Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Archives of Psychiatric Nursing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apnu

College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments Hyunjoo Na a,⁎, Barbara L. Dancy b, Chang Park b a b

Dong-A University, Busan, Republic of Korea University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA

a b s t r a c t The study's purpose was to explore whether frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies were associated with psychological adjustments among college student cyberbullying victims. A convenience sample of 121 students completed questionnaires. Linear regression analyses found frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies respectively explained 30%, 30%, and 27% of the variance in depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. Frequency of cyberbullying victimization and approach and avoidance coping strategies were associated with psychological adjustments, with avoidance coping strategies being associated with all three psychological adjustments. Interventions should focus on teaching cyberbullying victims to not use avoidance coping strategies. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

It is estimated that between 10% and 21.9% of college students have been cyberbullied (Dilmac, 2009; Finn, 2004; Schenk, 2011), and 55.3% of college students have reported being victims of cyberbullying at least once in their lifetime (Dilmac, 2009). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) defined cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (p. 5). Eight types of cyberbullying behaviors have been identified: cyberstalking, exclusion, flaming, outing, online harassment, trickery, denigration, and impersonation (Willard, 2007). The most common methods of cyberbullying involve use of instant messaging, chat rooms, e-mail, and blogging (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Social networking and text messaging are commonly used for cyberbullying among college students (MacDonald & RobertsPittman, 2010). In 2009, 93% of young adults used the internet and 72% used social networking websites, with 16% having profiles on multiple sites (Horrigan, 2009). Also, college students use the internet as a major means of communication in their daily routines (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Fallows, 2004). According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, college students seek emotional and physical intimacy with peers and romantic partners through the internet more than through face-to-face interaction (Horrigan, 2009). Therefore, college students may be at risk for cyberbullying victimization, which in turn may make them more vulnerable to depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem.

⁎ Corresponding Author: Hyunjoo Na, PhD, RN, Assistant Professor, Dong-A University, Department of Nursing, 32, Daesingongwon-ro, G05 Building, Room 510, Seo-gu, Busan, Korea, 601-714. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Na).

Depression and anxiety are significant public health problems among young adults in the United States (American College Health Association, 2013). Approximately 10% of college students have reported being diagnosed with or treated by a professional for depression or anxiety within the last 12 months (American College Health Association, 2013). College students are considered to be in the emerging adult developmental period, which extends from ages 18 to 25 (Arnett, 2000). A key developmental aspect of emerging adulthood is identity exploration in love, work, and world views that may lead to psychological risks such as depression and anxiety (Arnett, 2000). For college students, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem can have a negative influence on their academic performance (American College Health Association, 2013; Twenge & Campbell, 2001). In addition, depression can lead to an increased risk of attempting or committing suicide (Zullig & Divin, 2012). Some psychological problems of college students, such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem, may be related to the experience of cyberbullying victimization. Because victims of cyberbullying are being ignored, disrespected, threatened, picked on, or made fun of, they experience negative emotions such as frustration, anger, hopelessness, and sadness (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Victims of cyberbullying exhibit more depression and anxiety symptoms than those not experiencing cyberbullying (Gámez-Guadix, Orue, Smith, & Calvete, 2013; Schenk, 2011) and tend to have low self-esteem (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Although cyberbullying is a serious and growing problem among college students and has a negative influence on victim’s psychological adjustments, there is little understanding of who is at high risk of experiencing depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem as a result of cyberbullying.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008 0883-9417/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

