Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

T
The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming
environment
Chiao Ling Huanga, Shu Ching Yangb, , Lu Sheng Hsiehc
⁎

a
Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University, China
b
Graduate Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
c
Mituo Elementary School, Taiwan

A R TICL E INFO A BSTR A CT

Keywords: Based on Willard's (2007) classification of the eight types of cyberbullying behavior, this study examined pri-
Digital native mary, junior and senior high school students' bullying behavior in online gaming and the relationship between
Adolescent this behavior and their perception of the seriousness of bullying from the perspectives of perpetrators and
Cyberbullying victims. Factors related to cyberbullying, including gender and education level, were also examined. We used
Cyber-victimization
cyberbullying in online games scale to investigate the prevalence of students. Among 1112 respondents with
Online game
valid questionnaires, 81% (n = 902) responded their demographic information. Participants comprised ele-
mentary students (n = 268, 29.7%), junior high school students (n = 223, 24.7%) and senior high school stu-
dents (n = 411, 45.6%). Among them, 62.7% (n = 565) were males, and 37.3% (n = 337) were females. Our
study revealed that cyberbullying and cyber-victimization behavior from Willard's (2007) eight classifications
indeed existed in Taiwanese adolescent players, although the frequencies varied from person to person.
Compared with primary and junior high school students and girls, senior high school students and boys were
found to have more experience with various types of cyberbullying as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Additionally, there were statistically significant differences between victims and bullies in the perception of the
seriousness of CB outing acts. Therefore, to keep students from engaging in these deviant behaviors and be-
coming victims, schools and teachers should provide assistance that varies from student to student.

1. Introduction
Online gaming has become one of the most popular leisure activities
among children and teens (Hasebrink, Livingstone, Haddon, & Olafsson,
2009). A number of studies have investigated the high-profile Internet
risks associated with preteens' online gaming, such as cyberbullying
(CB), stranger danger, and exposure to violent and pornographic con-
tent (Hasebrink et al., 2009). Among these risks, CB and cyber-victi-
mization (CV) may be the most serious problems, as evidence has
shown that such experiences are associated with poor mental health
(Chang et al., 2013; Chu, Fan, Liu, & Zhou, 2018; Fahy et al., 2016;
Kim, Colwell, Kata, Boyle, & Georgiades, 2018). To keep students away
from CB, thirty-four states in the U.S. have adopted CB-specific legis-
lation (Albin, 2012).
In fact, the number of victims and bullies involved in CB is rising,
and this rise is positively linked with the increase in technological ad-
vancement and the use of technology by adolescents. Wolak, Mitchell,
and Finkelhor (2006) indicated a 50% increase in the percentage of
youth who were victims of online harassment from 2000 to 2005. In a
national study of 15,686 U.S. students in grades 6–10, Raskauskas and
Stoltz (2007) showed that 29.9% of the students reported moderate to
frequent involvement in bullying. It is clear that CB has become fairly
commonplace in the lives of adolescents, and CB has been identified
internationally as a major public health issue.
The extant literature has indicated that online games often contain
attacks and violence, which may have profound effects on youngsters'
psychological development and social interaction via acculturation
(Yang, 2012). In addition, many online games require players to col-
laborate to obtain treasures or terminate the game, and these compe-
titions often create conflicts because most rewards are limited. Under
this circumstance, once a gamer's partner has poor performance, they
will engage in irrational bullying behaviors such as scoffing or ex-
cluding the target gamer from a group activity. Players may imitate
malicious acts through observation based on Bandura's social learning
theory (Chang et al., 2015) and then behave aggressively (Yang, 2012).
One day, when those outsiders or victims encounter the same situation,

⁎
Corresponding author at: Graduate Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lien-hai Road., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan.
E-mail address: shyang@mail.nsysu.edu.tw (S.C. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104461

Available online 12 August 2019

Received 30 April 2019; Received in revised form 8 August 2019; Accepted 8 August 2019

