRMR = .065.
(Domain 2) was a good fit to the data, ! " (148) = 210.60, p < .001, RMSEA
= .058 [.039-.075], CFI = .977, TLI = .974, and SRMR = .069.
Impaired limits (Domain 3) and other-directedness (Domain 4) had
the same warnings and issues as in the victim group. The same approach of
modelling the one-factor congenic models separately was applied to the
target group (see one-factor congeneric model results in Table 18).
was found to only just meet reasonable fit, ! " (100) = 179.61, p < .000,
RMSEA = .079 [.060-.097], CFI = .949, TLI = .938, and SRMR = .078. The
emotional inhibition item, EMIN 66, self-punitiveness item, PUN 90, and
hypercriticalness item, HYPER 49, showed modification indices with other
latent factors, indicating potential cross-loading of the items on to other
factors. EMIN 66 also had very low and non-significant inter-item
correlations and PUN 90 had moderate correlations with emotional
inhibition items, which were just as strong as items on its own scale. After
these items were removed to address model misfit, increased model fit was
obtained, ! " (61) = 93.60, p < .005, RMSEA = .065 [.037-.090], CFI = .976,
TLI = .970, and SRMR = .060.
419
Non-target group. For non-targets, the higher order model of

disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) displayed a warning regarding the
latent variable covariance matrix (PSI) not being positive definite. The
bivariate correlation matrix showed that there were many high correlations
among the items across scales. In particular, abandonment item, AB 38, had
a high correlation (> .85) with DEF 39 (similar to previous groups) and also
had a factor loading of 1.0 and negative residual variance. Once deleting AB
38 a new warning appeared. Defectiveness had a negative residual variance
and factor loading of 1.040 on disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and
MIS 39 and AB 40 had an undefined R2 value. Once deleting item
redundancy from the model it ran without a warning but obtained a poor fit,
! " (60) = 122.91, p < .000, RMSEA = .117 [.087-.146], CFI = .956, TLI =
.943, and SRMR = .086. Defectiveness had a factor loading of .987 on

disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) and R2 of .975, suggesting that this
factor makes up most of disconnection and rejection (Domain 1) or
contributes to most of the variance for this factor.
(Domain 2) displayed a warning regarding the latent variable covariance
matrix (PSI) not being positive definite and indicated there was a problem
with the dependence latent factor. The dependence item, DEP 79 ("I don’t
feel confident about my ability to solve everyday problems that come up"),
had several high correlations (.70) with items on other subscales and these
correlations were stronger than the items that form its own scale. After this
item was deleted the model terminated without a warning but the model fit
was still poor. FAIL 24 and ENM 63 were then removed due to
modification index values indicating cross loadings on other factors and co-
varied error terms with other items. These two items also had stronger
correlations with items on other factors then with the items on the same
scale. Once both items were removed, acceptable model fit was obtained,
420
! " (61) = 86.94, p < .016, RMSEA = .074 [.033-.108], CFI = .975, TLI =
.969, and SRMR = .081.