2

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Model Modified from the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals of cyberbullying and coping strategies for the situation were associated with depression, anxiety, and self-esteem among college student cyberbullying victims. We used the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) to explore these associations. The relationships between the variables are illustrated in the conceptual model in Fig. 1. TRANSACTIONAL MODEL OF STRESS AND COPING The transactional model of stress and coping focuses on four key concepts: stress, cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and coping outcomes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For the purpose of the study, cyberbullying victimization was considered to be a stress. Cognitive appraisals consisted of victims’ appraisals of the experience as taxing their resources and endangering their psychological well-being. Coping strategies consisted of victims’ attempts to manage the experience. Psychological adjustments were considered to be coping outcomes related to the cognitive appraisals and coping strategies used. These outcomes were examined in terms of the levels of depression, anxiety, and self-esteem reported by cyberbullying victims. Cognitive Appraisals In this study, college students’ evaluations of the cyberbullying situation as it related to their psychological adjustments were classified as primary cognitive appraisal and secondary cognitive appraisal. Primary cognitive appraisal was the students’ determination of the cyberbullying situation to be a threat or a challenge. Threat cognitive appraisal was the students’ anticipation of harm or loss and generated fear, anxiety, and anger, whereas challenge cognitive appraisal was the college students’ readiness to confront the situation and promoted eagerness and excitement. Secondary cognitive appraisal, or control cognitive appraisal, was the college students’ determination that they had control over the situation due to their coping resources and strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hunter and Boyle (2002) and Hunter, Mora-Merchan, and Ortega (2004) explored the relationships between cognitive appraisals and psychological adjustments among adolescents who experienced the traditional form of bullying. They found that cognitive appraisals differed by gender and the frequency of the bullying experience and that these appraisals were related to coping strategies and psychological adjustments (Hunter & Boyle, 2002; Hunter et al., 2004). There has been considerable research on traditional bullying among adolescents, but because cyberbullying has arisen

relatively recently, little is known about college students’ appraisal of cyberbullying situations. Coping Strategies Coping strategies are ongoing processes and refer to cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage a stressful event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) confirmed two distinct types of coping strategies: approach and avoidance. In our study, these strategies were identified in terms of how victims of cyberbullying appraised and managed the experience. Specifically, approach coping strategies were considered to be attempts to change the cyberbullying situation and included problem solving and seeking social support, whereas avoidance coping strategies were considered to be attempts to evade the cyberbullying situation and included cognitive distancing, internalizing, and externalizing. Recent studies have found that victims of cyberbullying who used avoidance coping strategies were more likely to experience depression (Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013; Völlink, Bolman, Eppingbroek, & Dehue, 2013). These studies have been conducted among adolescents aged between 9 and 15 years, and consequently little is known about the coping strategies used by college student cyberbullying victims. Only a limited number of studies have attempted to explain how victims cope with cyberbullying and/or to determine whether cognitive appraisals and coping strategies influence psychological adjustments among cyberbullying victims. Therefore, among college students, researchers do not yet know who copes well with cyberbullying and who does not. Additional studies are needed to explore the predictors of psychological adjustments in order to expand our knowledge of which college student cyberbullying victims are at risk for depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. The purpose of this study was to explore whether frequency of cyberbullying victimization, challenge cognitive appraisal, threat cognitive appraisal, control cognitive appraisal, approach coping strategy, and avoidance coping strategy were associated with depression, anxiety, and self-esteem among college student cyberbullying victims. For depression, we hypothesized positive associations with frequency of cyberbullying victimization, threat cognitive appraisal, and avoidance coping strategies and negative associations with challenge cognitive appraisal, control cognitive appraisal, and approach coping strategies (H.1). For anxiety, we hypothesized positive associations with frequency of cyberbullying victimization, threat cognitive appraisal, and avoidance coping strategies and negative associations with challenge cognitive appraisal, control cognitive appraisal, and approach coping strategies (H.2). For self-esteem, we hypothesized negative associations with

