Abstract
Background: This study examined the cyberbullying experience and coping manners of adolescents in urban Vietnam and explored the mediating effect of different support to the associations between cyberbullying and mental health issues.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 484 students at four secondary schools. Cyberbullying experience, coping strategies, psychological problems, and family, peer, and teacher support were obtained. Structural equation modeling was utilized to determine the mediating effects of different support on associations between cyberbullying and psychological problems.
Results: There were 11.6 and 28.3% of students who reported that they experienced and observed at least one cyberbullying act in the last 3 months, respectively. Among the victims, only 48.2% tried to stop the perpetrators. Meanwhile, the majority of observers belonged to the “Intervene” group who tried to report cyberbullying acts or help victims. Family support was found to partially mediate associations between cyberbullying experience and observation with levels of psychological problems among adolescents.
Conclusion: The 3-month rate of cyberbullying experience and observation among urban adolescents aged 11–14 was low. However, current coping strategies against cyberbullying were not sufficient. Family support is an important factor that should be considered for designing interventions to mitigating the impacts of cyberbullying on the mental health of adolescents.
Introduction
Cyberbullying has been well-documented as a global public health problem. Cyberbullying includes acts such as posting publicly available information on the Internet, being called or receiving messages that threaten or being harassed on the Internet, and others (). Compared with traditional bullying, cyberbullying can occur every time and everywhere, and the identity of the perpetrator may not be disclosed (). Therefore, cyberbullying may be more frequent and have more serious consequences for the victim. Studies show that cyberbullying significantly affects adolescents, such as increasing the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation (; ; ; ; ; Yuchang et al., 2019), as well as causing physical and psychosomatic problems such as difficulty sleeping, headache, and loss of appetite (; ; ; ). Cyberbullying is also associated with the onset of substance use, traditional and cyberbullying perpetration, and delinquency (; Wong et al., 2014; ; ). These consequences have been observed in all perpetrators, victims, and observers of cyberbullying (; Wong et al., 2014; ).
Cyberbullying among adolescents is a prevalent phenomenon across nations. A prior systematic review showed that 20 to 40% of adolescents experienced cyberbullying at least once in their lifetime (), and this rate tends to increase with increasing Internet and social media accessibility (). In the United States, the rate of adolescents who were victims of cyberbullying was from 3 to 72% (). A study conducted in seven European countries showed that 13.3–37.3% of adolescents aged 14–17 years were victims of cyberbullying (). In the Asian region, a review in Chinese populations revealed different prevalence of cyberbullying victimization in adolescents, ranging at 14–57% in mainland China, 13–35% in Taiwan, and 12–72% in Hong Kong (). In Korea, 14.6% adolescents were cyberbullying victims (). Coping strategies when having cyberbullying experience may vary and can be classified into four groups: (1) directly reacting against cyberbullying acts (such as retaliation or constructive feedback); (2) ignoring the cyberbullying behaviors (such as avoidance or doing nothing), (3) seeking support from other sources (such as parents, friends, or teachers), and (4) utilizing technological solutions (such as blocking senders; ). A study in Hong Kong indicated that older male adolescents were more likely to have an active approach to cope with cyberbullying such as informing to adults, parents, or teachers; while adolescents, having limited experience with their schools, tended to have avoid (e.g., ignore the cyberbullying behaviors) approaches (). Another study in Czech adolescents found that technological strategies were the most common, following by avoidance and finding support ().
The proliferation of cyberbullying requires accelerating efforts to explore approaches to prevent and mitigate its consequences. Global studies showed that social support is an essential component in protecting adolescents from the consequences of traditional bullying (; ; ). Social support refers to instrumental support (such as providing the victim with helpful solutions or resources) or emotional support (such as spiritual encouragement, belongingness, or value recognition; ; ). In literature, many studies have shown that family and friends support can play an important role in protecting adolescents from becoming victims of cyberbullying (; ; ). In addition, adolescents who are of school age can get help from teachers. Previous research has shown that victims and perpetrators of cyber-violence possibly knew each other at school, and parents, friends, and teachers are important sources of information and support for teens dealing with cyberbullying ().
Although many studies showed that social support helps to prevent cyberbullying among adolescents, its effectiveness in minimizing the psychological consequences of cyberbullying among victims or observers has been in debate. An earlier study found that support from friends alone was effective in reducing psychological problems among victims of cyberbullying (). Another research found that both support from family and friends played an important role in preventing victims from the mental consequences of cyberbullying (). These results concluded that social support held the potential for minimizing the cyberbullying-related psychological problems in youths. However, the evidence for this effect in different population groups (such as victims, perpetrators, or observers) is limited.
In Vietnam, evidence about cyberbullying among adolescents as well as the impact of social support on cyberbullying is currently limited. Only one previous study was conducted on 215 adolescents and youths aged 13–18 in Hanoi, Vietnam, to measure the cyberbullying experience in these groups (). By using the modified Patchin and Hinduja’s scale, this study found that 45.1% of sample had experienced cyberbullying at least once, with being called by names as the most typical form (). The common responses to cyberbullies included ignoring cyberbullying behaviors and not telling family or teacher (). To date, none of the studies were conducted about the mediation effect of social support on mental disorders in adolescents who were victims or observers of cyberbullying. Therefore, our study was conducted to examine the experience of adolescents aged 11–14 in urban Vietnam, determine how they coped with this issue, and explore the preventive mediation effect of social support to the associations between cyberbullying and mental health issues.
Materials and Methods
Theoretical Framework
In this study, we employed stress buffering hypothesis (), which perceived social support that could mediate the relationship between stressors (i.e., cyberbullying in this case) and their negative consequences (i.e., mental problems). In other words, a higher level of social support could more weaken this relationship. Cohen and Wills in their study suggested that social support could diminish people’s perceptions about the threat of given stressors, or offer coping options or other necessary resources to individuals against the stressors (). Via literature review, we hypothesized that support from family, peers, and teachers might play a buffering role in mediating the effect of cyberbullying experience on the mental health of adolescents (; ). Therefore, we examined the direct effect of cyberbullying experience on adolescents’ mental health, as well as the indirect effect of social support in buffering relationships between cyberbullying and mental health.
