Longitudinal patterns of involvement in cyberbullying: Results from a Latent Transition Analysis

In the present study, we used Latent Transition Analysis as an innovative approach in cyberbullying research in order to detect multi-facetted involvement patterns. Since developmental aspects of cyberbullying are still poorly understood, we analyzed the stabilities and transition probabilities of these involvement patterns across time using longitudinal survey data. Based on a three-wave panel survey among 1723 pupils (1215 years old), we identified a five-latent status model to best fit the data. Apart from a large group of non-involved pupils, there were four moderately to heavily involved cyberbullying classes, all characterized by a co-occurrence of perpetration and victimization experiences. We found two moderate and content-specific classes of cyberbullying: gossiping patterns that were predominant among girls and insulting patterns that rather appeared among male and lower-educated adolescents. Moreover, we revealed a heavily victimized group (with mild perpetration) and a very small class of heavy perpetrator-victims. Transition probabilities showed that cyberbullying behavior was quite stable over time. All cyberbullying classes comprised perpetration and victimization experiences.A small class of adolescents was intensively involved in all forms of cyberbullying.Girls were more involved in gossiping, boys in insulting forms of cyberbullying.Pupils who were not involved in cyberbullying mostly stayed non-involved over time.Heavy involved pupils transitioned into less frequently involved classes over time.

[1]  Christopher P. Barlett,et al.  A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: the moderating role of age. , 2014, Aggressive behavior.

[2]  W. Heirman,et al.  Cyberbullying: Predicting Victimisation and Perpetration , 2011 .

[3]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[4]  J. Ryoo,et al.  Examination of the change in latent statuses in bullying behaviors across time. , 2015, School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[5]  K. Lagerspetz,et al.  Do Girls Manipulate and Boys Fight? Developmental Trends in Regard to Direct and Indirect Aggression , 1992 .

[6]  Craig K. Enders,et al.  The Relative Performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models , 2001 .

[7]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? , 2008, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[8]  Robin M. Kowalski,et al.  Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. , 2014, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  T. Quandt,et al.  The Individual or the Group: A Multilevel Analysis of Cyberbullying in School Classes , 2015 .

[10]  Jichuan Wang,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus , 2012 .

[11]  Jennifer D. Shapka,et al.  Are Cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children: full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries , 2011 .

[13]  Adrienne Nishina,et al.  Subtypes, severity, and structural stability of peer victimization: what does latent class analysis say? , 2007, Child development.

[14]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. , 2008, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[15]  Ersilia Menesini,et al.  The Measurement of Cyberbullying: Dimensional Structure and Relative Item Severity and Discrimination , 2011, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[16]  Thorsten Quandt,et al.  The Role of Online Communication in Long-Term Cyberbullying Involvement Among Girls and Boys , 2016, Journal of youth and adolescence.

[17]  Russell A. Sabella Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress , 2007 .

[18]  L. Haddon,et al.  Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children: key findings from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries , 2010 .

[19]  Beth Bjerregaard,et al.  The consequences of respondent attrition in panel studies: A simulation based on the Rochester youth development study , 1993 .

[20]  Heidi Vandebosch,et al.  Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims , 2009, New Media Soc..

[21]  Jay Magidson,et al.  Latent class modeling as a probabilistic extension of K-means clustering , 2002 .

[22]  Robert S. Tokunaga,et al.  Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  Stephanie T. Lanza,et al.  Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences , 2009 .

[24]  J. Archer Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review , 2004 .

[25]  Jay Magidson,et al.  Latent class models for clustering : a comparison with K-means , 2002 .

[26]  T. Quandt,et al.  Problematic computer game use among adolescents, younger and older adults. , 2013, Addiction.

[27]  A. G. Harbaugh,et al.  Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. , 2014, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[28]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  A Comparison of Classification Approaches for Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying Using Data From Six European Countries , 2015 .

[29]  Jennifer D. Shapka,et al.  The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..