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

frequency of cyberbullying victimization, threat cognitive appraisal, and avoidance coping strategies and positive associations with challenge cognitive appraisal, control cognitive appraisal, and approach coping strategies (H.3). METHODS Research Design The study used a descriptive, associational, cross-sectional design to examine the associations among cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and psychological adjustments for college student cyberbullying victims. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of a large metropolitan university in the United States. Sample A convenience sample of 121 students attending the university participated in the study. This university is a state-funded public research university that has approximately 17,000 undergraduate students of diverse ethnicity. Under the selection criteria, participants were (1) undergraduate students, (2) between 18 and 25 years old, (3) able to read and write English, and (4) had experienced willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices in the previous 12 months. Female students comprised 62% of the sample. The participants had a mean age of 19.68 years (SD = 1.60), and 41.3% were freshmen. The participants reported their race/ethnicity as Asian and Pacific Islander (30.6%), African American (28.9%), Hispanic (23.1%), and White (17.4%). Procedure Data collection was conducted from February through April 2013. To recruit study participants, a flyer was distributed. The flyer invited interested undergraduate students to contact the researcher in order to schedule an appointment for data collection. During the screening process, the researcher determined whether interested students met the selection criteria. Those meeting the selection criteria were invited to volunteer to participate in the study. Those wishing to volunteer underwent the informed consent process, including signing the inform consent document. After completing the informed consent process, the study participants were directed to a private room where they were given the survey package, which took them 20 to 30 minutes to complete. After data collection, the researcher gave each participant a booklet on cyberbullying resources at the university and a Dunkin Donuts gift card in the amount of $5. Measures The survey package consisted of six self-administered paper-pencil questionnaires: the Cyberbullying Victimization Scale; Stress Appraisal Measure for Adolescents; Self-Report Coping Scale; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21; Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; and Sociodemographic Questionnaire. Patchin and Hinduja’s (2010) Cyberbullying Victimization Scale (CVS) was modified to assess the frequency of college students’ experience in the previous 12 months with nine different types of cyberbullying (i.e., someone posted mean and hurtful comments about me online, someone posted a mean or hurtful picture of me online, someone posted a mean or hurtful video of me online, someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me, someone spread rumors about me online, someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message, someone threat to hurt me online, someone pretended to be me online, and someone acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to me online). Students indicated on a 5-point Likert Scale (never = 0; once or twice = 1; a few times = 2; many times = 3; every day = 4) how often each of the nine types of

3

cyberbullying victimization occurred. The total score ranged from 0 to 36, with 36 indicating the most frequent experience with the particular types of cyberbullying victimization. For four studies of youth between 11 and 18 years old, Patchin and Hinduja (2010) report that the Cronbach’s alphas for the CVS ranged from 0.74 to 0.93. The Cronbach’s alpha for our sample of college students was 0.71. The Stress Appraisal Measure for Adolescents (SAMA) was used to assess threat cognitive appraisal, challenge cognitive appraisal, and control cognitive appraisal (Rowley, Roesch, Jurica, & Vaughn, 2005). The SAMA consisted of three subscales with a total of 14 items. The threat cognitive appraisal subscale consisted of seven items that assessed anticipated harms or losses (i.e., I would perceive the situation as threatening, I felt anxious, the situation impacted me greatly, the outcome of the situation would be negative, the situation had serious implications for my life, the situation had a negative impact on me, and there were long-term consequences as the result of the situation). The challenge cognitive appraisal subscale consisted of four items assessing coping efforts (i.e., I could overcome the situation, I could positively deal with the situation, I had what it took to beat the situation, and I had the skills necessary to overcome the situation). The control cognitive appraisal subscale consisted of three items that assessed the students’ evaluation of available coping resources (i.e., there would be someone I could turn to for help, there was help available to me, and I had the resources available to me to overcome the situation). Students were asked to indicate their thoughts or feelings about each cognitive appraisal item on a 5-point Likert Scale (not at all = 0; a little bit = 1; about half the time = 2; the majority of the time = 3; a great amount = 4). The mean of the responses for each subscale was used and ranged from 0 to 4, with higher values representing more frequent perception of the particular cognitive appraisal. Rowley et al. (2005) report that for 172 students aged 14 to 18 years who completed the SAMA, the Cronbach’s alpha for challenge cognitive appraisal was 0.79, for threat cognitive appraisal was 0.81, and for resources or control cognitive appraisal was 0.79. For our sample of college students, the Cronbach’s alpha for the challenge cognitive appraisal subscale was 0.86, for the threat cognitive appraisal subscale was 0.87, and for the control cognitive appraisal subscale was 0.84. The coping strategies were assessed using the Self-Report Coping Scale (SRCS) developed by Causey and Dubow (1992) and modified by Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002). The 22-item SRCS consisted of five subscales: the five-item problem solving subscale (i.e., I tried to think of different ways to solve it, I changed something to things would work out, I did something to make up for it, I went over in my mind what to do or say, and I could do something to change this situation), the five-item seeking social support subscale (i.e., I told a friend or family member what happened, I talked to somebody about how it made me feel, I got help from a friend, I asked a family member for advice, and I got help from a family member), the five-item cognitive distancing subscale (i.e., I made believe nothing happened, I forgot the whole thing, I told myself it didn’t matter, I refused to think about it, and I would say I didn’t care), the three-item externalizing subscale (i.e., I yelled to let off steam, I swore out loud, and I got mad and threw or hit something), and the four-item internalizing subscale (i.e., I worried about it, I just felt sorry for myself, I worried that others would think badly of me, and I got mad at myself for doing something that I shouldn’t have done). Students were asked to indicate how often they used each coping strategy on a 5-point Likert Scale (never = 0; hardly ever = 1; sometimes = 2; most of the time = 3; always = 4). The mean of the responses for each subscale was used and ranged from 0 to 4, with higher values representing more frequent use of the particular coping strategy. For 356 children aged 9 and 10 years, Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) examined the reliability of the SRCS and reported the following Cronbach’s alpha values for the problem solving, seeking social support, cognitive distancing, externalizing, and internalizing subscales: 0.72, 0.75, 0.70, 0.60, and 0.57, respectively. For our sample of college students, the Cronbach’s