0190-7409/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C.L. Huang, et al.
they will be likely to treat beginners according to the experiences that
they went through or observed previously. Regrettably, even game
companies understood that there are some risks for players while
gaming, some acquiesce to CB due to commercial motivations; from a
cost-benefit perspective, arbitrating players' conflicts does not increase
profits, and in fact, resources are required to detect these behaviors.
Apparently, the features of online gaming facilitate CB incidents
compared with other platforms; however, research regarding CB in
online gaming is scant (Li, 2015; Li & Pustaka, 2017; Zhu, Chu, Zhang,
& Li, 2018), leading to academic gaps in the field. This gap not only
existed in an online gaming context, Gahagan, Vaterlaus, and Frost
(2016) also indicated that extant studies rarely focus on the specific
technology platform. Accordingly, we addressed the first research
question: Are cyberbully and cyber-victimization that occur in an online
gaming context prevalent in our participants?
In the past, the characteristics of bullies and victims have received
considerable attention. Researchers have tried to sort out the relation-
ship among gender, educational stage and bullying roles. Most studies
have confirmed their speculations about bully differences with gender
(Barlett & Coyne, 2014; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Lapidot-Lefler &
Dolev-Cohen, 2015; Resett & Gamez-Guadix, 2017) and educational
stage.
Interestingly, compared to the inconsistency of gender finding, re-
searchers obtain relatively consistent results in age difference. Scholars
(eg: Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Tokunaga,
2010) indicated that cyberbullying perpetration tends to increase with
age. In a recent report, Barlett and Chamberlin (2017) found that CB
increases from youth to emerging adulthood and then diminishes. That
is, a student's age and bullying behavior are tightly connected to the
period of adolescence. Kowalski, Giumetti, and Cox (2019) also sug-
gested the importance of inspecting individual difference variables as
they relate to CB prevalence and outcome given the use of technology
across different demographic groups. In view of the importance of in-
dividual differences, when conducting a CB study, regardless of which
platform, this factor they should be included in the discussion. There-
fore, we addressed the second research question: Which gender and
educational stage students are likely to become cyberbullies and cyber-
victims in an online gaming context? Specifically, we further hy-
pothesized that older students are more likely to be cyberbullies and
cyber-victims than younger students.
Notably, although scholars have shown considerable light on CB, CB
research continues to encounter certain issues. For example, studies
seldom take culture differences into consideration (Zhu et al., 2018).
Chan and Wong (2015) conducted a systematic review of traditional
bullying (TB) and CB in Chinese societies and found that some specific
bully behaviors were particularly prevalent in Chinese children and
adolescents. A possible explanation is that Chinese students stress in-
terpersonal harmony and therefore tend to take actions based on
friends' requests in order to avoid conflicts. Therefore, CB behaviors
such as social exclusion may be more likely to occur than other beha-
viors. Accordingly, recruiting eastern students as a research sample
would be helpful to understand CB in the online gaming context from
another perspective.
In Taiwan, some researchers noted the relation between CB and
online gaming and conducted studies (eg: Chang et al., 2015; Yang,
2012). Specifically, Chang et al. (2015) inspected elements related with
the emergence and cessation of youngster cyberbullying and victimi-
zation, finding that playing online games, immersion in violence in
media, Internet risk behaviors, traditional bullying experiences and
Internet bullying experiences are good predictors. Yang (2012) in-
vestigated 1069 teen online gamers to scrutinize the association be-
tween respondents' gender, preference for video games, hostility, ag-
gressive behavior and CB/CV experiences, finding that both preferences
for video game and hostility had indirect relationships with CB. In
addition, being a victim was directly connected with both CB and ag-
gressive behavior and indirectly connected with CB. These studies
2
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
preliminarily revealed the veil of CB/CV in an online gaming environ-
ment; however, they did not distinguish the details of CB/CV and de-
serve a more detailed study.
With this in mind, the current study aimed to investigate the pre-
valence of CB and CV in online gaming environments and the char-
acteristics of bullies and victims. We also examined the detailed beha-
viors CB and CV incidents to response to Trolley, Hanel, and Shields's
(2009) claim, and included perceived seriousness in this study. That is,
we addressed the third research question: Do Taiwanese students with
different genders or educational stages have different views on the se-
verity of CB and CV? We assumed that the perception of the severity of
CB and CV would be associated with an individual's behavior, and this
notion is based on the theory of planned behavior, which indicate that
attitude and subject norms are two important factors related to in-
dividual action, and this question echoed the empirical evidence found
that judgment was associated with CB engagement. Specifically, we
hypothesized that females perceived CB and CV as more serious than
males, because abundant studies have indicated that girls are more
empathetic than boys (e.g., Batanova & Loukas, 2011; Rosario et al.,
2016). On the whole, it is believed that this research will deepen our
knowledge on CB.
2. Literature review
2.1. The concept and classification of CB
CB and TB are similar and both comprise three vital concepts: power
imbalance, causing intentional harm and repetition. Specifically, CB is
defined as the deliberate and repetitive harmful behavior caused via
electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006;
Tokunaga, 2010). It occurs in a network that connects the globe and has
no limit of space and time (Li, Smith, & Cross, 2012).
Willard (2007) indicated that CB is far more serious than TB due to
the malignancy, continuity, perceived invincibility and anonymity of
online exchanges. She further identified eight different categories of
common CB actions: flaming (using vulgar or coarse messages to cause
conflicts/fights), harassment (repeatedly sending offensive messages),
denigration (sharing harmful or untrue statements about someone on-
line), outing and trickery (sharing someone's personal sensitive, private
or embarrassing information), impersonation (pretending to be
someone else and sending or posting a message that makes that person
look bad), exclusion (intentionally or cruelly excluding someone from
an online group) and cyberstalking (repeatedly sending excessively
intimidating messages that make victims feel concerned for their own
safety). Apparently, this classification can help us to inspect well the
differences between different types of CB.
Since developing an effective intervention relies on a full under-
standing of the target situation, Trolley et al. (2009) noted that in-
vestigating the nuances of CB, as addressed by Willard (2007), should
be included in CB assessments. They further mentioned that it is im-
portant to address the potential reasons for a CB event, the specific form
of CB identified, who was involved and how often the event occurred,
providing a new direction for future research. Therefore, based on the
advantage of Willard's classification and the suggestion of Trolley et al.
(2009), the eight categories were applied in the present study.
2.2. The current situation of CB in eastern areas
Regarding the status quo in Asia, Shin and Ahn (2015) surveyed
1036 Korean students from junior high and senior high schools and
found that 7.8% of participants in South Korea admitted to having
cyberbullied someone. Wong, Chan, and Cheng (2014) examined 1917
Hong Kong teens and reported that 31.5% of their sample admitted to
an experience of CB in the previous 30 days. In addition, Chu et al.
