Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

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

The relationship between online activities, netiquette and cyberbullying

Sora Park a,⁎, Eun-Yeong Na b, Eun-mee Kim c
a
News and Media Research Centre, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia
b
Department of Communication, Sogang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Communication, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While cyberbullying shares characteristics with face-to-face bullying, there is a uniqueness of online interaction
Received 21 January 2014 that makes it more pervasive and the impact longer-lasting. Cyberbullying should be understood within a
Received in revised form 22 March 2014 broader context of online activities and how adolescents perceive of what is permissible in the online space.
Accepted 2 April 2014
This study investigated the relationship between levels of online activities and cyberbullying behavior, while
Available online 13 April 2014
examining the moderating impact of netiquette. Communication with parents, age, gender and location were
Keywords:
also considered. A face-to-face survey was conducted on a nationally representative sample of 12 to 15 year-
Cyberbullying old adolescents (N = 1200) in South Korea during April and May, 2013. The results show that frequent users
Online risk of the Internet and SNS are more likely to engage in, become victims of and witness cyberbullying behavior.
Netiquette On the other hand, studying online, netiquette, and communication time with parents were negatively correlated
Adolescents to cyberbullying behavior. Knowing the mechanism of social interaction online and the awareness about the con-
SNS use sequences of their behavior are important factors that shape young people's online behavior. This suggests that a
Online activity more proactive approach to prevent and mitigate negative behavior online is needed. The results add to the
knowledge that informs cyberbullying prevention methods.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction process of justifying misconduct by selectively applying moral norms. This logic is applica-
ble to online misbehavior but the range of actions that adolescents perceive of as unethical
or immoral may differ from the offline world. To account for the differences, we introduce
Cyberbullying and traditional bullying share some commonalities in that they
the concept of “netiquette”—a broad term that encompasses the moral and ethical values
start occurring during adolescence, are aggressive behaviors towards someone
that people exercise online.
perceived as weaker, and involves peer group interaction. However, there are
A nationally representative sample of 12 to 15 year-olds in South Korea was surveyed
some unique characteristics of cyberbullying that are linked to young people's on-
by using a face-to-face method. We explored the relationship between the amount and
line behavior and their perception about the online world that differentiates it
types of Internet use, moral norms specific to the online environment, and the ways in
from face-to-face bullying. Adolescents spend an enormous amount of time online,
which these factors influence exposure to, and practice of, cyberbullying. South Korea is
engaging in various activities and interacting with other people, which has be-
one of the countries with the highest broadband and mobile Internet penetration in the
come an essential part of their everyday lives. Cyberbullying can be understood within the
world and provides a good case study of how young people behave in the online space
context of these online activities (Festl & Quandt, 2013; Walrave & Heirman, 2011; Ybarra
in a well-connected environment.
& Mitchell, 2008).
As the time spent online increases, so do the risks and opportunities adolescents en-
counter (see Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). If we limit adolescents' use of the Internet,
then it may reduce the benefits as well as the risks. Instead of trying to stop what young 1.1. Characteristics of cyberbullying
people encounter online, we need a proactive approach that equips them with the ability
to filter and alleviate the impact of negative content. Borrowing insights from research on
As Internet penetration increases, cyberbullying is growing in prevalence. In the U.S.,
traditional bullying as well as Internet research, this study investigated factors that are re-
for example, 20–40% of young people have experienced cyberbullying at least once in their
lated to cyberbullying and suggested ways to reduce cyberbullying behavior. Misbehavior
lives (Tokunaga, 2010). EU Kids Online reports a smaller figure: Across Europe, 6% of 9- to
such as bullying can be explained by the concept of moral disengagement, which is a
16-year-old Internet users have been bullied online in the past year (Livingstone, Haddon,
Görzig, et al., 2011). An equivalent study of Australian youth reports that 16% had experi-
enced cyberbullying (Green, Brady, Ólafsson, et al., 2011). Bullying behavior during adoles-
cence is not a new phenomenon. As a part of growing up, adolescents explore social
relationships, during which some may encounter bullying or become bullies, both
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 6201 5423. face-to-face and online. This may, however, lead to detrimental consequences—
E-mail addresses: sora.park@canberra.edu.au (S. Park), ena@sogang.ac.kr (E.-Y. Na), such as depression, decreased self-worth and suicide—in both bullies and victims
eunmee@snu.ac.kr (E. Kim). (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.002
0190-7409/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81
Bullying is an intentional behavior to harm someone through repeated aggres-
sion, commonly in a relationship with an imbalance in power (Levy, Cortesi, Gasser,