Study Design
Data of this paper were collected through a cross-sectional study conducted in Hanoi, Vietnam, from January to September 2020. Four secondary schools were randomly selected in this study from a list of secondary schools in Hanoi. The school principal and teachers were approached by the research team and informed of the research content. The questionnaire used in this study was submitted to them for approval before implementing data collection.
Participants included students aged 11–14 years, attending four selected secondary schools; and they, as well as their parents and teachers, agreed to be enrolled in the study. This study used a formula to estimate a population proportion with specified relative precision to calculate the essential sample, with p = 0.45 (according to previous research in Hanoi, Vietnam; ); confidence level α = 0.05; relative precision ɛ = 0.2. The sample size needed for a school was 118 students or 472 students/4 schools. An additional 10% sample size was added to prevent participants from dropout or nonresponse, resulting in 520 students (or 130 students per school) being invited to respond to questions about cyberbullying.
A multi-stage sampling method was applied. First, the research team randomly selected two classes in each grade of each school, resulting in 32 classes being selected for the sample. Next, in these 32 classes, 520 students were randomly selected to participate in the cyberbullying survey. There were 36 students who did not agree to participate, leading to a total of 484 students (response rate of 93.1%). These students, along with their parents or guardians, were provided written informed consent with brief information about research objectives, eligible criteria, research process, and benefits and requirements during study participation. This research protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of Hanoi Medical University (Code 22NCS17/HDDDDHYHN).
Data Collection and Measurement
Students participating in this study were asked to complete an anonymous survey questionnaire. The research team directly distributed the questionnaires to students. During the survey, parents, teachers, and unselected students did not present at the site of the survey to avoid their influence on the participants’ responses. Each student spent 15–20 min completing the questionnaire. A structured questionnaire was used for this study. The content of the questionnaire was developed under the guidance of child violence experts. The questionnaires were pretested on 10 adolescents to ensure understandability, expression, and logic, which aimed to avoid misunderstanding or confusion to study participants.
Variables
Cyberbullying Experience/Bystander and Coping Strategies
In this study, we used the Cyberbullying Test instrument to identify the individual’s experience and observation of cyberbullying (). Originally, this tool asked participants to answer 45 items about 15 cyberbullying acts in three roles (15 items per role): perpetrators, victims, and observers. Examples of items in the instrument included the following: “Have they ever sent you offensive and insulting messages by cellphone or Internet?” “Have you ever received offensive and insulting calls on your cellphone or by Internet (Skype …)?” “Have you ever been assaulted to tape the assault and hang it on the Internet?” Each question had four options about from 0 “never” to 3 “always.” In this study, we used only two parts of the instrument: for victims and observers (or bystanders). Moreover, in the pilot, we observed that it was difficult for our participants (i.e., secondary school students) to respond to the questions with these four options. Thus, we decided to ask them a series of yes/no questions to determine whether they experienced cyberbullying acts as victims and observers in the last 3 months. This recall duration was applied to minimize the potential recall bias. Participants were categorized into “Cyberbullying experience” or “Cyberbullying observation” if they reported “yes” for at least one cyberbullying act. The Cronbach alpha values of “Cyberbullying experience” and “Cyberbullying observation” items were 0.8830 and 0.8993, respectively.
In this study, for people experiencing cyberbullying, we asked them to recall the impacts of these cyberbullying acts, coping strategies against cyberbullying, supporters when facing cyberbullying, and reasons for not reporting cyberbullying experience. Meanwhile, for those ever observing cyberbullying acts, participants were asked to report their reactions toward these behaviors. These reactions were classified into three groups: “Intervene,” “Ignore,” and “Join in.”
- “Intervene” included (1) “oppose acts of cyberbullying,” (2) “try to help or comfort the victim,” and (3) “report online violence to people able to help the victim (e.g., teachers and parents).”
- “Ignore” included “leaving cyberspace.”
- “Join in” included “Encouraging cyberbullying behaviors” and “Enjoys cyberbullying acts, and wants to learn more, but does not participate or promote publicly.”
In addition, we asked them to explain the reasons if they did not report the observed cyberbullying acts. We also asked all participants to express their attitude toward cyberbullying by asking them a question: “What extend do you agree or disagree with cyberbullying?” The students rated their attitude with an 11-point Likert scale from 0 “Totally agree” to 10 “Total disagree.”
Psychological Problems
To evaluate the psychological problems, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale—21 Items (DASS-21) was utilized. This instrument included 21 items regarding depression (seven items, range score 0–21), anxiety (seven items, range score 0–21), and stress symptoms (seven items, range score 0–21) in the last 7 days (). Examples of items in the instrument included the following: “I found it hard to wind down” (stress domain), “I was aware of dryness of my mouth” (anxiety domain), and “I could not seem to experience any positive feeling at all” (depression domain; ). Participants responded to each item on a four-point Likert scale from 0 “Did not apply to me at all” to 3 “Applied to me very much or most of the time” (). A higher score in each part indicated a higher severity of this psychological problem. The Vietnamese version of this instrument had been validated elsewhere (). The Cronbach alpha of this instrument was 0.8523.
Social Support
Support from family (two items), peer (two items), and teacher (three items) was measured by using seven items, as below:
My parents do not understand me or care about my feelings.
My parents do not listen to me or do not pay attention to the problems I have.
My classmates are very friendly.
My classmates respect me and listen to my opinion.
My teachers help me when I’m sad or having problems.
My teachers take care of me and support me in achieving the best results.
My teachers respect me and listen to me.
Students rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from 1 “Totally disagree” to 5 “Totally agree.” The score of each domain was computed by dividing the total scores of items in this domain by the number of items. Scores of questions 1 and 2 were reversed before computing the score of parental support. The score of each domain was from 1 to 5, with a greater score meaning a higher level of support. The Cronbach alpha of this instrument was 0.8205.