(2018) and Zhu et al. (2018) indicated that 3 to 59% Chinese juveniles
had been involved in CB incidents in their literature reviews. In Taiwan,
C.L. Huang, et al.
the Child Welfare League Foundation conducted a randomized survey
of primary, junior and senior high schools in 2016. They found that
close to 74.1% of participants believed that CB is a serious issue,
and > 76% had either witnessed or engaged in CB activities.
This evidence shows that the prevalence of CB varies widely, and
there is no exact measurement of the CB rate, possibly due to variations
in study methodologies (i.e., participant recruitment and measure-
ments). Kowalski et al. (2014) indicated that the prevalence rates of
victimization/ perpetration are highly variable across studies, largely
due to differences in the way CB is defined, the ages and locations of
individuals sampled, the reporting time frame assessed (e.g., 2 months,
6 months), and the CB frequency rate by which an individual is clas-
sified as a perpetrator or a victim (e.g., at least once, several times a
week). In general, despite the different proportions of data, Asian stu-
dents do face the risk of CB when they use the Internet.
2.3. The characteristics of cyberbullying perpetration and online game
Researchers have found that engagement in online games can di-
rectly or indirectly forecast CB (e.g., Chang et al., 2015; Yang, 2012;
Zhu et al., 2018). For example, Li and Pustaka (2017) recruited 357
American college students to inspect their gaming-related CB experi-
ence and reported that 70% witnessed CB in online game and 57% had
an experience of CV while gaming. Leung and McBride-Chang (2013)
surveyed 626 5th and 6th graders from Hong Kong and found that 56%
were online gamers, 31.1% had experience bullying others, and 47.3%
had been bullied. In Taiwan, Chen et al. (2005) found that theft (73.7%,
n = 452) and fraud (20.2%, n = 124) were major online gaming crimes
and that many of the people committing these offenses were young
students (63.3%, n = 388, were 15 to 20 years old, and 8.3%, n = 52,
were < 15 years old).
Interestingly, empirical studies have found that students of different
genders have dissimilar experiences of CB and CV. Males are more
likely than females to be bullies or victims of bullying (Calvete, Orue,
Estévez, Villardón, & Padilla, 2010; Erdur-Baker, 2010; Popovic-Citic,
Djuric, & Cvetkovic, 2011). For example, in their analysis of 1431
Spanish juveniles, Calvete et al. (2010) reported that males use CB to a
greater extent than females. Erdur-Baker (2010) examined 276 teens'
CB and its correlations with TB, gender and frequent and risky usage of
Internet-mediated communication tools and found that boys were more
likely to be bullies and victims in both physical and cyber-environments
than girls. Finally, Popovic-Citic et al. (2011) scrutinized 387 young-
sters in Serbia to determine the current situation regarding CB and
revealed obvious gender differences in CB, with boys reporting higher
levels of bullying others and being victimized by cyberbullies than girls.
Although relatively few studies have confirmed gender differences
in an online gaming context, such differences may exist. Chang et al.
(2015) explored the relationship between online gaming and CB/CV
experience and found that boys were more inclined to be involved in CB
and CV activities compared to girls. Since their male participants also
admitted spending more time on online games, they further inferred
that exposure to online gaming might account for this incidence. These
reports highlight the impact of gender; therefore, when we discuss these
behaviors, we should not overlook the gender issue.
Based on literature reviews, we adopt the CB classification proposed
by Willard (2007) to develop an instrument to further explore Taiwa-
nese teens' CB and CV experiences in an online gaming environment.
Related factors such as gender, educational level and perception of the
seriousness of bullying were also included.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
This study recruited participants from 24 primary, junior high and
senior high schools from three cities in southern Taiwan. A total of
3
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
1130 paper-and-pencil questionnaires were distributed, and 1112 stu-
dents completed the questionnaire. Among the respondents, 81%
(n = 902) responded their demographic information. Of the subjects,
62.7% (n = 565) were male, and 37.3% (n = 337) were female, and the
respondents varied in education level: 29.7% (n = 268) were in ele-
mentary school, 24.7% (n = 223) were in junior high school, and
45.6% (n = 411) were in senior high school. Notably, many re-
spondents (41%) had > 5 years of experience with online games.
3.2. Procedures
The same procedure was used to gather data from elementary-
school-aged children through to high school students. Using the method
of convenient sampling, we contacted familiar teachers to request that
they announce the research recruitment. An invitation letter for re-
search participation was distributed to students' parents before con-
ducting this research. The letter addressed the research purpose/pro-
cedure and asked for permission for their child to participate in this
study. After teachers collected all the students willing to participate,
well-trained research assistants scheduled and collected the data in
their class. Participation in this study was voluntary, anonymous and
confidential, and students were able drop out at any time without any
penalty. The questionnaires were administered in class during the stu-
dents' regularly scheduled class times. This scale took students 25 min
to fill in, and all participants received a small gift as a reward, whether
or not they finished the survey.
3.3. Research instruments
3.3.1. The CB in online games scale (CBOGS)
We developed a CB in online games scale (CBOGS) to identify the
frequency and perceived seriousness of respondents' CB experiences in
an online gaming context in the roles of cyberbully and cyber-victim.
This scale has eight types of CB based on Willard's (2007) classification,
including flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing,
trickery, exclusion and cyberstalking.
Four experts with diverse research expertise related to higher edu-
cation, two high school guidance counselors and one elementary school
teacher reviewed the CBOGS instrument. The reviewers evaluated the
items to confirm the content validity and to determine whether the
items were clearly worded, comprehensive and understandable for
students from elementary school to high school.
The CBOGS contains two datasets to collect CB/CV experiences and
perceptions of CB/CV. Specifically, the first dataset contained two
subscales: “Bullying/Victimization Frequency,” and the second
dataset also contained two subscales: “Perceived Seriousness of Bullying/
Victimization.” For Bullying/Victimization Frequency, the items are the
same, except the statements relate active bullying to ‘being a cyber-
bully,’ while the statements for victims are addressed passively as ‘being
a cyber-victim.’ The same distinctions are observed for Perceived
Seriousness of Bullying/Victimization. Moreover, to reduce the like-
lihood of social desirability bias, the term ‘cyberbullying’ is never used
explicitly, as suggested by Juvonen and Gross (2008).
Bullying/Victimization Frequency explores respondents' experi-
ences as bullies or victims in the past six months. Respondents rate their
agreement to these statements on a five-point Likert scale of 0 (never), 1
(1–3 times), 2 (4–6 times), 3 (7–9 times), and 4 (> 10 times). Higher
scores indicate more experience as a bully or as a victim of bullying.
Perceived Seriousness of Bullying/Victimization examines the serious-
ness of each bullying behavior from respondents' perspectives as bullies
or victims. Participants rate their agreement with these statements on a
four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not serious) to 3 (very serious).
Higher scores indicate higher perceived seriousness. The alpha values
for CB experience, CV experience, CB severity and CV severity tested
with our sample were 0.97, 0.95, 0.97 and 0.96, respectively.
C.L. Huang, et al. Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the frequency and perceived seriousness of bully/victim status (Whole sample)
Description Victim Bully Perceived seriousness