et al., 2012; Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013). When this behavior occurs through electronic
means, it is deemed cyberbullying. Smith et al. (2008) defines cyberbullying as “an aggres-
sive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of
contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him
or herself” (p376). Due to the increased methods of electronic communication,
the scope of cyberbullying is broader than that of traditional bullying. Perpetrators
can remain anonymous, and one-time acts of aggression may elicit unintended
ramifications.
Bullying can be distinguished from simple aggression in that it is a behavior that is re-
peated over time and implies a power imbalance between the bully and victim (Olweus,
1994). It usually occurs within the social context of peer group interactions (Williams &
Guerra, 2007). Past research indicates a link between traditional and online bullying
(Almeida, Correia, Marinho, et al., 2012; Kowalski & Limber, 2013; Livingstone et al.,
2011) and a strong correlation between people's propensity to misbehave online and
offline (Selwyn, 2008). While most of the behavioral aspects of bullying and cyberbullying
are similar, there are some fundamental differences (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009;
Werner, Bumpus, & Rock, 2010; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007) and the consequences
greater online (Låftman et al., 2013). First, the power imbalance can play out quite differ-
ently online, regardless of the power relationship in real life (Vandebosch, 2008). This is
because in cyberspace, the relationship between the bully and victim is not always asym-
metrical. Victims can retaliate and become bullies themselves. Also, bystanders can easily
participate in the bullying. Second, the fact that the action can be anonymous heightens
the threatening nature of cyberbullying (Dooley et al., 2009; Mishna, Saini, & Solomon,
2009). As a result, the roles of victims, bystanders, and perpetrators become interchange-
able. A person can be involved in multiple roles that are fluid over time, changing across
different situations. While adolescents differentiated among the role of bullies and victims
in an offline environment, this was less evident online (Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, &
Waterhouse, 2012).
1.2. More Internet use leads to more risks
Contrary to the common belief that better information and communication technolo-
gy (ICT) skills help reduce the risk that people encounter online, some studies show that
online risks are positively associated with both Internet skills and use (Livingstone &
Helsper, 2010). Finding the link between the ways that young people spend their time on-
line and the types of risks that they are exposed to is essential to keeping a safe and healthy
online environment. Equally important is the manner in which they deal with the online
risks that they encounter.
Internet users who are more skilled and whose usage is narrowly focused are exposed
to greater negative content online (Park, 2009). Similarly, Leung and Lee's (2012) work
confirmed that the higher the information literacy and usage level, the more likely that
users are to encounter online risks. Social networking site (SNS) users among children
(9–16 years) who have more digital competence are exposed to more risk online
(Staksrud et al., 2013).
Higher levels of ICT use and skills are correlated with cyberbullying behavior: the re-
sults of a longitudinal study indicated that among early teens, ICT skills significantly in-
creased cyberbullying (Kumazaki, Suzuki, Katsura, Sakamoto, & Kashibuchi, 2011);
meanwhile, according to Floros, Siomos, Fisoun, Dafouli, and Geroukalis (2013),
cyberbullies tended to spend more time online, engaging in activities such as online discus-
sions, downloading content, gambling, and pornography. Risky SNS use, such as disclosing
personal information or befriending strangers, led to more exposure to cyberbullying
(Kwan & Skoric, 2013). The pervasive use of SNS particularly raises concerns of young people
being more exposed to online risks because SNS allows users to disclose their personal infor-
mation, share location information and link with strangers.
Young people are spending more time online than ever before. A large portion
of what they learn about social interaction and relationships is acquired through
online networks. Investigating how youths perceive online social norms and how
they act may help us reduce or mitigate negative online behaviors, such as
cyberbullying.
1.3. Moral disengagement and netiquette
Cyberbullying is related to other forms of violence and aggressive behavior (Calvete,
Orue, Estévez, Villardón, & Padilla, 2010). Social and emotional learning, in particular em-
pathy, can reduce aggressive behavior (Castillo, Salguero, Fernández-Berrocal, & Balluerka,
2013; Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2007; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, & Melzer, 2011). While
morality is a different concept from empathy, it shares an important component—aware-
ness of others and the society that surrounds us. Morality refers to an individual's concep-
tion of what is right or wrong; it is usually formed through an interactive process of
communicating and reproducing social structures (Fuchs, Bichler, & Raffl, 2009). Accord-
ing to Bandura's (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of the Moral Self, moral reasoning leads
to moral action and that people go through an affective self-regulatory mechanism that
sets their behavioral base. Moral disengagement is related to transgressive behavior,
while negatively related to self-regulatory efficacy (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli,
Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001).
Moral judgments play a significant role in both traditional and online bullying behav-
ior (Gini, 2006; Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel, 2014; Menesini, Nocentini, & Camodeca, 2013).
75
Bullying behavior is often self-justified with moral reasoning. For example, those with
stronger normative beliefs about aggression are more likely to engage in bullying behavior
(Burton, Florell, & Wygant, 2013; Williams & Guerra, 2007). When a person's moral prin-
ciples and his or her conduct are not consistent, moral disengagement serves as a mediator
(Bandura, 2002). Moral disengagement is a mental process of legitimizing an action by se-
lectively applying moral censure. When online, perpetrators can exercise moral disen-
gagement easily because consequences are less likely to seem immediate or real. This
disengagement is reinforced by the fact that it is easier to mask the origin of one's actions
through the Internet's anonymizing features. Indeed, research has demonstrated that
those who participated in cyberbullying felt less guilty had less conscience than those
who engaged in traditional bullying (Wachs, 2012). Elledge et al. (2013) found that higher
scores on pro-victim attitudes, which has a component of netiquette, lower frequencies of
cyberbullying.
Selwyn (2008) suggests that young people feel less inhibited to misbehave online
due to the disjuncture they feel between the offline and online worlds. The
disembodied nature of online interactions with other users may lead individuals to
lower their inhibitions regarding misbehavior (Denegri-Knott, 2006). Those who en-
gage in cyberbullying may, therefore, do so because they cannot observe the immedi-
ate impact of their actions (Perren & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, 2012). Studies have
shown that young people rate the likelihood of cybervictims being hurt significantly
higher than the likelihood of cyberbullies receiving consequences. They also tend to
engage in harmful behavior on the Internet if they believe that it is unlikely to result
in immediate consequences (Pettalia, Levin, & Dickinson, 2013). For example, know-
ing that the teacher might intervene reduces cyberbullying behavior (Elledge et al.,
2013).
Differences in the offline and online experiences result in what young people believe
to be the boundaries of social action. These are reflected in what people perceive to be
permitted actions. Netiquette is a broad concept that captures the sense of morality
and ethical values that are applied to the online world. This concept acknowledges that
the cyberspace has its own set of beliefs or standards, separate from the physical
world, which are used by Internet users as moral criteria, when they decide “what is,
what can be, how to feel, what to do and how to go about doing unethical things on
the net” (Freestone & Mitchell, 2004). Kumazaki et al. (2011) found that good neti-
quette—a higher awareness of desirable manners online—has a moderating effect on
cyberbullying.
2. Research questions and methodology
The Internet has increased the opportunities for social interaction
and wider online social networks, while simultaneously exposing
young people to various web-related risks, such as cyberbullying. Little
is known, however, about the way that online activities influence their
online misbehavior. Based on the literature review above, we set up
three research questions;
RQ1 Are the amount and type of online activities associated with
cyberbullying behavior?
RQ2 Are moral values and moral disengagement related to
cyberbullying behavior?
RQ3 Does netiquette have a moderating impact on cyberbullying
behavior?
We examined all aspects of cyberbullying including perpetration,
victimization and witnessing among adolescents.
2.1. Procedure and sample
We conducted a face-to-face survey of 1200 adolescents from
April 16, 2013 to May 15, 2013, in South Korea, using a multi-stage
stratified random sampling method. In order to prevent residents
in large cities from being over-sampled, we used the proportionate
square root of the actual population proportion to calculate the
quota for each neighborhood selected. Among the 1200 participants,
585 (48.8%) were female and 615 (51.3%) male. Regarding location,
21.8% (n = 261) lived in rural areas, 34.9 (n = 419) in midsized cit-
ies, and 43.3% (n = 520) in metropolitan areas (see Table 1). This is
representative of the national distribution in the 12- to 15-year-old
age group.
Trained interviewers were sent to schools and private tutoring in-
stitutions in neighborhoods that were randomly selected based on
the clusters. The interviewers recruited students in front of the schools
or institutions. After confirming the age and gender based on the allo-
cated quota, the respondent was taken to a nearby café, bench or
76 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81
library where they could be interviewed. The fact that the adolescents
were interviewed in public spaces may have affected the results. How-
ever, by having the interviewer present, we could increase partici-
pants' engagement. Each interview lasted about 45 min. This study
followed the research ethics outlined in South Korea's Bioethics and
Safety Act and was approved by the research organization's ethics
committee.
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Bullying and cyberbullying
Participants were asked whether they had ever engaged in, were
victims of, or encountered someone else engaging in the following
behaviors, in the past 12 months: “Saying or doing hurtful or nasty
things to someone else including teasing, hitting, kicking, pushing,
or excluding someone.” Then the interviewers told participants
that some of those behavior could also happen via phone or the In-
ternet. Posting mean and nasty pictures or words or sending them