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

4

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

alpha for the problem solving subscale was 0.80, for the seeking social support subscale was 0.87, for the cognitive distancing subscale was 0.79, for the externalizing subscale was 0.77, and for the internalizing subscale was 0.84. Depression and anxiety among college students were assessed using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) developed by Arnett (2000). The DASS-21 consisted of three seven-item subscales addressing depression, anxiety, and stress. We used only the two subscales for depression (i.e., I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all, I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things, I felt that I had nothing to look forward to, I felt down-hearted and blue, I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything, I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person, and I felt that life was meaningless) and anxiety (i.e., I was aware of dryness of my mouth, I experienced breathing difficulty, I experienced trembling, I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make fool of myself, I felt I was close to panic, I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion, and I felt scared without any good reason). For these subscales, students were asked to indicate how much each statement applied to them over the past week on a 4-point Likert Scale (did not apply to me at all = 0; applied to me to some degree, or some of the time = 1; applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time = 2; applied to me very much, or most of the time = 3). For each subscale, the scores were summed and multiplied by two. The scores for each subscale ranged from 0 to 42, with higher scores representing greater depression and anxiety. For the depression subscale, a total score of 21 or higher indicated severe depression; for the anxiety subscale, a total score of 15 or higher indicated severe anxiety. Henry and Crawford (2005) used the DASS-21 in a study of 1794 general adults and reported Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.88 for the depression subscale and 0.82 for the anxiety subscale. In our study of college students, the Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.90 for the depression subscale and 0.80 for the anxiety subscale. College students’ self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale (RSE), which consisted of 10 items (e.g., on the whole, I am satisfied with myself). For each item, students were asked to indicate how they felt about themselves on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging from strongly disagree = 0 to strongly agree = 3. The sum of the item responses was used and ranged from 0 to 30, with higher values representing higher self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Robins, Hendin, and Trzesniewski (2001) used the RSE in a study of 508 undergraduate students and reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88. In our study of college students, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87. The Socio-demographic Questionnaire completed by college students included questions on age, gender, sexual orientation, race/ ethnicity, and religion. The questionnaire was based on items in the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Statistical Analysis G*POWER version 3.1.3 was used to calculate the sample size. A sample size of 98 was needed to obtain a power of 0.80, a significant alpha level of .05 (two-tailed), and a medium effect size of 0.15 with six predictors: experience of cyberbullying victimization, three cognitive appraisals, and two coping strategies (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). A total sample size of 121 was achieved with a power of 0.90, a significant alpha level of .05 (two-tailed), and an effect size of 0.15 for multiple linear regressions. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 19.0. Prior to the data analysis, the data was checked for data file accuracy, missing data, and outliers. The accuracy of the data file and any outliers were evaluated by double-checking data entry and by conducting a descriptive statistical analysis. The reliability of each instrument was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data for the experience of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, coping