M None 1–3 4–6 7–9 > 10 M None 1–3 4–6 7–9 > 10 CB CV

(SD) n n n n n %

% % % % % (SD) n n n n

% % % %

M M

(SD) (SD)

A. Flaming (FL)
1. Using sharp/insulting language against someone in gaming 0.37 827 146 55 21 20 0.32 838 119 28 6 34 1.08 0.97
forums or communities 0.83 77.4 13.7 5.1 2.0 1.9 0.84 81.8 11.6 2.7 0.6 3.3 (0.79) (0.68)
2. Disgracing someone because of different viewpoints on gaming 0.29 879 114 50 11 15 0.28 872 80 33 13 26 1.18 1.09
forums or communities 0.73 82.2 10.7 4.7 1.0 1.4 0.81 85.2 7.8 3.2 1.3 2.5 (0.92) (0.68)

B. Harassment (HA)
3. Mocking someone by repeatedly calling him/her indecent 0.34 895 69 55 20 30 0.28 889 65 28 13 32 1.27 1.03
names 0.88 83.7 6.5 5.1 1.9 2.8 0.84 86.6 6.3 2.7 1.3 3.1 (0.98) (0.76)
4. Repeatedly insulting someone with vulgar language 0.49 790 151 57 28 43 0.35 839 98 39 21 30 1.11 0.97
1.00 73.9 14.1 5.3 2.6 4.0 0.88 81.7 9.5 3.8 2.0 2.9 (0.90) (0.79)
5. Repeatedly sending dirty jokes 0.22 938 74 20 22 15 0.14 951 33 19 15 8 1.37 1.11
0.71 87.7 6.9 1.9 2.1 1.4 0.59 92.7 3.2 1.9 1.5 0.8 (0.93) (0.92)
6. Repeatedly sending sexually suggestive messages (such as 0.14 983 43 26 9 8 0.12 970 16 18 16 6 1.38 1.11
dating for money) 0.56 92.0 4.0 2.4 0.8 0.7 0.55 94.5 1.6 1.8 1.6 0.6 (1.02) (0.86)

C. Denigration (DE)
7. Intentionally belittling someone's strength in games to fight for 0.32 890 97 30 25 27 0.18 933 42 27 12 13 1.19 1.03
treasure 0.85 83.3 9.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 0.65 90.8 4.1 2.6 1.2 1.3 (0.81) (0.80)
8. Intentionally making up someone's misconduct to win someone 0.21 956 52 28 18 15 0.15 950 28 27 15 7 1.35 1.15
over 0.70 89.4 4.9 2.6 1.7 1.4 0.59 92.5 2.7 2.6 1.5 0.7 (0.83) (0.87)
9. Intentionally discrediting someone in treasure or money trades 0.21 958 48 30 17 16 0.14 960 30 22 8 11 1.46 1.26
0.71 89.6 4.5 2.8 1.6 1.5 0.58 93.1 2.9 2.1 0.8 1.1 (0.97) (0.89)

D. Impersonation (IM)
10. Impersonating someone's friends to avenge 0.15 991 32 20 14 12 0.13 961 24 25 11 6 1.38 1.30
0.62 92.7 3.0 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.54 93.6 2.3 2.4 1.1 0.6 (0.95) (0.82)
11. Pretending to be the opposite sex to deceive someone 0.16 988 32 19 18 12 0.13 968 20 18 8 13 1.23 1.42
0.64 92.4 3.0 1.8 1.7 1.1 0.59 94.3 1.9 1.8 0.8 1.3 (0.79) (0.99)
12. Impersonating someone to send sexually suggestive messages 0.12 1001 25 25 14 4 0.10 976 18 21 8 4 1.44 1.34
0.53 93.6 2.3 2.3 1.3 0.4 0.47 95.0 1.8 2.0 0.8 0.4 (0.94) (0.91)
13. Being impersonated to send dating-for-money messages 0.12 1002 29 12 21 3 0.12 973 19 15 7 12 1.39 1.50
0.53 93.9 2.7 1.1 2.0 0.3 0.56 94.8 1.9 1.5 0.7 1.2 (0.88) (0.97)
14. Impersonating someone to insult someone with vulgar 0.23 948 57 22 20 22 0.16 948 26 29 15 9 1.36 1.28
language or to call someone indecent names 0.76 88.7 5.3 2.1 1.9 2.1 0.62 92.3 2.5 2.8 1.5 0.9 (0.94) (0.95)