through mobile phones; telling lies or nasty stories about someone
online; creating web pages to make fun of another person; hacking
into someone's email or social networking account; and sharing
other people's private information were given as additional exam-
ples of things that could happen online. The cyberbullying variables
were calculated by adding up the four types of bullying that occur
via electronic methods—voice calls, texting, instant messaging, and
social networking sites.
2.2.2. Netiquette
We measured netiquette by using 6 items, each rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from not at all, not much, somewhat, quite a
bit and very much. Adapting Freestone and Mitchell's (2004) areas of
ethical dilemmas that may occur online, we gave participants six situ-
ations and asked them how they would rate their choice: “It is okay to
share sexual material or harmful online content online, including
sending them through mobile phones for fun,” “It is okay to share in-
formation online that has not been confirmed, including sending it via
mobile phones,” “It is okay to disclose other people's personal infor-
mation online, if there is a good reason to do so,” “It is not a crime
to bully someone online because it is not in a face-to-face interaction,”
and “It is okay to insult somebody by criticizing them online because
everyone has freedom of expression.” The Cronbach's alpha of this
measurement was 0.912. The reverse mean of the six measures was
used as the netiquette variable so that higher scores reflect higher
netiquette.
2.2.3. Time spent online
This variable was measured by asking about the daily average time,
in minutes, that participants spend online. They were asked to estimate
all Internet use across different devices including computers, laptops,
mobile phones, tablets and iPods.
Table 1
Summary of respondents.
Variables N %
Gender Male 615
Female 585
Grade Year 7 397
Year 8 399
Year 9 404
Region Metropolitan areas 520
Midsized cities 419
Rural areas 261
Total 1200 100
2.2.4. Type of online activities
We measured this by asking participants about 15 online activi-
ties, and how often they used the services on an 8-point Likert type
scale, with scores labeled “never” “less than every few months,”
“once a month or so,” “once in 2–3 weeks or so,” “1–2 times a
week,” “3–5 times a week,” “about once a day,” and “several times
a day.” Again, we asked participants to consider usage across all of
their devices. By conducting a factor analysis, we identified four
components (see Table 2), which we labeled as “information uses”
(booking tickets, online shopping, using calendar/planner, accessing
maps/public transportation information, surfing/browsing the Inter-
net, posting or replying to messages; Cronbach's alpha = 0.802),
“entertainment uses” (watching movies/TV shows/animation,
watching video clips, playing games, listening to music/podcasts or
other audio files; Cronbach's alpha = 0.764), “social” (instant messag-
ing, social networking sites; Cronbach's alpha = 0.689) and “studying”
(search information for homework/study, e-learning; Cronbach's
alpha = 0.585).
2.2.5. Social networking sites (SNS) use
We examined a more detailed list of activities on social network-
ing sites by using 16 items using the same 8-point scale as the one
used to measure online activities. The items included in the list of ac-
tivities were: visiting sites with no specific purpose, glancing at
friends' updates, visiting friends' blogs or websites, replying or
responding to friends' posts, real-time chatting with friends,
updating own status, reading others' comments, uploading photos/
videos/messages, monitoring how people have responded to one's
own posts, leaving traces on friends' pages, befriending or following
someone, looking for people, engaging in group activities, sharing
friends' posts, forwarding information, and seeking specialist infor-
mation. The mean of these 16 items was used as the SNS use variable
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.939).
2.2.6. Communication time with parent
We measured this by asking for the average time, in minutes, that
participants spent talking to each of their parents on a weekday.
While it was not a central research question of our study, we believed
that parental involvement might be an important variable in predicting
youths' online behaviors. Communication with parents mediates young
people's experiences of the Internet, be they positive or negative (Park,
2011), and intimacy with parents generally helps mitigate children's
responses to negative online content (Cho & Cheon, 2005). Parental in-
volvement also reduces the risk of online victimization (Floros et al.,
2013). Such results indicate that the time children spend with their par-
ents may mediate their experiences with the online environment for
the better. In this study, we used the communication time with the
mother as the variable.
2.2.7. Demographics
A gender dummy variable (1 = male and 0 = female) was used. Age
was represented by a numeral. A regional dummy variable was used,
coded 1 if the respondents resided in mid-sized or large cities, and 0 if
they lived in rural areas.
3. Results
3.1. Blurring boundaries of cyberbullies, cybervictims and cyberbystanders
51.3
48.8 Among the participants in our study, 20.4% reported having bul-
33.1
lied others online, and 19.8% reported having done so face-to-face,
33.3
33.7
at least once in the past 12 months. 26.4% had been face-to-face vic-
43.3 tims and 25.8% had been bullied online; 35.2% reported having seen
34.9 others being bullied online, and 37.9% had witnessed it face-to-face.
21.8 Among cyberbullies, 75.2% admitted to having bullied someone face-
to-face as well. 65.5% of those who had experienced face-to-face
 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81 77