Sociodemographic Characteristics
In this part, we collected data about age, gender (male/female), and type of family (nuclear/multi-generations/others).
Statistical Analysis
A p-value of <0.05 was used to detect a statistical significance. Stata 16.0 software was used for analyzing data. A listwise deletion approach was applied to handle missing data. Descriptive statistics were performed for all variables of interest. Statistical tests including chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine the difference between sociodemographic characteristics, social support, cyberbullying attitude, and psychological problems between cyberbullying experience/non-experience and cyberbullying observation/non-observation. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with cyberbullying experience (yes = 1/no = 0, model 1) and cyberbullying observation (yes = 1/no = 0, model 2). Independent variables included sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and types of the family), support from family/peer/teachers, cyberbullying attitude, cyberbullying experience (for model 2), and cyberbullying observation (for model 1). Moreover, among those ever observing cyberbullying acts in the last 3 months (n = 136), we performed the multivariate logistic regression models to determine factors that were related to “Intervene” (yes = 1/no = 0, model 3) or “Ignore” (yes = 1/no = 0, model 4) behaviors. Independent variables for models 3 and 4 included sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, and types of the family), support from family/peer/teachers, cyberbullying attitude, and cyberbullying experience. We did not perform the regression analysis for the “Join in” outcome because only nine students had these behaviors, which might not be a large enough sample size for the analysis.
Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the mediation effects of family, peer, and teacher support on the relationships between cyberbullying experience/observation and psychological problems. The roles of cyberbullying (cyberbullying experience and observation) were coded as binary variables (yes = 1, no = 0), while the depression, anxiety, and stress variables were treated as continuous variables. The mean- and variance-adjusted maximum likelihood test statistic (MLMV) was performed for the SEM, given its robustness for data with non-normal distribution (). Multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were examined. RMSEA lower than 0.08, SRMR lower than 0.08, and CFI higher than 0.09 were considered acceptable model fits ().
Ethical Approval
Given highly sensitive information collected from adolescents, we performed the following actions to ensure the rights and benefits of participants. First, we provided an information package to students and their parents/guardians before the survey implementation. This package had detailed information about the purposes of the study, study designs, eligible criteria, rights, and benefits of study participants. It was also emphasized in the information package that the participation of students was voluntary and that relationships between the students and teachers/schools would not be affected in any way if they did not participate in the survey. No individual data were collected to protect students’ privacy; thus, it was impossible to re-identify the participants based on the current dataset. Students and their caregivers were also informed that they could skip any questions that they felt uncomfortable or they could withdraw from the study at any time. We offered the helpline in the information package for students who needed help to address cyberbullying-related issues. Contacts of the principal investigators and coordinators of this study were provided to answer all questions raised about the study.
Results
The characteristics of participants are presented in Table 1. Among 484 secondary school students, the mean age was 12.6 (SD = 1.2) years. There were 11.6 and 28.3% of students reporting that they experienced and observed at least one cyberbullying act in the last 3 months, respectively. No difference was observed regarding gender, age, and type of family between those with and without cyberbullying experience (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, the rate of females in the cyberbullying observation group (68.6%) was significantly higher than that in the non-cyberbullying observation (56.2%). A significant age difference was also found between these two groups (p < 0.001).
Table 1
| Characteristics | Cyberbullying | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced | Observation | |||||
| Yes | No | p-value | Yes | No | p-value | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
| Total | 56 (11.6) | 428 (88.4) | 137 (28.3) | 347 (71.7) | ||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 26 (46.4) | 169 (39.5) | 0.319 | 43 (31.4) | 152 (43.8) | 0.012 |
| Female | 30 (53.6) | 259 (60.5) | 94 (68.6) | 195 (56.2) | ||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 11 | 13 (23.2) | 133 (31.1) | 0.499 | 16 (11.7) | 130 (37.5) | <0.001 |
| 12 | 5 (8.9) | 50 (11.7) | 16 (11.7) | 39 (11.2) | ||
| 13 | 21 (37.5) | 130 (30.4) | 57 (41.6) | 94 (27.1) | ||
| 14 | 17 (30.4) | 115 (26.9) | 48 (35.0) | 84 (24.2) | ||
| Type of family | ||||||
| Nuclear | 30 (53.6) | 279 (65.2) | 0.220 | 82 (59.9) | 227 (65.4) | 0.513 |
| Multiple generations | 25 (44.6) | 141 (32.9) | 52 (38.0) | 114 (32.9) | ||
| Others | 1 (1.8) | 8 (1.9) | 3 (2.2) | 6 (1.7) | ||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | p-value | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | p-value | |
| Age (years) | 12.8 (1.1) | 12.5 (1.2) | 0.213 | 13.0 (1.0) | 12.4 (1.2) | <0.001 |
| Cyberbullying attitude (1–10) | 9.2 (2.2) | 9.7 (1.5) | 0.022 | 9.6 (1.6) | 9.6 (1.6) | 0.211 |
| Support from family (1–5) | 3.5 (1.1) | 4.0 (1.0) | <0.001 | 3.7 (1.0) | 4.0 (1.1) | <0.001 |
| Support from peer (1–5) | 2.4 (1.1) | 2.0 (1.0) | 0.005 | 2.2 (1.0) | 2.0 (1.1) | 0.001 |
| Support from teachers (1–5) | 2.2 (1.2) | 1.8 (1.1) | 0.007 | 2.0 (1.1) | 1.8 (1.1) | 0.023 |
| DASS-21 Depression score | 5.6 (4.2) | 3.5 (4.1) | <0.001 | 4.9 (4.6) | 3.3 (3.9) | <0.01 |
| DASS-21 Anxiety score | 5.7 (3.2) | 3.9 (3.3) | <0.001 | 4.8 (3.3) | 3.9 (3.4) | 0.002 |
| DASS-21 Stress score | 8.7 (4.1) | 5.9 (4.3) | <0.001 | 7.2 (4.1) | 5.8 (4.4) | <0.01 |
Cyberbullying experienced and observation according to sociodemographic levels of support and mental problems (n = 484).