E. Outing (OU)
15. Revealing someone's privacy without permission due to 0.14 996 30 13 23 7 0.12 967 21 19 13 7 1.37 1.51
disputes in games 0.60 93.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 0.7 0.55 94.2 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.7 (0.90) (0.89)
16. Falsifying someone's private information without permission 0.14 993 28 27 18 3 0.12 969 18 19 17 4 1.29 1.55
due to disputes 0.55 92.9 2.6 2.5 1.7 0.3 0.54 94.4 1.8 1.9 1.7 0.4 (0.81) (0.98)
17. Posting game account and password information without 0.17 978 39 25 17 10 0.12 970 19 13 19 6 1.38 1.63
permission due to disputes 0.63 91.5 3.6 2.3 1.6 0.9 0.56 94.4 1.9 1.3 1.9 0.6 (0.81) (1.00)
18. Revealing someone's secrets without permission due to 0.15 987 34 28 11 9 0.12 966 19 24 11 7 1.23 1.65
disputes in games 0.59 92.3 3.2 2.6 1.0 0.8 0.55 94.1 1.9 2.3 1.1 0.7 (0.88) (1.02)

F. Trickery (TR)
19. Promising to help acquire treasure but later selling me out 0.23 935 68 33 18 15 0.13 965 21 17 13 11 1.35 1.50
0.71 87.5 6.4 3.1 1.7 1.4 0.60 94.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.1 (0.84) (0.93)
20. Borrowing treasure without returning it and even disappearing 0.29 902 89 35 18 23 0.13 964 21 16 19 7 1.47 1.64
0.79 84.5 8.3 3.3 1.7 2.2 0.58 93.9 2.0 1.6 1.9 0.7 (0.90) (1.02)
21. Recruiting me under the name of a game community and 0.15 985 34 29 14 7 0.13 962 20 26 12 7 1.27 1.38
kicking me out after cheating me out of virtual accessories 0.58 92.1 3.2 2.7 1.3 0.7 0.56 93.7 1.9 2.5 1.2 0.7 (0.86) (0.96)

(continued on next page)

4
C.L. Huang, et al. Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461

Table 1 (continued)

Description Victim Bully Perceived seriousness

M None 1–3 4–6 7–9 > 10 M None 1–3 4–6 7–9 > 10 CB CV

(SD) n n n n n %

% % % % % (SD) n n n n

% % % %

M M

(SD) (SD)

G. Exclusion (EX)
22. Instigating others to exclude me because they do not want me 0.20 954 61 21 18 15 0.18 928 47 27 16 9 1.30 1.36
in the game 0.69 89.2 5.7 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.63 90.4 4.6 2.6 1.6 0.9 (0.82) (0.89)
23. Excluding me from participating in a community because they 0.15 986 31 23 14 10 0.15 944 37 22 14 9 1.23 1.30
do not want me in the game 0.60 92.7 2.9 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.60 92.0 3.6 2.1 1.4 0.9 (0.91) (0.91)
24. Excluding me from participating in a community because they 0.12 1012 12 20 19 6 0.14 955 27 17 21 6 1.34 1.43
do not like the sex represented by my avatar in the game 0.57 94.7 1.1 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.59 93.1 2.6 1.7 2.0 0.6 (0.95) (1.01)
25. Excluding me from a group activity due to a dispute in the 0.20 959 49 26 19 14 0.17 932 44 20 17 11 1.17 1.23
game 0.69 89.9 4.6 2.4 1.8 1.3 0.64 91.0 4.3 2.0 1.7 1.1 (0.91) (0.90)

H. Cyberstalking (CS)
26. Finding and threatening me if I do not follow what they say 0.17 979 36 25 20 9 0.13 957 29 25 11 5 1.41 1.65
0.63 91.6 3.4 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.53 93.2 2.8 2.4 1.1 0.5 (0.87) (0.97)
27. Finding out someone's identity and threatening him/her if he/ 0.11 1013 13 23 18 2 0.13 962 21 24 13 6 1.41 1.62
she collects the treasure 0.52 94.8 1.2 2.2 1.7 0.2 0.55 93.8 2.0 2.3 1.3 0.6 (0.86) (0.97)
28. Finding and threatening me if I contact someone 0.15 979 38 30 14 6 0.12 968 22 15 15 6 1.52 1.30
0.58 91.8 3.6 2.8 1.3 0.6 0.54 94.3 2.1 1.5 1.5 0.6 (0.91) (0.87)

Note. The statements for the CB items are active; the statements for the CV items are passive. Item descriptions are condensed for brevity.

3.4. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, MANOVA and ANOVA were em-
ployed to analyze the collected data. Descriptive statistics was performed
to examine the current CB/CV experiences and overall perception of se-
verity of the above experiences. A paired t-test was applied to determine
whether there was a statistically significant difference between victims
and bullies in the perception of seriousness of CB acts. MANOVA and
ANOVA were conducted to inspect the characteristics of cyberbullies and
cyber-victims, and to further compare the judgment of students with dif-
ferent characteristics toward the severity of the bully/victim experience.
4. Findings
4.1. Descriptive analysis of bully/victim experience frequencies in online
games
Table 1 shows the average scores of eight forms of cyber-victimi-
zation (CV), as reported by the questionnaire. The scores of individual
items range between 0.11 and 0.49, with Flaming (M = 0.33,
SD = 0.70) being the most common type of victimization, followed by
Harassment (M = 0.30, = SD 0.64), Denigration (M = 0.25,
SD = 0.61), Trickery (M = 0.23, SD = 0.62), Exclusion (M = 0.18,
SD = 0.58), Impersonation (M = 0.16, SD = 0.52), Outing (M = 0.15,
SD = 0.53) and Cyberstalking (M = 0.15, SD = 0.53).
Among respondents who had experienced CV at least four times, the
three most prevalent behaviors were item 4, ‘repeatedly insulting
someone with vulgar language’ (n = 57, 5.3%); item 3, ‘mocking
someone by repeatedly calling him/her indecent names’ (n = 55, 5.1%);
and item 1, ‘using sharp/insulting language against someone in gaming
forums or communities’ (n = 55, 5.1%). The least frequent type of CV
was item 13, ‘being impersonated to send dating-for-money messages’
(n = 12, 1.1%); item 15, ‘revealing one's privacy without permission due
to disputes’ (n = 13, 1.2%); and item 11, ‘pretending to be the opposite
sex to deceive someone’ (n = 19, 1.8%). Among respondents who had
experienced CV at least once, the majority of CV experiences were in the
form of Harassment, Flaming, Denigration and Trickery.
The average scores of the eight forms of CB ranged between 0.10
and 0.35. Flaming was the most frequent behavior (M = 0.30,
SD = 0.74), followed by Harassment (M = 0.22, SD = 0.59),
Denigration (M = 0.16, SD = 0.54), Exclusion (M = 0.16, SD = 0.54),
Trickery (M = 0.13, SD = 0.53), Impersonation (M = 0.13, SD = 0.50),
Outing (M = 0.12, SD = 0.50) and Cyberstalking (M = 0.12,
SD = 0.49). Flaming was the most frequently reported category, while
Outing and Cyberstalking were the least common.
Among respondents who had experienced CB at least four times,
item 4, ‘repeatedly insulting someone with vulgar language’ (n = 39,
3.8%), was the most common type of CB experienced, followed by item
2, ‘disgracing someone because of different viewpoints on gaming
forums or communities’ (n = 33, 3.2%), and item 14, ‘impersonating
someone to insult someone else with vulgar language or to call someone
indecent names’ (n = 29, 2.8%). Item 17, ‘posting game account and
password information without permission due to disputes’ (n = 13,
1.3%), was the least frequent, followed by item 13, ‘being impersonated
to send dating-for-money messages’ (n = 15, 1.5%), and item 28, ‘find
and threaten if contact someone’ (n = 15, 1.5%). Among respondents
who had engaged in CB at least once, most engaged in Harassment,
Flaming, and Exclusion (Fig. 1).
4.2. Analysis of the perceived seriousness of bullying/victimization
experiences
The average scores on the eight forms of the perceived seriousness
of CV fell between 0.97 and 1.65, while those of the perceived