Table 2
Factor analysis results.

Measurements 1 2 3 4 Cronbach's alpha

Information Online booking .787 .032 -.046 0.013 0.802

Online shopping .733 .179 .133 0.042
Calendar/planner .691 .261 .154 0.168
Transportation and location based services .642 .250 -.007 0.221
Surf/browse the internet .525 .353 .229 0.116
Post or reply to messages .520 .228 .377 0.194
Entertainment Watch movies, TV shows, animation, etc. .187 .794 .045 0.172 0.764
Watch video clips (e.g. YouTube) .205 .770 .134 0.24
Play online games .176 .634 .199 -0.115
Listen to music, podcasts or other audio files .181 .620 .314 -0.019
Read e-books, news, magazines, journals etc. .390 .489 -.004 0.348
Social Instant messaging .016 .108 .884 0.051 0.689
Social networking sites .182 .277 .745 -0.007
Studying Search information for homework or study .079 .032 .083 0.833 0.585
e-Learning (for school work) .208 .131 -.018 0.771

-Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

-Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization, rotation converged in 6 iterations.

bullying also had been bullied online. Victims of cyberbullying were
also perpetrators: 64.4% of the cybervictims had bullied someone
else online. The majority of online bullies (87.8%) and victims
(80.6%) have also witnessed cyberbullying. Since this study was a
cross-sectional survey, we cannot infer that one leads to the other.
Nevertheless, it is evident that there is a group of young people
that are both bullies and victims, in both online and offline contexts,
similar to previous findings (Walrave & Heirman, 2011; Wong, Chan,
& Cheng, 2014).
3.2. Does spending more time online and on social networking sites increase
exposure to cyberbullying?
Using Pearson correlations, self-reported cyberbullying behavior,
online activities and netiquette were analyzed. Bullying someone on-
line, being a victim and witnessing others are all positively correlated
with the time that adolescents spend online and using SNS. However,
those who have higher netiquette scores tend to have less experience
in all three behaviors. On the other hand, netiquette was negatively cor-
related with SNS use and online activities; spending more time online
does not automatically imply higher netiquette. On the contrary, neti-
quette was lower among those who were frequent users of the Internet
and SNS. This differed by the type of online activities adolescents were
frequently engaged in. There was a negative correlation between neti-
quette and information (r = − .162, p b .05), entertainment (r =
− .139, p b 0.05) and social (r = − .101, p b .05) uses of the Internet
but not with studying online (r = .027, not significant). Those who
communicated frequently with their mothers experienced less
cyberbullying behavior (Table 3).
3.3. Do certain types of online activities induce cyberbullying behavior?
Regression analyses were conducted to see if specific types of on-
line activities result in more exposure or a propensity to engage in
cyberbullying. Due to the high correlations among various online ac-
tivities (r = .097 ~ .575, p b .01), we conducted variance inflation
factor (VIF) analyses to see the risks of multicollinearity. All VIF
scores were below the threshold of 5, so we were able to include all
variables in the same regression equation by using ordinary least
squares (OLS) method. The dependent variables in the analyses
were cyberbullying behavior, cyber victimization, and witnessing
cyberbullying.
Frequent uses of information and entertainment content online
were positively related to cyberbullying behavior while studying was
negatively related. Social uses of the Internet did not have a significant
relationship with bullying behavior. In case of victims, both social and
information uses were positively related, while studying was negatively
related. Entertainment uses were not associated with victimization. For
bystanders, information, entertainment and social uses all had positive
relationships. Studying was negatively related. Consistently found was
that information uses of the Internet had a positive association with
all three dependent variables but using the Internet for studying had a
negative relationship with online bullying, victimization, and witnessing
(Table 4).
3.4. Does netiquette have a moderating effect on cyberbullying?
Three separate regression analyses were conducted to assess
which factors are related to perpetrating cyberbullying, being an on-
line victim, and exposure as a bystander. We regressed the three de-
pendent variables on the daily time spent online, SNS usage,
netiquette, daily communication with parent, age, gender, and
place of residence. The amount of time spent online and activities
on social networking sites, as well as the amount of free time were
positively associated with the likelihood of becoming cyberbullies,
cybervictims, and cyberbystanders. On the other hand, netiquette
and daily communication with parents both were negatively related
to cyberbullying, confirming the moderating effect of netiquette. Age
had a negative correlation with online bullying and victimization but
was not significantly associated with the witnessing online bullying.
We found no gender differences across all three types of behavior.
However, urban adolescents were generally more engaged in and ex-
posed to cyberbullying when compared with their rural counterparts
(Table 5). Due to the correlation between time spent online, SNS use
and netiquette, the VIF scores were estimated in the regressions. All
VIF scores were lower than 5 which lessens the concerns of
multicollinearity. All variables were included in the regression equa-
tion by using ordinary least squares (OLS) method.
4. Discussion
The main elements of cyberbullying are similar to those of tradi-
tional bullying but there are some unique features that should be ad-
dressed in order to devise effective preventative strategies.
Specifically, the interchangeable natures of bullies, victims, and
78 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81

Table 3
Pearson correlation analysis (N = 1200).

SNS usage Netiquette Communication with parent Cyberbully Cybervictim Cyberbystander

Time online .139** −.064* −0.042 .157** .130** .169**

SNS usage −.120** 0.002 .190** .157** .201**
Netiquette .097** −.157** −.179** −.197**
Communication with parent −.067* −.097** −.071*
Cyberbully .681** .612**
Cybervictim .589**

*p b 0.01, ** p b 0.05.