DASS-21, Depression, anxiety, and stress scale—21 Items.
Table 1 also reveals that people who experienced cyberbullying showed significantly lower levels of attitude against cyberbullying (p = 0.022) and lower levels of perceived family (p < 0.001) and teachers support (p = 0.007), but a higher level of perceived peer support (p = 0.005) and higher depression (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and stress scores (p < 0.001) than did those not experiencing cyberbullying. These differences were also observed between participants with and without cyberbullying observation (p < 0.05), except for the level of cyberbullying attitude.
Figure 1 illustrates the 3-month rate of each cyberbullying behavior in terms of experience and observation. “Stole password to prevent access to blog/email” was the most common behavior when 6.6 and 18.4% of participants ever experienced and observed this behavior, respectively. “Received offensive & insulting messages on cellphone/by Internet” and “Slandered through the Internet, telling lies or spread rumors” were the second and third most common acts.
Figure 1
Among participants experiencing cyberbullying as victims, Table 2 indicates that 26.8% of students felt anxiety and fear and did not want to be close to anyone. Over 21% of victims had reduced study performance, 12.5% had suicidal ideation, and even 10.7% had suicidal attempts. However, only 48.2% tried to stop the perpetrators, and 35.7% told this experience to their friends. None of them told teachers, parents, or relatives. “Try to cope by myself,” “I think my parents, teachers or adults do not understand or believe me,” and “I think there’s nothing my parents, teachers or adults can do to help me” were the three most common reasons for not reporting cyberbullying acts among victims.
Table 2
| Characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts | ||
| Decrease academic performance | 12 | 21.4 |
| Drop out of school | 5 | 8.9 |
| Start to substance use | 2 | 3.6 |
| Anxiety and fear | 15 | 26.8 |
| Not want to be close to anyone | 15 | 26.8 |
| Having suicidal ideation | 7 | 12.5 |
| Trying to self-harm or suicidal attempt | 6 | 10.7 |
| Reactions against cyberbullying | ||
| None | 4 | 7.1 |
| Tell person performing online harassing, intimidating, or bullying to stop | 27 | 48.2 |
| Log out or leave cyberspace/not use Internet | 19 | 33.9 |
| Tell teachers, parents, or relatives | 0 | 0.0 |
| Tell your friends | 20 | 35.7 |
| Repeating cyberbullying behaviors against other people on the Internet | 0 | 0.0 |
| Performing bullying behaviors in real-life | 0 | 0.0 |
| Reasons for not reporting cyberbullying experience | ||
| I think my parents, teachers, or adults do not understand or believe me. | 8 | 14.3 |
| I think there’s nothing my parents, teachers, or adults can do to help me. | 8 | 14.3 |
| If I tell my parents, teachers, or the adults, those who bully me online might get revenge and make things worse. | 4 | 7.1 |
| If I notify my parents, teachers, or adults, they may try to limit or prohibit me from accessing the Internet or other technology devices. | 9 | 16.1 |
| Others will laugh at me if I tell my parents, teachers, or adults. | 4 | 7.1 |
| I want to learn how to cope and deal with cyberbullying by myself. | 11 | 19.6 |
| There’s nothing serious about harassing, intimidating, or being bullied online. Everyone soon forgets, and no one will notice it anymore. | 7 | 12.5 |
Impacts, reactions, supporters, and reasons for not reporting cyberbullying experience (n = 56).
Meanwhile, among observers, 111 students (81%) were grouped into the “Intervene” category; 56 students (40.9%) and nine students (6.6%) were classified into “Ignore” and “Join in” categories, respectively (one student could do more than one act toward cyberbullying observation). Being afraid of having limited use of the Internet if they reported cyberbullying behaviors, thinking that adults did not understand or believe, and thinking that adults could not do anything for victims were the three most popular reasons for not reporting the cyberbullying behaviors among observers (Table 3).
Table 3
| Characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Reactions* | ||
| Intervene | 111 | 81.0 |
| Ignore | 56 | 40.9 |
| Join in | 9 | 6.6 |
| Reasons for not reporting cyberbullying acts | ||
| I think my parents, teachers, or adults do not understand or believe me. | 43 | 31.4 |
| I think there’s nothing my parents, teachers, or adults can do to help victims. | 34 | 24.8 |
| I’m afraid of getting into trouble because I’m also at fault for my friends being bullied online. | 19 | 13.9 |
| I’m afraid of getting into trouble because people who bully my friends online might get revenge on me. | 31 | 22.6 |
| I am afraid that if my parents and adults know about cyber-violence, my parents will try to limit or prevent me from using phones, the Internet, or other technology devices. | 46 | 33.6 |
| There is nothing serious about being bullied online. Everyone will also quickly forget. | 12 | 8.8 |
| The fact that my friends are bullied on the Internet is not related to me, so I have no responsibility to report. | 9 | 6.6 |
Reactions and reasons for not reporting among cyberbullying observation (n = 137).
Intervene included (1) “oppose acts of cyberbullying”; (2) “try to help or comfort the victim”; and (3) “report online violence to people able to help the victim (e.g., teachers and parents).” Ignore included “leaving cyberspace”; and Join in included “Encouraging cyberbullying behaviors” and “Enjoys cyberbullying acts, and wants to learn more, but does not participate or promote publicly.”
Table 4 shows associated factors with cyberbullying experience and observation. Cyberbullying experience was only found to be associated with cyberbullying observation (OR = 5.86, 95% CI = 3.06–11.21). Meanwhile, being female and of higher age were positively related to cyberbullying observation, whereas having a higher level of support from family (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.61–0.94) was negatively associated with the cyberbullying observation.