Impaired limits (Domain 3) had the same warning as in the victim
and target group due to non-identification. The same approach of modelling
the one-factor congenic models separately was applied to the non-target
group (see one-factor congeneric model results in Table 19).
The higher order model of other-directedness (Domain 4) did not
produce a warning in the non-target group but the data was not a good fit to
the model, ! " (51) = 90.31, p<.001, RMSEA = .100 [.065-.133], CFI = .947,
TLI = .952, and SRMR = .080. Three items were omitted. SAC 11 was
omitted due to poor item properties, such as low and non-significant inter-
item correlations, a very low factor loading compared to that of others, and
a low item reliability/ variance. SUB 82 and APP 52 were also removed due
to modification index values indicating cross loadings on other factors and
co-varied error terms with other items. These two items also had stronger
correlations with items on other factors then with the items on the same
scale. The re-specified model resulted in excellent model fit, ! " (24) = 31.66,
p < .136.
was found to not be a good fit to the data, ! " (131) = 215.22, p < .000,
PUN 54 was deleted due to a higher modification index with PUN 72,
which indicated item redundancy. These two items had a high correlation (>
.8) and similar item phrasing. PUN 72 was retained over PUN 54 as it fitted
in with the other punitiveness items, which focused more generally on self-
punishment for mistakes. However, PUN 54 was specific to mistakes made
in a work context. EMIN 48 had a modification index that indicated a
potential cross-loading on negativity and punitiveness latent factors. This
item also had stronger correlations in the bivariate correlation matrix with
items on other factors than with items on the same scale. The re-specified
421
model was a good fit to the data, ! " (100) = 134.41, p < .012, RMSEA =
.067 [.033-.094], CFI = .974, TLI = .968, and SRMR = .074.
422
List of Publications and Conferences
Publications
Alipan, A., Skues, J., Theiler, S., & Wise, L. (2019). Defining
cyberbullying: A multifaceted definition based on the perspectives of
emerging adults. International Journal of Bullying
Prevention. doi:10.1007/s42380-019-00018-6
Alipan, A., Skues, J., & Theiler, S. (2018). “They will find another way to
hurt you”: Emerging adults’ perceptions of coping with
cyberbullying. Emerging Adulthood. doi:10.1177/2167696818816896
Alipan, A., Skues, J., Theiler, S., & Wise, L. (2015). Defining
cyberbullying: A multiple perspectives approach. Annual Review of
Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 2015: Virtual Reality in Healthcare:
Medical Simulation and Experiential Interface, 219, 9.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-595-1-9
Conference Presentations
Alipan, A., Skues. J., & Theiler, S. (June, 2019). Investigating the
relationship between cyberbullying, early maladaptive schemas,
coping, and psychological distress in emerging adults. World Anti-
Bullying Forum, Dublin, Ireland.
Alipan, A. (July, 2016). The role of early maladaptive schemas in coping
with cyberbullying. Presented at the Alannah & Madeline
Foundation's National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB) Conference.
Towards Bullying Solutions: Theory and Practice, Melbourne,
Australia.
Alipan, A. (June, 2015). Defining cyberbullying: A multiple perspectives
approach. Presented in the Social Networking and Cyberbullying
symposium at the 20th Annual Cybertherapy and Social Networking
Conference. San Diego, USA.

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in Emerging Adults

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in Emerging Adults

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early

Maladaptive Schemas, Coping Styles, and Psychological Outcomes in

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements

Cyberbullying has been associated with various negative

Firstly, a big thank you to my supervisors, Associate Professor

This is to certify that this thesis:

candidate of any other degree or diploma, except where due

reference is made in the text of the examinable outcome;

ii. to the best of my knowledge contains no material published or

written by another person except where due reference is made in the

text of the examinable outcomes; and

iii. where work is based on joint research or publications, discloses the

relative contributions of the receptive workers or authors.

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Cyberbullying Behaviours, Early Maladaptive

Declaration ................................................................................................................................ viii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xvi

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xviii

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xxi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND THESIS OUTLINE ........................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW OF CYBERBULLYING AMONG EMERGING

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON CYBERBULLYING, EARLY MALADAPTIVE

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS ................................................................... 74

CHAPTER 5 PHASE 1, STUDY 1: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF CYBERBULLYING

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 101

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 122

CHAPTER 6 PHASE 1, STUDY 2: DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A NEW

Method ....................................................................................................................................... 149

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 162

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 182

CHAPTER 7 PHASE 2, STUDY 3: AN INVESTIGATION OF CYBERBULLYING

Method ....................................................................................................................................... 193

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 210

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 265

CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 282

References ................................................................................................................................ 292

Appendix A: Study 1 SUHREC Ethical Approval ........................................................... 340

Appendix B: Study 1 Research Flyer ................................................................................ 341

Appendix C: Study 1 Consent Information Statement (CIS) ..................................... 342

Appendix E: Study 2 SUHREC Ethical Approval ............................................................ 346

Appendix F: Study 2 Information Flyer .......................................................................... 347

Appendix H: Study 2 Debriefing Statement ................................................................... 350

Appendix I: Study 2 Questionnaire .................................................................................. 351

Appendix J: Study 3 SUHREC Ethical Approval ............................................................. 375

Appendix K: Study 3 Information Flyer .......................................................................... 376

Appendix L: Study 3 Consent Information Statement (CIS) ..................................... 377

Appendix M: Study 3 Debriefing Statement .................................................................. 379

Appendix N: Study 3 Questionnaire ................................................................................. 380

Appendix O: Study 3 Measurement Models .................................................................. 403

List of Publications and Conferences .............................................................................. 422

Table 1. Examples of Seven Types of Cyberbullying Behaviours During

Figure 1. Young et al.'s (2003) schema model ............................................ 67

evaluate whether schema coping styles moderate the relationships between

Focus of the Thesis

respondents are constrained to response options that are provided without

people who are victims of cyberbullying experience negative outcomes.

Purpose of the Thesis

1. What is the factor structure of the surrender, avoidance,

The purpose of Study 3 was to understand why some individuals

often defined cyberbullying from exclusively a perpetrator’s perspective.

developed due to limitations associated with the pre-existing inventories,

Scope of the Thesis