IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i12p6083-d1166485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adolescent Cyberbullies’ Attributions: Longitudinal Linkages to Cyberbullying Perpetration

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle F. Wright

    (Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614, USA)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine cyberbullies’ attributions pertaining to their perpetration of cyberbullying, and how such attributions relate to their cyberbullying behaviors six months later. Participants were 216 adolescents ( M = 13.46, SD = 0.62 years; 55% female) from the suburbs of a large Midwestern city in the United States. They were interviewed face-to-face in the fall of 2018 concerning why they acted in negative ways toward peers online or through text messages. They also answered questionnaires regarding how often they perpetrated face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying during the fall of 2018 and spring of 2019. The attributions of revenge, convenience, anger, and anonymity each predicted cyberbullying at the second time point while controlling for face-to-face bullying perpetration. Results from this study provide important information to the literature regarding cyberbullies’ attributions for perpetrating cyberbullying, and how such attributions predict future cyberbullying perpetration. These findings are important for the development of antibullying programs that might aim to change adolescents’ attributions for cyberbullying perpetration to reduce continued engagement in these behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle F. Wright, 2023. "Adolescent Cyberbullies’ Attributions: Longitudinal Linkages to Cyberbullying Perpetration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:12:p:6083-:d:1166485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6083/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/12/6083/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Uri Ben-Zion & Jan Pieter Krahnen & TAL SHAVIT, 2007. "Subjective Evaluation Of Delayed Risky Outcomes: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 0709, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    3. Baker, Ronald J. & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 2011. "An exploration of the robustness of alternative laboratory methodologies: Matching funds and the provision of public goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 763-774.
    4. David Bruner & Michael Jones & Michael McKee & Christian Vossler, 2015. "Tax Reporting Behavior: Underreporting Opportunities and Prepopulated Tax Returns," Working Papers 15-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. Solnick, Sara J., 2007. "Cash and alternate methods of accounting in an experimental game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 316-321, February.
    7. Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford, 2015. "Psychology of Game Playing: Introduction to a Special Issue," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Klein Teeselink, Bouke & Potter van Loon, Rogier J.D. & van den Assem, Martijn J. & van Dolder, Dennie, 2020. "Incentives, performance and choking in darts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 38-52.
    9. Steven Kachelmeier & Kristy Towry, 2005. "The Limitations of Experimental Design: A Case Study Involving Monetary Incentive Effects in Laboratory Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 21-33, April.
    10. Markus Prior & Arthur Lupia, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Experiments on Time, Money and Political Knowledge," Experimental 0510001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1464-1484 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Gächter, Simon & Thöni, Christian, 2010. "Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage-effort hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 531-543, December.
    14. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    15. Kelly, Frank S., 1995. "Laboratory subjects as multiproduct monopoly firms: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 401-420, August.
    16. John Duffy, 1998. "Monetary theory in the laboratory," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Sep, pages 9-26.
    17. Susan K. Laury & Charles A. Holt, 2005. "Further Reflections on Prospect Theory," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-23, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    18. Gächter, Simon & Thöni, Christian, 2010. "Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage-effort hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 531-543, December.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Alm, James & Bruner, David M. & McKee, Michael, 2016. "Honesty or dishonesty of taxpayer communications in an enforcement regime," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 85-96.
    21. Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013. "Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:12:p:6083-:d:1166485. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.