Table 4
| Characteristics | Cyberbullying experience | Cyberbullying observation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Gender (female vs. malea) | 0.63 | 0.34–1.18 | 1.95** | 1.22–3.12 |
| Age (vs. 11 yearsa) | ||||
| 12 years | 0.74 | 0.22–2.44 | 3.72** | 1.61–8.58 |
| 13 years | 0.91 | 0.38–2.17 | 5.10** | 2.59–10.03 |
| 14 years | 0.89 | 0.36–2.15 | 4.58** | 2.31–9.08 |
| Type of family (vs. nucleara) | ||||
| Multiple generations | 1.58 | 0.85–2.95 | 1.27 | 0.80–2.03 |
| Others | 1.35 | 0.15–12.42 | 1.19 | 0.25–5.62 |
| Support from family (per score) | 0.79 | 0.59–1.05 | 0.76* | 0.61–0.94 |
| Support from peers (per score) | 1.24 | 0.89–1.72 | 1.19 | 0.94–1.51 |
| Support from teachers (per score) | 1.03 | 0.76–1.40 | 0.86 | 0.68–1.09 |
| Cyberbullying attitude (per score) | 0.93 | 0.80–1.09 | 1.00 | 0.87–1.15 |
| Cyberbullying experience (yes vs. noa) | 5.86** | 3.05–11.25 | ||
| Cyberbullying observation (yes vs. noa) | 5.86** | 3.06–11.21 | ||
Associated factors with cyberbullying experience and observation.
Reference group.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
In regression analysis, only cyberbullying attitude was found to be associated with “intervene” behaviors (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.10–2.12). Participants having a higher level of peer support were more likely to ignore the cyberbullying acts (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.08–2.93), while those having a higher level of teacher support were less likely to ignore these acts (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42–0.98; Table 5).
Table 5
| Characteristics | Intervene | Ignore | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Gender (female vs. malea) | 0.71 | 0.24–2.10 | 0.67 | 0.29–1.53 |
| Age (vs. 11 yearsa) | ||||
| 12 years | 1.39 | 0.16–11.69 | 0.95 | 0.20–4.40 |
| 13 years | 0.87 | 0.17–4.44 | 0.80 | 0.23–2.75 |
| 14 years | 0.56 | 0.11–2.92 | 1.10 | 0.32–3.85 |
| Type of family (vs. nucleara) | ||||
| Multiple generations | 1.14 | 0.42–3.13 | 0.96 | 0.44–2.12 |
| Others | 2.73 | 0.22–34.09 | ||
| Support from family (per score) | 0.94 | 0.59–1.48 | 0.72 | 0.50–1.05 |
| Support from peers (per score) | 0.97 | 0.55–1.69 | 1.78* | 1.08–2.93 |
| Support from teachers (per score) | 0.99 | 0.61–1.61 | 0.64* | 0.42–0.98 |
| Cyberbullying attitude (per score) | 1.53* | 1.10–2.12 | 1.64 | 0.96–2.81 |
| Cyberbullying experience (yes vs. noa) | 1.07 | 0.34–3.31 | 0.81 | 0.34–1.94 |
Associated factors with different types of cyberbullying observation.
Reference group.
p < 0.05.
The SEM is illustrated in Figure 2. The goodness-of-fit indices were acceptable with RMSEA = 0.052, CFI = 0.983, and SRMR = 0.026. The model shows that only cyberbullying experience showed a significantly positive direct effect on psychological problems. The cyberbullying experience group was significantly related to family and peer support, while the cyberbullying observation group was only significantly associated with family support. Only family support showed to be negatively associated with psychological problems, whereas peer and teacher support showed positive relations with psychological problems.
Figure 2
Table 6 determines the mediation or indirect effects of different types of support. For both cyberbullying experience and observation, only family support was found to partially mediate associations between cyberbullying experience and observation with levels of psychological problems among our participants. Regarding cyberbullying experience, the indirect effect of family support accounted for 18.3% of the total effect and 22.4% of the direct effect. Meanwhile, regarding cyberbullying observation, this indirect effect accounted for 32.5% of the total effect and 48.1% of the direct effect.
Table 6
| Pathways | Indirect effect | 95% CI | Total effect/% total effect | Direct effect/% direct effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyberbullying experience/family/psychological problems | 0.032* | 0.003/0.060 | 0.173/18.3% | 0.142/22.4% |
| Cyberbullying experience/peer/psychological problems | 0.014 | −0.003/0.031 | 0.156/9.0% | 0.142/9.9% |
| Cyberbullying experience/school/psychological problems | 0.012 | −0.0040.027 | 0.153/8.0% | 0.142/8.0% |
| Cyberbullying observation/family/psychological problems | 0.037* | 0.008/0.066 | 0.114/32.5% | 0.077/48.1% |
| Cyberbullying observation/peer/psychological problems | 0.010 | −0.005/0.025 | 0.087/11.7% | 0.077/13.2% |
| Cyberbullying observation/school/psychological problems | 0.008 | −0.006/0.022 | 0.085/9.2% | 0.077/10.2% |
Standardized indirect effects of cyberbullying experience and observation on psychological well-being outcomes via social support.
p < 0.05.
Discussion
Our study contributed to the current literature about the experience and coping strategies of adolescents toward cyberbullying and the potential effects of different support to mitigate the psychological consequence of cyberbullying. Our study suggested a low rate of cyberbullying experience and observation in secondary school students, as well as a high risk of psychological problems among those experiencing cyberbullying. Moreover, family support was an important protective source and helped mediate the relationship between cyberbullying and psychological problems.
The rate of adolescents involving in cyberbullying as victims over the past 3 months in our study was low, according to the self-report information from the participants. This rate was much lower than previous research in Hanoi, Vietnam, which showed that 45.1% of adolescents aged 13–18 were victims of cyberbullying in the past 12 months (). Our result was equivalent to a previous study in the United States with 11% of adolescents who studied grades 6 to 8 being bullied online in the past 2 months (). Overall, the estimated prevalence of cyberbullying varied significantly between different studies and countries due to the difference of cyberbullying definition, time frame, and methods of measurement (; ; ), which results in the problematic study comparisons. Indeed, using the Cyberbullying Test, which was a valid scale to measure cyberbullying (), was advantageous to our study compared with other prior research. This measure contains 15 cyberbullying behaviors, enabling us to capture more comprehensive aspects that participants might suffer or observe during the recall period than other previous studies (; ; ; ).