5
C.L. Huang, et al.
Fig. 1. The Frequency and Perceived Seriousness of Victim/Bully Experiences.
seriousness of CB ranged from 1.08 to 1.52. For CV, Outing (M = 1.34,
SD = 0.46), Cyberstalking (M = 1.22, SD = 0.41) and Harassment
(M = 1.19, SD = 0.37) were perceived to be most serious, while
Trickery (M = 0.92, SD = 0.51), Denigration (M = 0.94, SD = 0.56)
and Impersonation (M = 0.96, SD = 0.44) were considered the least
serious. For CB, Cyberstalking (M = 1.23, SD = 0.39), Outing
(M = 1.20, SD = 0.32) and Impersonation (M = 1.18, SD = 0.33) were
perceived to be the most serious, while Flaming (M = 0.91, SD = 0.43),
Exclusion (M = 1.02, SD = 0.41), Harassment (M = 1.10, SD = 0.43),
Denigration (M = 1.10, SD = 0.43), and Trickery (M = 1.10,
SD = 0.35) were considered the least serious.
As perceived by bullies, the three most serious types of CB were item
28, ‘find and threaten if contact someone’ (M = 1.52), item 20, ‘bor-
rowing treasure without returning and even disappearing’ (M = 1.47),
and item 9, ‘intentionally discrediting someone in treasure or money
trades’ (M = 1.46). As perceived by victims, the three most serious
types of CV were item 18, ‘revealing someone's secrets without per-
mission due to disputes in games’ (M = 1.65), item 26, ‘find and
threaten if victims who do not do what they say’ (M = 1.65), and item
20, ‘borrowing treasure without returning it and even disappearing’
(M = 1.64). The survey showed that both bullies and victims perceived
bullying behaviors that invade privacy, such as outing and stalking, as
Fig. 2. Gender Differences in the Frequency and Perceived Seriousness of Bully/Victim Experiences.
6
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
serious. Moreover, both groups regarded items 1 and 4, Flaming and
Harassment, respectively, to be the least serious types of bullying.
Notably, there were statistically significant differences between
victims and bullies in the perception of seriousness of CB acts, except
for Cyberstalking.
4.3. Analysis of gender differences in the frequency and perceived
seriousness of bully/victim experiences
Consistent with previous studies conducted on other online plat-
forms (Calvete et al., 2010; Erdur-Baker, 2010; Khamis, 2015; Popovic-
Citic et al., 2011; Wong et al., 2014), which have shown that males are
more likely than females to be bullies or victims of bullying, this study
found that boys more frequently reported CB and CV experiences than
girls on all forms of the CBOGS.
Regarding the perceived seriousness of CB and CV behaviors, it is
interesting that boys perceived their own victimization as more serious
than did girls (Pillai's Trace = 0.05, p < .001, η2p = 0.05; Box’
M = 890.73, F = 24.55, p < .001), particularly for Impersonation
(Brown-Forsythe = 10.78, p = .001), Outing (Brown-Forsythe = 19.04,
p < .001), Trickery (Brown-Forsythe = 21.69, p < .001), and
Exclusion (Brown-Forsythe = 31.24, p < .001). Girls perceived the
experiences of bullying victims as more serious than boys (Pillai's
Trace = 0.04, p < .001,η2p = 0.04; Box’ M = 1037.40, F = 28.59,
p < .001) in five forms of CB: Harassment (Brown-Forsythe = 15.51,
p < .001), Denigration (Brown-Forsythe = 17.55, p < .001),
Impersonation (Brown-Forsythe = 14.80, p = .001), Exclusion (Brown-
Forsythe = 9.74, p = .002), and Cyberstalking (Brown-
Forsythe = 27.08, p < .0001) (Fig. 2).
4.4. Analysis of educational stage differences in the frequency and perceived
seriousness of bully/victim experiences
We found that differences in the respondents' education levels were
significant for all eight forms of CB behavior. Overall, the percentage of
senior high school students who were bullies or victims was sig-
nificantly higher than the percentage of elementary and junior high
school students affected by bullying.
With regard to the perceived seriousness of CB and CV, senior high
school students seemed to be more aware of the severity of CB (Pillai's
Trace = 0.08, p < .001, η2p = 0.04; Box’ M = 1268.91, F = 17.43,
C.L. Huang, et al.
Fig. 3. Educational Level in the Frequency and Perceived Seriousness of Bully/Victim Experiences.
p < .001) and CV (Pillai's Trace = 0.11, p < .001, η2p = 0.06; Box’
M = 994.45, = 13.66, p < .001) compared with students in primary
and junior high school. The results of the ANOVA and post hoc tests
showed that senior high school students were relatively conscious of the
gravity of bullying through Flaming (Brown-Forsythe = 16.87,
p < .001), Harassment (Brown-Forsythe = 11.51, p < .001),
Denigration (Brown-Forsythe = 9.79, p < .001), and Impersonation
(Brown-Forsythe = 14.18, p < .001). They also displayed relative
comprehension that being the victim of Flaming (Brown-
Forsythe = 20.77, p < .001) and Exclusion (Brown-Forsythe = 10.62,
p < .001) are serious (Fig. 3).
5. Discussion
In sum, we found that 6 to 21% of students engaged in CB perpe-
tration, and 6 to 31% had a CV experience in online gaming at least
once during the past 6 months. These rates are far below the results of
Tippett and Kwak (2012) and Li and Pustaka (2017). Tippett and Kwak
examined 193 Korean children, finding that approximately one third of
their students bullied others and 43% of the pupils were bullied in a
gaming context in the last two months. Li and Pustaka (2017) surveyed
357 American college students and reported that > 50% or their re-
spondents were bullies or victims. We inferred that the discrepancies in
prevalence may result from the different ages of the research samples,
but even so, this previous evidence and our results echo Fryling, Cotler,
Rivituso, Mathews, and Pratico's (2015) conclusion that CB is an issue
on online gaming platforms.
Interestingly, when we compare our results with other CB research
on online platforms in Taiwan, the percentage of CB in our study is
similar to that in a report by Yang, Lin, and Chen (2014), who found
that 2.7 to 28.9% of their participants had cyberbullied others. How-
ever, the figures in our study are much higher than those of Yang et al.
(2014), who indicated that 0.6–10% of their respondents were victims
of CB activities. This may support our expectation that CB occurs more
easily in online gaming environments than on other platforms, but this
idea requires further inspection. It is worth noting that CB is usually
defined as a repetitive act, and under this concept, the frequency of
occurrence ranging from once to three times should be excluded in the
analysis. However, according to the definition proposed by Taiwan
Ministry of Education (2012), repeatability is not a necessary condition
for a CB event. Given that this study aimed to investigate CB prevalence
7
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
among Taiwanese students, adjusting the content to align with Taiwa-
nese conditions would be appropriate. Therefore, the frequency of oc-
currence ranging from once to three times was still included in our
analysis.
Regarding the most frequently encountered bullying behavior,
flaming was the most common type mentioned by both bullies and
victims, followed by harassment; this finding is supported by Tippett
and Kwak's (2012) report. In their analysis, aggressive language, such
as swearing or insults (64% reporting), was the most common experi-
ence of online game bullying, followed by name calling (44%), violence
against one's avatar (16%), threats (12%), rumor spreading (4%), and
social exclusion (2%). Although exclusion was not on the list of the top
three behaviors, students were still more likely to suffer this persecution
than other bullying activities (impersonation, outing and cyber-
stalking). This implies that exclusion may be particularly likely among
Chinese students. However, the dissimilar classifications used in the
study may also account for this variation.
With respect to the attitude toward CB incidents, approximately
70% of students believed that being a bully or victim is of little or no
seriousness or even a trivial or minor misbehavior. It appeared that
students' perception of the severity of these behaviors was inversely
related to the frequency of the occurrence of the behaviors (e.g.,
Flaming, Harassment). Whether this is due to students' lack of knowl-
edge, lack of understanding of the nature of the bullying act, mis-
conceptions of willful misconduct, or lack of empathy for CB victims,
the factors leading to students' perceptions of serious CB instances re-
quire further investigation. Students' perceived seriousness of CV in-
cidents is related to their levels of empathy and influence the likelihood
that they will be involved in bullying behavior. It is imperative to foster
students' Internet literacy, ethics and safety, and it is necessary to en-
hance students' empathy in order to decrease CB (Ang & Goh, 2010;
Rosario et al., 2016; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, & Melzer, 2011). Future
studies are also important to address the potential reasons for students'
disregard of online bullying.
Further examining the gender judgments on the severity of CB/CV
experience, females might view bullying as a more serious issue because
they are more empathetic toward victims; this notion is supported by a
number of studies indicating that girls are more empathetic than boys
(e.g., Batanova & Loukas, 2011; Rosario et al., 2016), particularly re-
garding the effects of their bullying on others. Interestingly, gender
differences may also exist in tip-off. For example, in Fryling et al.'s
C.L. Huang, et al.
(2015) descriptive analysis, they found that a relatively high proportion
of female gamers (49%) were willing to report CB, whereas the corre-
sponding proportion of male gamers was 45%. Moreover, moral judg-
ment may be another explanation for this finding. Bouhnik and Mor
(2014) examined teenagers' attitudes toward immoral behavior in the
Internet environment, and they found that girls were more likely to
make “humane judgments” than boys. They further perceived humane
judgment to be a value of supreme justice that does not differentiate
based on gender, age, race, or religion. It is parallel to Kohlberg's
“autonomic moral standard” (1969, pp. 53–54), to Piaget's “cognitive
operational level” (1932, pp. 32–34) and to Bull's “autonomic judgment
level” (1969, pp. 33–35). Males perceived their own CV as most serious,
and our findings might be explained by the fact that the majority of
virtual bullies and victims identified in the present study were males;
therefore, they had a more empathetic response toward their own
victimization than toward others' victimization.
Finally, consistent with previous TB studies, our study identified an
initial increase in bullying and victimization when pupils transitioned
from primary to secondary school (Griffin & Gross, 2004; Pellegrini &
Long, 2002; Pepler et al., 2006; Salmivalli, 2002). The reasons for this
increase might be that as students grow older, they engage more in
online gaming, which increases their exposure to the circumstances in
which CB or CV occurs. Ybarra and Mitchell's study (2004) showed that
both online aggressors and targets are intense Internet users. Moreover,
some studies have found evidence of a correlation between frequent
Internet use and perpetrating or witnessing CB/CV (e.g., Balakrishnan,
2015; Park, Na, & Kim, 2014). Future studies might further validate
these speculations. Paradoxically, CB and CV behaviors also frequently
occurred in this educational stage. This result implies that there was a
gap between moral judgment and actual actions, which highlights the
importance of proper guidance from adults. This must not be over-
looked.
6. Conclusion
Our findings showed that bullying in online gaming environments
indeed exists among Taiwanese students, implying the importance and
urgency of developing a proper strategy to address this problem. For