bystanders, as well as the perceived disembodiment of the online
world, appear to be what makes cyberbullying so pervasive, and in-
creasingly so.
This behavior can be understood within a broader context of other
online behavior young people engage in. Participation in and exposure
to cyberbullying is higher among adolescents who spend more time,
engage frequently in various activities online and who are frequent
users of SNS. With increases in the penetration of digital technologies,
we predict that this trend is likely to increase. One significant finding
in this study was that not only the time spent online, but also the type
of activities that adolescents engage in while they are online influ-
ence cyberbullying behavior. Information and entertainment uses
had a positive relationship to perpetration. Victims were more likely
to be active information and social users of the Internet. As for by-
standers, they had a positive relation to all three types of uses.
Young people who spend a lot of time online, engaging in various ac-
tivities, are prone to experience the more negative aspects of the In-
ternet, particularly if the activities involve socializing and not one-
to-one communication.
We used two different variables to measure communicative and
social uses of the Internet; the first asked the respondents how
often they use instant messaging and SNS; then a more detailed
measure of SNS use was estimated by using multiple indicators, fo-
cusing on the types of behavior adolescents engage in using SNS. Per-
petration behavior was not related to the former variable, indicating
that instant messaging services are used for communicative func-
tions—to interact with friends or kinship—rather than social uses.
In contrast, frequent SNS was positively related to perpetration, vic-
timization and witnessing of cyberbullying behavior suggesting that
SNS is used by young people to explore and experiment with various
social relationships and that it comprises a significant part of their
lives.
Increased online activities expose young people to more risk on-
line (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). Not only social media use but
other types of activities such as searching for information or looking
up sites for entertainment can increase this risk (Park, 2009). In con-
trast, studying had a negative association with bullying, being a vic-
tim and witnessing cyberbullying. We can speculate on two
characteristics of studying that may have results in a negative corre-
lation with bullying behaviors. One is that studying is usually a sol-
itary activity that doesn't involve online peer interaction; the other
is that it takes up time that adolescents could otherwise have
spent on other online activities. This can be linked to the fact that
adolescents who spend more time online are exposed to
cyberbullying behavior.
Online bullying behavior was mediated by the adolescents' sense
of netiquette and the time they spent with their mothers. Netiquette
is what people perceive to be the right way to behave online and
sets boundaries of action. It can decrease misbehavior and moderate
the effects of ICT skills on misbehavior (Kumazaki et al., 2011). Similar
to traditional bullying, moral disengagement was related to
cyberbullying behavior. While we didn't ask what conversation they
engaged in with their parents, it should be noted that communicating
frequently with parents was negatively related to cyberbullying
behavior.
There were no gender differences in bullying, victimization and
witnessing online, similar to previous results on Internet bullying
(Williams & Guerra, 2007). In the 12 to 15 age group, younger ado-
lescents engaged more in all three aspects of cyberbullying. Bullying
is commonly used as a strategy by young people to establish domi-
nance as they enter a new peer group (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000)
and in this case moving to middle school from elementary school at
the age of 12 or 13. The sample consisted of first, second and third
(last) year middle school children. Urban youth tend to engage

Table 4
OLS regression results: Online activities and cyberbullying behavior (N = 1200).

Dependent variables

Dependent variables Cyberbullying Cybervictimization Cyberbystanding

B Beta t B Beta t B Beta t

(Constant) −0.128 −0.786 0.082 0.45 −0.077 −0.379

Information 0.195 0.207 5.752* 0.23 .219 6.101* 0.242 0.203 5.696*
Entertainment 0.053 0.066 1.841*** 0.032 .036 1.008 0.098 0.097 2.705*
Social 0.03 0.04 1.288 0.049 .058 1.857*** 0.059 0.062 2.001**
Studying −0.071 −0.093 −3.091* −0.111 −.131 −4.348* −0.093 −0.096 −3.211*

Adjusted R square 0.06 0.062 0.077

F 20.267 20.778 26.032
VIF 1.158–1.662 1.158–1.662 1.158–1.662

*p b 0.01, ** p b 0.05, *** p b 0.1.

 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81 79

Table 5
OLS regression results: Factors influencing exposure to cyberbullying behavior (N = 1200).

Dependent variables

Dependent variables Cyberbullying Cybervictimization Cyberbystanding

B Beta t B Beta t B Beta t

(Constant) 1.482 2.262** 2.576 3.474* 1.501 1.83***

Daily Internet use 0.142 0.121 4.15* 0.122 0.093 3.149* 0.188 0.126 4.374*
SNS usage 0.15 0.164 5.59* 0.135 0.131 4.442* 0.201 0.173 5.99*
Netiquette −0.166 −0.111 −3.778* −0.227 −0.134 −4.562* −0.283 −0.148 −5.13*
Age −0.097 −0.063 −2.175** −0.125 −0.073 −2.492** −0.068 −0.035 −1.225
Gender 0.056 0.022 0.751 0.041 0.014 0.494 0.029 0.009 0.317
Urban 0.301 0.097 3.348* 0.2 0.057 1.966*** 0.644 0.163 5.713*
Communication with parents −0.002 −0.045 −1.531 −0.004 −0.081 −2.769* −0.003 −0.044 −1.537

Adjusted R Square 0.076 0.065 0.108

F 14.087 12.076 20.095
VIF 1.006 –1.037 1.006–1.037 1.01–1.037

*p b .01, **p b .05, ***p b 0.1.

more in bullying online, as well as encountering and victimizing.
While not analyzed further, we can apply the hypothesis that smaller
communities have stronger social cohesion than larger ones, provid-
ing a higher sense of belonging (Stavropoulos, Alexandraki, & Motti-
Stefanidi, 2013).
5. Conclusion
Thus, young people need to learn how to navigate this complex new
world (Mishna et al., 2009). This, in part, involves educating Internet
users the ‘realness’ of the online world and that it is not separate
from the offline real life. An empathic training program used in an ex-
perimental study that teaches the awareness of others, was found to
be effective in decreasing bullying behavior (Şahin, 2012). More pro-
grams that can be applied to the online world must be developed
and implemented.