Notably, our results showed that though the impact of cyberbullying was significant, the proportion of participants taking specific actions against cyberbullying was not high. In addition to the impact on academic performance, there was a high proportion of individuals who experienced cyberbullying suffering the negative psychological effects such as anxiety, fear, and even suicidal thoughts. This was similar to previous studies showing the serious consequences of cyberbullying on the lives of victims (; ). Nonetheless, the findings showed that only nearly 50% of the victims tried to stop this act of the perpetration, and 33.9% tried to leave cyberspace. We also observed that victims only shared with friends about the issue of cyberbullying but did not share it with parents or teachers. The most common reasons for not sharing with parents or teachers were because the adolescents were afraid that the adults did not believe or the adults will not be able to do anything for the adolescents. Another reason was that the victims wanted to solve this problem themselves. In a previous study in Vietnam, it was found that ignoring this behavior and blocking the perpetrator’s account were the two most common measures (58.8 and 54.6%, respectively; ). However, problems caused by cyberbullying were not easy to deal with because these behaviors can occur at any time and can reach large numbers of audiences in a short period of time (), causing a feeling of stigma and isolation among victims (; ) and, in turn, worsening the consequences of cyberbullying. Therefore, equipping adolescents with appropriate coping strategies against cyberbullying is essential and should be prioritized in school and family.
Our study also examined the rate of cyberbullying observers among adolescents and identified how they reacted to cyberbullying behaviors. As expected, we found that the majority of observers were in the group “Intervene” who responded to the cyberbullying acts by reporting these behaviors or helping victims. This result was similar to the study in Thailand showing that most observers belonged to the “Intervene” group (). However, our study was different from study results in Belgium, where the authors show that most adolescents belonged to the “Ignore” group when observing cyberbullying behaviors (). We assumed that the cultural factors might be attributable to this difference. While the Western culture highlighted individualism, the Asian culture emphasized the role of collectivism, which might motivate them to help others when they faced problems (). On the other hand, similar to the victim group, the main reasons that participants in the observer group did not report violent cyber behavior included (1) being afraid of limited Internet use and (2) believing that adults were unable to address this issue. This result suggested a huge gap in the relationships between parent-teacher and adolescents, especially among cyberbullying victims or observers. Interestingly, results of the multivariate models indicated an opposite trend between peer and teacher support, when higher peer and teacher support were associated with higher and lower likelihoods of being “Ignore” people. This phenomenon could be justified that adolescents’ peers might not perceive this issue as a problem as adults did (i.e., parents and teachers; ). Moreover, even when youth perceived the impacts of cyberbullying, they could not provide adequate support due to the lack of knowledge and resource needed. Therefore, instead of recommending interventions on the issue, they were more likely to advise to ignore cyberbullying behaviors. It should be noted that the attitude against cyberbullying played an important role among adolescents in the “Intervene” group. This finding was consistent with previous studies on both cyberbullying and traditional bullying (Yang and Kim, 2017; ). Therefore, campaigns to motivate adolescents to intervene in cyberbullying are critical to diminish this behavior and its impacts.
The findings of this study echoed previous evidence showing that cyberbullying experience was associated with psychological problems (; ; ; Wong et al., 2014; ). Moreover, our study underlined the protective mediation effects of family support on the association between cyberbullying experience and observation with psychological issues. Unlike traditional bullying where parent, friend, and teacher support helped to mitigate the impact of bullying acts on victims’ lives and mental health (; ; ), in our study, friend and teacher support did not buffer against the psychological problems among cyberbullying victims and/or observers. In literature, adolescents are concerned that sharing their experience with the teacher was an ineffective strategy (), and reporting the problem to their parents could hinder their freedom in Internet use (). However, in a previous survey in Sweden, parent and teacher support was found to buffer against depressive and anxiety symptoms in cyberbullying victims and bully victims (). Another longitudinal study found that adolescents who were victims of cyberbullying had lower levels of depressive symptoms if they had family support (). As discussed above, we believed that parents could offer appropriate emotional support to help adolescents in controlling the psychological distress caused by cyberbullying behaviors (). Moreover, they may be more likely to perceive accurately the problem of cyberbullying, while friends might not fully recognize the trouble of cyberbullying involvement, resulting in the provision of inadequate support (). This result is critical since most of the victims in our study sought help from friends rather than their parents. Thus, parents should be proactive in building a strong bond with their children (; ). On the other hand, our finding partially affirmed that peer support might not be the best focus to address cyberbullying and its consequence (). However, further longitudinal studies should be performed to test the effect of peer support on buffering the relationship between cyberbullying and psychological impairment in different contexts.
The current study indicated several implications. First, educational campaigns should be performed to raise adolescents, parents, and teachers’ awareness and attitude toward cyberbullying, motivating them to become involved to intervene and prevent cyberbullying behaviors. The contents of these interventions should include knowledge and practices on cyberbullying, communication and Internet use skills, and prosocial behaviors, empathy, and coping strategies with cyberbullying (). Regular training sessions should be performed to help adolescents in acquiring skills and abilities to actively cope with cyberbullying, help other victims, and prevent them from joining in cyberbullying. Previous studies found that active strategies to cope with cyberbullying victimization were effective to address the cyberbullying-related issues (Ybarra et al., 2007; ; ). Second, according to the study, leaders in schools and communities should implement activities that increase parents’ roles in addressing cyberbullying and its consequences among adolescents. Positive parent-children relationships could encourage adolescents to find support when dealing with difficult situations (; ). Finally, given that cyberbullying is an emerging problem but school regulations for this issue do not exist in Vietnam, current policies should consider this type of bullying and its impact, especially among adolescents.