practical guidance, as we mentioned previously, to foster students'
Internet literacy, ethics and safety are required. To give clear definition
and scope of CB should be a good way to prevent these misbehaviors.
Furthermore, empirical evidence has indicated that peer affiliation is a
determinant for bullying behavior. Hence, teachers can encourage at-
risk students to develop relationships with students who possess nega-
tive perceptions or moral judgment toward CB. Furthermore, fierce
competition between players in an online gaming context may sow the
seeds of CB. Therefore, cultivating students with good sportsmanship
would be helpful to decrease the conflict caused by competition and
further prevent the CB event. Notably, students may be reluctant to tell
adults about their CV due to two concerns: that their time online would
be limited and that adults would not be able to help them (Coburn,
Connolly, & Roesch, 2015; Willard, 2007). In view of its impact on
disclosure rates, effective solutions must be considered; if adolescents
do not inform others about their victimization, even the most appro-
priate solution will not be effective (Coburn et al., 2015).
It is noteworthy that the frequency of self-reported CV experiences
(having one to three CV experiences, 1.1 to 14.1%; having CV experi-
ences more than four times, 3.4 to 11.9%) was higher than the fre-
quency of CB involvement (having one to three CB experiences, 1.6 to
11.6%; having a CB experience more than four times, 3.2 to 8.7%),
which corresponds with the self-reports of more CV than CB for each
type of bullying behavior. In our study, self-reports revealed that CV
was approximately 1–1.5 times more frequent than CB. These results
could be interpreted in light of the possibility that students were not
honest in reporting CB behavior, as predicted by the theory of social
desirability bias. Moreover, a difference between CV and CB scores was
8
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
expected, but the magnitude of the difference was not. As indicated by
the averages of all questionnaire items, the extent of CV was sig-
nificantly greater than that of CB (Mvictim = 0.22, Mbully = 0.17,
t = 4.91; p < .001).
It should be noted that on the CBOGS, participants rated their re-
sponses on a scale of 0 (never), 1 (1–3 times), 2 (4–6 times), 3 (7–9
times), and 4 (> 10 times). In this regard, the means could be regarded
as low. Despite this mathematically low finding, it has implications that
should not be downplayed, as there are severe emotional and beha-
vioral problems associated with CB/CV, such as depression (Chang
et al., 2013; Chu et al., 2018; Gámez-Guadix, Orue, Smith, & Calvete,
2013; Schneider, O'Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012; Selkie, Kota,
Chan, & Moreno, 2015), anxiety (Chu et al., 2018), suicidal intention
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Schneider et al., 2012), substance abuse
(Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Selkie et al., 2015; Wright, 2016), and
legal issues.
Based on the above analysis of the CBOGS in relation to respondents'
own bully/victim experiences and the perception of the corresponding
seriousness of CB or CV instances for the bully/victim, the study in-
dicated that participants' responses on the CBOGS were somewhat con-
sistent with known facts. However, an astounding finding of this study
was that students tended to consider bullying instances from both bullies'
and victims' perspectives to be minor and not serious misbehavior. As
indicated by the paired t-test, some significant differences existed in the
reported perceived seriousness of bully and victim comparison. Besides,
the reported perception of the seriousness of bullying/victimization ex-
periences was relatively low for both bullies and victims. This phenom-
enon is worthy of attention. Students' underestimation of the seriousness
of bullying may reflect their belief that bullying is acceptable or toler-
able, which might be linked with a tendency not to intervene, thus
leading to the encouragement of rampant bullying acts. Another ex-
planation is that students do not fully understand the concept of CB/CV
behaviors and underestimate their gravity. Cheng, Chen, Ho, and Cheng
(2011) investigated 591 Taiwanese educators' and 967 students' per-
ceptions of bullying and found inconsistent notions of bullying. However,
the above hypotheses regarding acceptable/tolerable beliefs or mis-
understanding of CB/CV require further substantiation.
Regarding the impact of grade levels on CB, our findings showed
that senior high students had more experience with bullying behaviors.
It is inferred that senior high students possess higher levels of in-
formation literacy and more frequently play online games, which in
turn increases their exposure to the circumstances in which online
bullying occurs. As a result, senior high students report more experi-
ences with CB and CV than those in other educational stages.
Regarding the impact of gender, our study found that CB rates were
higher among boys than among girls, which is consistent with previous
studies conducted in the context of online gaming and other electronic
media; the same pattern was true for adolescents who were cyberbul-
lied. Compared with the girls, the boys reported more frequently en-
gaging in bullying behaviors and being cyberbullied in all eight forms of
the CBOGS. Since a child's gender and emotion-focused coping are risk
factors for the development of bullying behaviors, whereas age, pro-
blem-focused coping, and both family and school environment are
important protective factors (Khamis, 2015), adults should give chil-
dren proper care, assist them with developing the right strategies to
deal with their negative emotions and endeavor to establish an en-
vironment full of amicability and safety. Notably, these findings do not
support the stereotypical patterns of bullying that suggest that boys are
more likely to use physical and direct aggression, while girls bully more
often with relational or indirect aggression (Faris & Felmlee, 2011;
Keith & Martin, 2005; Nabuzoka, 2003). Further research is required to
determine whether male online gamers use bullying as a dominance
strategy or that males are more willing to report their bullying beha-
viors than females.
Regarding the limitations, first, all alpha values for the constructed
subscales of CBOGS exceed 0.90, and this may be a methodological
C.L. Huang, et al.
restriction in our study. Although scholars have a different re-
commended level of alpha coefficient, some have suggested that a value
between 0.70 and 0.95 is acceptable (eg: Nunnally, 1978) and some
have indicated that given the fact that the high value may reflect re-
dundancy of item content, the value should not exceed 0.90 (Boyle,
1991; Streiner, 2003). Second, since we adopted a convenient sampling
technique to recruit participants, it is not appropriate to generalize our
result to the entire population of young Taiwanese gamers. Third, when
investigating the prevalence rate of CB/CV, this study adopted fre-
quency range to ask students to report their experiences; therefore, we
were unable to provide the exact number of occurrences and we sug-
gested that future studies could use open-ended question format rather
than structured response format to address this issue. Fourth, the cross-
sectional design of this study limits our ability to infer causal re-
lationships and should be viewed as exploratory in the absence of
longitudinal data. However, our examination of background variables
(gender and grade level) and our investigation of the relationship be-
tween CB behavior and students' attitudes toward the seriousness of CB
can provide contexts for understanding students' bullying in online
games and further diagnose the instances or prevalence patterns of CB
behaviors among Taiwanese students.
Our study focuses on the context of playing online games because
the prevalence of new CB behaviors in online games cannot be ignored.
Moreover, our study revealed the most common types of CB and CV
experiences and found that students' attitudes reflected an insufficient
understanding of the seriousness of CB (particularly Flaming and
Harassment). A plan and a program to educate students about cyber
safety and research methodology are required for all education levels.
Furthermore, this study can help program developers, instructors, and
administrators in Taiwan identify potentially useful intervention pro-
grams by determining the most prevalent types of CB and allowing
them to take appropriate actions. Future research should attempt to
implement and evaluate intervention programs aimed at influencing
these factors as they relate to CB, such as motivation for initiating or
supporting CB or the bystander effect (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016;
DeSmet et al., 2014).
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the Intelligent Electronic
Commerce Research Center from The Featured Areas Research Center
Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project
by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan.
References
Albin, K. A. (2012). Bullies in a wired world: the impact of cyberspace victimization on
adolescent mental health and the need for cyberbullying legislation in Ohio. Journal
of Law and Health, 25, 155–190.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective
and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 1(4),
387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Balakrishnan, V. (2015). Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: The roles of
gender, age and internet frequency. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 149–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.021.
Barlett, C., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying
behavior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 474–488. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ab.21555.
Barlett, C. P., & Chamberlin, K. (2017). Examining cyberbullying across the lifespan.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 444–449.
Batanova, M. D., & Loukas, A. (2011). Social anxiety and aggression in early adolescents:
Examining the moderating roles of empathic concern and perspective taking. Journal
of Youth Adolescence, 40, 1534–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9634-x.
Bouhnik, D., & Mor, D. (2014). Gender differences in the moral judgment and behavior of
Israeli adolescents in the internet environment. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
22979.
Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item re-
dundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 291–294.
Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying.
Communication Monographs, 83(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.
9
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
2015.1044256.
Bull, N. J. (1969). Moral judgment from childhood to adolescence. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardón, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in
adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017.
Chan, H. C., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in
Chinese societies: Prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention ap-
proach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 98–108.
Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Miao, N. F., Chen, P. H., Lee, C. M., Huang, T. F., & Pan, Y. C.
(2015). Online gaming and risks predict cyberbullying perpetration and victimization
in adolescents. International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00038-014-0643-x.
Chang, F. C., Lee, C. M., Chiu, C. H., His, W. Y., Huang, T. F., & Pan, Y. C. (2013).
Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese
adolescents. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.
12050.
Chen, Y. C., Chen, P. S., Hwang, J. J., Korba, L., Song, R., & Yee, G. (2005). An analysis of
online gaming crime characteristics. Internet Research, 15(3), 246–261. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10662240510602672.
Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Ho, H. C., & Cheng, C. L. (2011). Definitions of school bullying
in Taiwan: A comparison of multiple perspectives. School Psychology International,
32(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311404130.
Chu, X. W., Fan, C. Y., Liu, Q. Q., & Zhou, Z. K. (2018). Cyberbullying victimization and
symptoms of depression and anxiety among Chinese adolescents: Examining hope-
lessness as a mediator and self-compassion as a moderator. Computers in Human
Behavior, 86, 377–386.
Coburn, P. I., Connolly, D. A., & Roesch, R. (2015). Cyberbullying: Is federal criminal
legislation the solution? Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 57(4),
566–579. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2014.E43.
DeSmet, A., Veldeman, C., Poels, K., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Vande-bosch, H.,
& De Bourdeaudhuij, L. (2014). Determinants of self-reported bystander behavior in
cyberbullying incidents amongst adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 17(4), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0027.
Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender
and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media &
Society, 12(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341260.
Fahy, A. E., Stansfeld, S. A., Smuk, M., Smith, N. R., Cummins, S., & Clark, C. (2016).
Longitudinal associations between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental
health. Journal of Adolescent Health Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent
Medicine, 59(5), 502–509.
Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles network centrality and gender segregation
in same-and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1), 48–73.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410396196.
Fryling, M., Cotler, J., Rivituso, J., Mathews, L., & Pratico, S. (2015). Cyberbullying or
normal game play? Impact of age, gender, and experience on cyberbullying in multi-
player online gaming environments: Perceptions from one gaming forum. Journal of
Information Systems Applied Research, 8(1), 4–18.
Gahagan, K., Vaterlaus, J. M., & Frost, L. R. (2016). College student cyberbullying on
social networking sites: Conceptualization, prevalence, and perceived bystander re-
sponsibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.11.019.
Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P. K., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and re-
ciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic
internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446–452. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.030.
Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and
future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 379–400. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8.
Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Olafsson, K. (2009). Comparing children’s
online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU Kids
Online (2nd ed.). . (Deliverable D3.2, LSE, London, EU kids online. Accessed March
24, 2018 from) http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24368/1/D3.2_Report-Cross_national_
comparisons-2nd-edition.pdf.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01639620701457816.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of
Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1746-1561.2008.00335.x.
Keith, S., & Martin, M. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber
world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 224–228.
Khamis, V. (2015). Bullying among school-age children in the greater Beirutarea: Risk
and protective factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chiabu.2014.08.005.
Kim, S., Colwell, S. R., Kata, A., Boyle, M. H., & Georgiades, K. (2018). Cyberbullying
victimization and adolescent mental health: Evidence of differential effects by sex
and mental health problem type. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 47(3), 661–972.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to so-
cialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.). Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., & Cox, H. (2019). Differences in technology use among
demographic groups: Implications for cyberbullying research. In G. W. Giumetti, & R.
M. Kowalski (Eds.). Cyberbullying in schools, workplaces, and romantic relationships: The
C.L. Huang, et al.
many lenses and perspectives of electronic mistreatment (pp. 15–31). London: Routledge.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in
the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0035618.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school stu-
dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2007.08.017.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Dolev-Cohen, M. (2015). Comparing cyberbullying and school bul-
lying among school students: Prevalence, gender, and grade level differences. Social
Psychology of Education, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9280-8.
Leung, A. N. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2013). Game on? Online friendship, cyberbullying,
and psychosocial adjustment in Hong Kong Chinese children. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 32(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.2.159.
Li, Q. (2015). When cyberbullying and bullying meet gaming: A systemic review of the
literature. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5(4), https://doi.org/10.4172/
2161-0487.1000195.
Li, Q., & Pustaka, A. (2017). When cyberbullies meet gamers: What do young adults
think? Educational Research, 59(4), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.
2017.1369857.
Li, Q., Smith, P. K., & Cross, D. (2012). Research into cyberbullying: Context. In Q. Li, D.
Cross, & P. K. Smith (Eds.). Cyberbullying in the global playground. Research from in-
ternational perspectives (pp. 3–12). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nabuzoka, D. (2003). Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other be-
havior of children with and without learning disabilities. Educational Psychology,
23(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060147.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, S., Na, E. Y., & Kim, E. M. (2014). The relationship between online activities, ne-
tiquette and cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 74–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.002.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary
look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1541204006286288.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance and
victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1348/
026151002166442.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A
developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 376–384. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.20136.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul.
Popovic-Citic, B., Djuric, S., & Cvetkovic, V. (2011). The prevalence of cyberbullying
among adolescents: A case study of middle schools in Serbia. School Psychology
International, 32(4), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311401700.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564–575.
Resett, S., & Gamez-Guadix, M. (2017). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Differences in emotional problems, and personality. Are cyberbullies more
Machiavellians? Journal of Adolescence, 61, 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2017.09.013.
Rosario, D. R., Lambros, L., José, A. C., Vassilis, B., Rosario, O. R., & Haralambos, T.
(2016). Does empathy predict (cyber) bullying perpetration, and how do age, gender
and nationality affect this relationship? Learning and Individual Differences, 45,
275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.021.
Salmivalli, C. (2002). Is there an age decline in victimization by peers at school?
10
Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104461
Educational Research, 44(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131880210135331.
Schneider, S., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. S. (2012). Cyberbullying, school
bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.
2011.300308.
Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., Chan, Y. F., & Moreno, M. (2015). Cyberbullying, depression, and
problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. CyberPsychology,
Behavior & Social Networking, 18(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.
0371.
Shin, N., & Ahn, H. (2015). Factors affecting adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying:
What divides the 20% from the 80%? CyberPsychology. Behavior & Social Networking,
18(7), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0362.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic?
Adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and
internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.
The Child Welfare League Foundation (2016). Cyberbullying among children and youths
in Taiwan - 2016. Retrieved from The Child Welfare League Foundation website
https://www.children.org.tw/english/news_detail/1542.
Tippett, N., & Kwak, K. (2012). Cyberbullying in South Korea. In Q. Li, D. Cross, & P. K.
Smith (Eds.). Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international per-
spectives (pp. 202–219). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Trolley, B., Hanel, C., & Shields, L. (2009, March). Cyberbullying and cyberbalance:
Cultivating respect for technology. Paper based on a program presented at the American
counseling association annual conference and exposition, Charlotte, NC.
Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online
social cruelty, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years
later. Alexandria: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Wong, D. S. W., Chan, H. C., & Cheng, C. H. K. (2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and
victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review,
36, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006.
Wright, M. F. (2016). Cybervictimization and substance use among adolescents: The
moderation of perceived social support. Journal of Social Work Practice in the
Addictions, 16(1–2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2016.1143371.
Yang, S. C. (2012). Path to bullying in online gaming: The effects of gender, preference for
playing violent games, hostility, and aggressive behavior on bullying. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 47(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.3.a.
Yang, S. C., Lin, C. Y., & Chen, A. S. (2014). A study of Taiwanese teens’ traditional and
cyberbullying behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 525–552.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.e.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations
with caregiver-child relationships, internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal
of Adolescence, 27(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(04)00039-9.
Zhu, X. W., Chu, X. W., Zhang, Y. H., & Li, Z. H. (2018). Exposure to online game violence
and cyberbullying among Chinese adolescents: Normative beliefs about aggression as
a mediator and trait aggressiveness as a moderator. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1550830.