5.1. Implications of the findings

Any prevention or intervention should embrace the fact that young
people are going to spend a considerable amount of time on the Inter-
net, engaging in many activities. Rather than a preemptive strategy,
we need to develop more proactive remedies to mitigate the negative
aspects of being online, particularly by enhancing their moral and ethi-
cal values that are applicable to the online world. This, in part, involves
educating young people that the online world is just as real as the offline
world, and that their actions can have a serious impact on other people;
it is much easier for youth to justify their actions if the consequences do
not seem real.
Just as children learn about the consequences of their offline actions,
it is important to give a sense of online reality to young people. During
adolescence and early adulthood, individuals shift their moral reasoning
from avoiding punishment to respecting others and communities. The
perception that there is a larger community, beyond that of close
relationships, is an important learning process during adolescence
(Davis, Katz, Santo, et al., 2010). In the cyberworld, individuals have
less fear of being caught and punished for their misbehavior. Thus, rath-
er than encouraging adolescents to simply think about the immediate
consequences of their actions, it may be more effective to encourage
linking moral and ethical reasoning to their acts in a broader social
context.
SNS permeates young people's everyday lives. This has opened up
new opportunities for adolescents to learn how to initiate and main-
tain social relationships but it has also increased the chances of
being exposed to negative content online. Once people are actively re-
siding and participating in the online social realm, it is more likely that
they encounter various types of social interaction online, including
bullying. However, SNS is a playground for young people to explore
relationships, experiment with cliques and groups and experience
the online social world. The ways in which they can benefit from
this added space, while minimizing the risks and negativity is a chal-
lenge for them. This is because the opportunities of socializing in the
online space are contradictory and complex. The Internet invites pos-
sibilities of risky behavior due to anonymity, while at the same time
provides communicative tools to develop and maintain relationships.
5.2. Limitations and future research direction
Although not thoroughly examined in the present study, the fact
that communication with parent reduced bullying behavior is worthy
of further investigation. There was a strong correlation between the
sense of netiquette and daily communication with parents. Parental
influence of pro-social values and quality time spent with children are
related to online misbehavior (Chan & Chui, 2013; Park, 2011). Studies
have repeatedly found that parental intervention and communication
style affect the way children use the media (Krcmar, 1996; Padilla-
Walker, 2006; Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999). Internet
use is negatively related to adolescents' perception of the quality of fam-
ily relationships (Mesch, 2003) and more screen time is associated with
poorer attachment to parents (Richards, McGee, Williams, Welch, &
Hancox, 2010). What needs to be investigated further is the relationship
between parents' netiquette and how that is discussed with their
children.
The impact of peer groups is another area worthy of investigation.
Social bonding with other pro-social individuals increases the likelihood
of morality. How peer group interaction affects the social norms among
adolescents in cyberspace is important in understanding how young
people perceive of and behave in the online world. This is particularly
so because the online space provides broader opportunities for users
to engage in interaction with other users. Online interaction includes so-
cializing with people that are beyond the typical concept of peer groups
in terms of age and geographic location.
Due to the methodology that we adopted for this study, we cannot
avoid its descriptive nature, which makes it difficult to infer any causal
relations (Patchin & Hinduja, 2013). Nevertheless, the link between
online activities, netiquette and cyberbullying sets a meaningful ground
for further investigation.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF 2012-S1A5A2A-
03033936).
80 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81
References
Almeida, A., Correia, I., Marinho, S., et al. (2012). Virtual but not less real. In Q. Li, D. Cross,
& P. K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground (pp. 223–244). Wiley-
Blackwell.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M.
Kurtines, & G. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development:
Theory, research and applications, Vol. 1. (pp. 71–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency.
Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
0305724022014322.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001).
Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 125–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.80.1.125.
Burton, K., Florell, D., & Wygant, D. (2013). The role of peer attachment and normative
beliefs about aggression on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Psychology in the
Schools, 50(2), 103–115.
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,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017.
Castillo, R., Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Balluerka, N. (2013). Effects of an
emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 883–892, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.
2013.07.001.
Chan, H., & Chui, W. (2013). Social bonds and school bullying: A study of Macanese male
adolescents on bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Child & Youth Care
Forum, 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9221-2.
Cho, C. H., & Cheon, H. J. (2005). Children's exposure to negative internet content: Ef-
fects of family context. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49(4),
488–509.
Davis, K., Katz, S. L., Santo, R., et al. (2010). Fostering cross-generational dialogues about
the ethics of online life. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(2), 124–150.
Denegri-Knott, J. (2006). Consumers behaving badly: Deviation or innovation? Power
struggles on the web. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(1), 82–94.
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A
theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 182–188.
Elledge, L. C., Williford, A., Boulton, A., DePaolis, K., Little, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2013).
Individual and contextual predictors of cyberbullying: The influence of children's
provictim attitudes and teachers' ability to intervene. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(5), 698–710, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9920-x.
Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2013). Social relations and cyberbullying: The influence of individual
and structural attributes on victimization and perpetration via the internet. Human
Communication Research, 39(1), 101–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.
01442.x.
Floros, G. D., Siomos, K. E., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis, D. (2013). Adolescent
online cyberbullying in Greece: The impact of parental online security practices,
bonding, and online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445–453.
Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards e-ethics and Internet-