Interpretation of the study results should be done cautiously with the following limitations. First, given that cyberbullying is a sensitive issue, relying on only self-reports from participants may underestimate the actual rates of cyberbullying in adolescents. In literature, approaches that used information from multiple sources such as peers and teachers would be recommended (). Further studies that involve multiple reporters to measure the prevalence of cyberbullying should be taken into account. Second, we used the cross-sectional design, which limited our ability to establish the causal associations. Thus, conclusions about the associations and effects in this study cannot be definitely drawn. Future studies should use longitudinal designs to investigate the influence of cyberbullying and social support on psychological well-being in middle school adolescents. Third, the rate of cyberbullying experience and observation was low, resulting in a small sample size for statistical tests. Moreover, we used a modified instrument to measure cyberbullying experience rather than use the original one, which might underestimate or overestimate the rate of cyberbullying victimization and observation. Finally, other characteristics such as traditional bullying exposure, the Internet or social media use, and cyberbullying perpetration were not fully investigated. These factors were found to be associated with cyberbullying victimization in previous work (; ; ). Hence, further studies should be elucidated to measure these relationships between these factors and cyberbullying experience.
Conclusion
Our study suggested that the 3-month rate of cyberbullying experience and observation among urban adolescents aged 11–14 in Vietnam was low. However, current coping strategies against cyberbullying in this group were not sufficient. Family support is an important factor that should be considered for designing interventions to mitigate the impacts of cyberbullying on the mental health of adolescents.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Hanoi Medical University. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
AN, AT, BT, LN, MH, and TrN: conceptualization. AN, AT, BT, TrN, LD, and GV: methodology. AN, AT, LN, MH, and GV: formal analysis and investigation. AN, AT, BT, LN, MH, TrN, LD, GV, TuN, HD, CL, RH, and CH: writing—original draft preparation, and review and editing. BT, CL, RH, and CH: supervision. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was funded by NUS iHeathtech Other Operating Expenses (R-722-000-004-731) and NUS Department of Psychological Medicine Other Operating Expenses (R-177-000-003-001).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AboujaoudeE.SavageM. W.StarcevicV.SalameW. O. (2015). Cyberbullying: review of an old problem gone viral. J. Adolesc. Health57, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.011
2
AthanasiouK.MelegkovitsE.AndrieE. K.MagoulasC.TzavaraC. K.RichardsonC.et al. (2018). Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14–17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC Public Health18:800. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5682-4
3
BeckmanL.HagquistC.HellströmL. (2012). Does the association with psychosomatic health problems differ between cyberbullying and traditional bullying?Emot. Behav. Diffic.17, 421–434. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2012.704228
4
BerneS.FrisénA.Schultze-KrumbholzA.ScheithauerH.NaruskovK.LuikP.et al. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: a systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav.18, 320–334. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.022
5
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J.MayD. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth Soc.44, 500–523. doi: 10.1177/0044118X11407525
6
BrochadoS.SoaresS.FragaS. (2017). A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence Abuse18, 523–531. doi: 10.1177/1524838016641668
7
BurtonK. A.FlorellD.WygantD. B. (2013). The role of peer attachment and normative beliefs about aggression on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Psychol. Sch.50, 103–115. doi: 10.1002/pits.21663
8
ChanH. C. O.ChuiW. H. (2015). Social bond and self-reported nonviolent and violent delinquency: a study of traditional low risk, at-risk, and adjudicated male Chinese adolescents. Child Youth Care Forum44, 711–730. doi: 10.1007/s10566-015-9303-4
9
ChanH. C.WongD. S. W. (2015). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese societies: prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention approach. Aggress. Violent Behav.23, 98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.010
10
ChanH. C.WongD. S. W. (2017). Coping with cyberbullying victimization: an exploratory study of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Int. J. Law Crime Justice50, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.04.003
11
ChanH. C.WongD. S. W. (2020). The overlap between cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation: exploring the psychosocial characteristics of Hong Kong adolescents. Asia Pacific J. Soc. Work Dev.30, 164–180. doi: 10.1080/02185385.2020.1761436
12
ChiP. T. L.LanV. T. H.NganN. H.LinhN. T. (2020). Online time, experience of cyber bullying and practices to cope with it among high school students in Hanoi. Health Psychol. Open7:2055102920935747. doi: 10.1177/2055102920935747
13
CohenS.WillsT. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull.98, 310–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
14
DavidsonL. M.DemarayM. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. Sch. Psychol. Rev.36, 383–405. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2007.12087930
15
EstévezE.CañasE.EstévezJ. F.PovedanoA. (2020). Continuity and overlap of roles in victims and aggressors of bullying and Cyberbullying in adolescence: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:7452. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207452
16
FahyA. E.StansfeldS. A.SmukM.SmithN. R.CumminsS.ClarkC. (2016). Longitudinal associations between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental health. J. Adolesc. Health59, 502–509. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.006
17
FantiK. A.DemetriouA. G.HawaV. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: examining risk and protective factors. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol.9, 168–181. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2011.643169
18
GaraigordobilM. (2017). Psychometric properties of the cyberbullying test, a screening instrument to measure cybervictimization, cyberaggression, and cyberobservation. J. Interpers. Violence32, 3556–3576. doi: 10.1177/0886260515600165
19
HammM. P.NewtonA. S.ChisholmA.ShulhanJ.MilneA.SundarP.et al. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr.169, 770–777. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
20
HellfeldtK.López-RomeroL.AndershedH. (2019). Cyberbullying and psychological well-being in young adolescence: the potential protective mediation effects of social support from family, friends, and teachers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:45. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010045
21
Hoff DianneL.Mitchell SidneyN. (2009). Cyberbullying: causes, effects, and remedies. J. Educ. Adm.47, 652–665. doi: 10.1108/09578230910981107
22
HoltM. K.EspelageD. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J. Youth Adolesc.36, 984–994. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3
23
HouseJ. S.UmbersonD.LandisK. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annu. Rev. Sociol.14, 293–318. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453
24
HutsonE.KellyS.MilitelloL. K. (2018). Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs.15, 72–79. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12257
25
Kerres MaleckiC.Kilpatrick DemarayM. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: development of the child and adolescent social support scale. Psychol. Sch.39, 1–18. doi: 10.1002/pits.10004
26
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.New York: Guilford publications.
27
KlomekA. B.SouranderA.GouldM. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: a review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Can. J. Psychiatr.55, 282–288. doi: 10.1177/070674371005500503
28
Kochenderfer-LaddB.SkinnerK. (2002). Children’s coping strategies: moderators of the effects of peer victimization?Dev. Psychol.38, 267–278. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.38.2.267
29
KowalskiR. M.LimberS. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. J. Adolesc. Health41, S22–S30. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
30
KowalskiR. M.LimberS. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. J. Adolesc. Health53, S13–S20. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
31
LeM. T. H.TranT. D.HoltonS.NguyenH. T.WolfeR.FisherJ. (2017). Reliability, convergent validity and factor structure of the DASS-21 in a sample of Vietnamese adolescents. PLoS One12:e0180557. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180557
32
LeeC.ShinN. (2017). Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Comput. Hum. Behav.68, 352–358. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047
33
LivazovićG.HamE. (2019). Cyberbullying and emotional distress in adolescents: the importance of family, peers and school. Heliyon5:e01992. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01992
34
LovibondS. H.LovibondP. F. (1996). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales.Australia: Psychology Foundation of Australia.
35
MachackovaH.SevcikovaA.DedkovaL.CernaA.DanebackK. (2013). Effectiveness of coping strategies for victims of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychol. J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace7:5. doi: 10.5817/CP2013-3-5
36
MachmutowK.PerrenS.SticcaF.AlsakerF. D. (2012). Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation?Emot. Behav. Diffic.17, 403–420. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2012.704310
37
Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2017). Maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models for continuous data: standard errors and goodness of fit. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J.24, 383–394. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606
38
MitchellK. J.YbarraM.FinkelhorD. (2007). The relative importance of online victimization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child Maltreat.12, 314–324. doi: 10.1177/1077559507305996
39
NixonC. L. (2014). Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolesc. Health Med. Ther.5, 143–158. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S36456
40
PabianS.VandeboschH. (2016). An investigation of short-term longitudinal associations between social anxiety and victimization and perpetration of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. J. Youth Adolesc.45, 328–339. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0259-3
41
PanumapornJ.HongsanguansriS.AtsariyasingW.KiatrungritK. (2020). Bystanders’ behaviours and associated factors in cyberbullying. Gen. Psychiatr.33:e100187. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2019-100187
42
PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice4, 148–169. doi: 10.1177/1541204006286288
43
PerrenS.CorcoranL.CowieH.DehueF.GarciaD.GuckinC. M.et al. (2012). Tackling cyberbullying: review of empirical evidence regarding successful responses by students, parents and schools. Int. J. Confl. Violence6, 283–292. doi: 10.4119/ijcv-2919
44
PriceM.DalgleishJ. (2010). Cyberbullying: experiences, impacts and coping strategies as described by Australian young people. Youth Stud. Aust.29, 51–59.
45
RiebelJ.JägerR.FischerU. C. J. P. S. (2009). Cyberbullying in Germany - an exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies. Psychol. Sci.51, 298–314.
46
RothonC.HeadJ.KlinebergE.StansfeldS. (2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London. J. Adolesc.34, 579–588. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.007
47
SchneiderS. K.O’donnellL.StueveA.CoulterR. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: a regional census of high school students. Am. J. Public Health102, 171–177. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308
48
Schultze-KrumbholzA.JäkelA.SchultzeM.ScheithauerH. (2012). Emotional and behavioural problems in the context of cyberbullying: a longitudinal study among German adolescents. Emot. Behav. Diffic.17, 329–345. doi: 10.1080/13632752.2012.704317
49
SelkieE. M.FalesJ. L.MorenoM. A. (2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J. Adolesc. Health58, 125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026
50
SittichaiR.SmithP. K. (2015). Bullying in south-east Asian countries: a review. Aggress. Violent Behav.23, 22–35. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.002
51
SlonjeR.SmithP. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?Scand. J. Psychol.49, 147–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x
52
SlonjeR.SmithP. K.FrisénA. (2017). Perceived reasons for the negative impact of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol.14, 295–310. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1200461
53
Van CleemputK.VandeboschH.PabianS. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that determine “helping,” “joining in,” and “doing nothing” when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggress. Behav.40, 383–396. doi: 10.1002/ab.21534
54
WongD. S. W.ChanH. C.ChengC. H. K. (2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Child Youth Serv. Rev.36, 133–140. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006
55
YangS. A.KimD. H. (2017). Factors associated with bystander behaviors of Korean youth in school bullying situations: a cross-sectional study. Medicine96:e7757. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007757
56
YbarraM. L.Diener-WestM.LeafP. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. J. Adolesc. Health41, S42–S50. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004
57
YuchangJ.JunyiL.JunxiuA.JingW.MingchengH. (2019). The differential victimization associated with depression and anxiety in cross-cultural perspective: a meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse20, 560–573. doi: 10.1177/1524838017726426
Summary
Keywords
cyberbullying, social support, psychological health, structural equation modeling, adolescent
Citation
Ngo AT, Tran AQ, Tran BX, Nguyen LH, Hoang MT, Nguyen THT, Doan LP, Vu GT, Nguyen TH, Do HT, Latkin CA, Ho RCM and Ho CSH (2021) Cyberbullying Among School Adolescents in an Urban Setting of a Developing Country: Experience, Coping Strategies, and Mediating Effects of Different Support on Psychological Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 12:661919. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661919
Received
31 January 2021
Accepted
02 March 2021
Published
09 April 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Changiz Mohiyeddini, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, United States
Reviewed by
Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Frank Guangzhe Yuan, University of Macau, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Ngo, Tran, Tran, Nguyen, Hoang, Nguyen, Doan, Vu, Nguyen, Do, Latkin, Ho and Ho.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Trang Huyen Thi Nguyen, nguyenthuyentrang46@duytan.edu.vn
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Health Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.