related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 121–128.
Fuchs, C., Bichler, R. M., & Raffl, C. (2009). Cyberethics and co-operation in the information
society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 447–466.
Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's wrong?
Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 528–539, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20153.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents'
bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33(5), 467–476, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204.
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hymel, S. (2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth:
A meta-analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40(1),
56–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21502.
Green, L., Brady, D., Ólafsson, K., et al. (2011). Risks and safety for Australian children on the
internet: Full findings from the AU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents.
: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14(3), 206–221.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13–S20
(Supplement).
Krcmar, M. (1996). Family communication patterns, discourse behavior, and child
television viewing. Human Communication Research, 23(2), 251–277.
Kumazaki, A., Suzuki, K., Katsura, R., Sakamoto, A., & Kashibuchi, M. (2011). The effects of
netiquette and ICT skills on school-bullying and cyber-bullying: The two-wave panel
study of Japanese elementary, secondary, and high school students. Procedia — Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 735–741.
Låftman, S. B., Modin, B., & Östberg, V. (2013). Cyberbullying and subjective health:
A large-scale study of students in Stockholm, Sweden. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(1), 112–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.
10.020.
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 16–25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2012.07.014.
Law, D.M., Shapka, J.D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face
of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and
victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 226–232, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2011.09.004.
Leung, L., & Lee, P. (2012). The influences of information literacy, internet addiction and
parenting styles on internet risks. New Media & Society, 14(1), 117–136.
Levy, N., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., et al. (2012). Bullying in a networked era: A literature review
2012. Cambridge, MA: The Berkman Center for Internet & Society.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., et al. (2011). EU Kids Online II 2011. London: The
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers's use
of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media &
Society, 12(2), 309–329.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Camodeca, M. (2013). Morality, values, traditional bullying,
and cyberbullying in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1),
1–14.
Mesch, G. S. (2003). The family and the internet: The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly,
84(4), 1038–1050.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth's per-
ceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222–1228,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation-Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines,
35(7), 1171–1190.
Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2006). Peers I can monitor, it's media that really worries me!
Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(1), 56–82.
Park, S. (2009). Concentration of internet usage and its relation to exposure to negative
content: Does the gender gap differ among adults and adolescents? Women's
Studies International Forum, 32(2), 98–107.
Park, S. (2011). Effects of home environment on internet use and dependence of children
and adolescents. Selected Papers of, Internet Research, 1. http://spir.aoir.org/index.
php/spir/article/view/28/30
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Implications for
empirical research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 431–432.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and
peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school.
American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 699–725, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00028312037003699.
Perren, S., & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bully-
ing in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions,
and moral values. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2),
195–209.
Pettalia, J. L., Levin, E., & Dickinson, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without
consequence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2758–2765.
Richards, R., McGee, R., Williams, S., Welch, D., & Hancox, R. (2010). Adolescent screen
time and attachment to parents and peers. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 164(3), 258–262.
Şahin, M. (2012). An investigation into the efficiency of empathy training program on
preventing bullying in primary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7),
1325–1330, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.013.
Selwyn, N. (2008). A safe haven for misbehaving? An investigation of online misbehavior
among university students. Social Science Computer Review, 26(4), 446–465.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2007.01846.x.
Staksrud, E., et al. (2013). Does the use of social networking sites increase children's risk
of harm? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 40–50.
Stavropoulos, V., Alexandraki, K., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2013). Recognizing internet addic-
tion: Prevalence and relationship to academic achievement in adolescents enrolled in
urban and rural Greek high schools. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 565–576, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.008.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic?
Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. CyberPsychology,
Behavior & Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis
of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
277–287.
Valkenburg, P.M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale
to assess three styles of television mediation: Instructive mediation, restrictive
mediation and social coviewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1),
52–66.
Vandebosch, H. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the percep-
tions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503.
Wachs, S. (2012). Moral disengagement and emotional and social difficulties in bullying
and cyberbullying: Differences by participant role. Emotional & Behavioural
Difficulties, 17(3/4), 347–360.
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetra-
tion. Children and Society, 25, 59–72.
Werner, N., Bumpus, M., & Rock, D. (2010). Involvement in internet aggression during
early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 607–619, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-009-9419-7.
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S14–S21 (Supplement).
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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006.
 S. Park et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 42 (2014) 74–81 81

Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics,
of Adolescent Health, 41(6, Supplement), S42–S50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 121(2), e350–e357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-0693.
jadohealth.2007.09.004.