strategies, and psychological adjustments. Pearson’s correlation analyses were performed to examine the bivariate relationships between variables. Multiple linear regressions were performed to test the three hypotheses while controlling for gender and race/ethnicity. Histograms and normal probability plots of the residuals were evaluated to check for linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality of residual. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance statistics were used to diagnose multicolinearity. The assumptions for linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality were met. The VIF and tolerance statistics showed that there is no colinearity between predictors. Statistical data analyses were performed based on a two-tailed test with a significance level of .05. RESULTS All study participants reported having experienced some type of cyberbullying victimization at least a few times in the previous year. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive characteristics of the variables, and Table 2 summarizes the bivariate correlations among the variables. See Tables 1 and 2. Cyberbullying Victimization, Cognitive Appraisals, and Coping Strategies on Depression The frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies explained 30% of the variance in depression (F [6, 103] = 7.33, p = .000). A positive association existed between avoidance coping strategies and depression. As the use of avoidance coping strategies increased, so did depression for the sample of college students. Only avoidance coping strategies were associated with depression. H1 was therefore partially supported. See Table 3. Cyberbullying Victimization, Cognitive Appraisals, and Coping Strategies on Anxiety The frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies explained 30% of the variance in anxiety (F [6, 99] = 7.15, p = .000). A positive association existed between approach coping strategies and anxiety as well as between avoidance coping strategies and anxiety. As the use of approach coping strategies or avoidance coping strategies increased, so did anxiety for the sample of college students. Only coping strategies and not cognitive appraisals were associated with anxiety. H2 was therefore partially supported. See Table 4.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Experience of Cyberbullying Victimization, Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments. Total Variables

Range

Mean ± SD/N(%)

Frequency of cyberbullying victimization Through online Through cell phone text message Cognitive appraisals Challenge Threat Control Approach coping strategies Problem Solving Seeking Social Support Avoidance coping strategies Cognitive Distancing Externalizing Internalizing Psychological adjustments Depression Anxiety Self-esteem

0–36

5.36 ± 3.41 65 (54%) 45 (37%) 3.05 ± 0.91 1.28 ± 0.91 2.79 ± 1.11 3.90 ± 1.56 2.12 ± 0.82 1.76 ± 1.10 4.66 ± 1.83 1.97 ± 0.88 1.15 ± 1.02 1.54 ± 1.01 12.74 ± 11.04 12.68 ± 9.82 20.35 ± 5.38

0–4 0–4 0–4 0–8 0–4 0–4 0–12 0–4 0–4 0–4 0–42 0–42 0–30

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

5

Table 2 Pearson Correlations of the Variables. Variables

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(1) Frequency of cyberbullying victimization Cognitive appraisals (2) Challenge (3) Threat (4) Control Coping strategies (5) Approach (6) Avoidance Psychological adjustments (7) Depression (8) Anxiety (9) Self-esteem

1

−0.39**

0.43**

−0.17

−0.01

0.29**

0.23*

0.23*

−0.39**

1

−0.53** 1

0.56** −0.21* 1

0.02 0.35** 0.24**

−0.36** 0.42** −0.31**

−0.29** 0.39** −0.22*

−0.34** 0.36** −0.24*

0.32** −0.21* 0.30**

1

0.19* 1

0.23* 0.47**

0.21* 0.48**

0.11 −0.37**

1

0.67** 1

−0.60** −0.31** 1

* p b 0.05. ** p b 0.01.

Cyberbullying Victimization, Cognitive Appraisals, and Coping Strategies on Self-esteem The frequency of cyberbullying victimization, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies explained 27% of the variance in self-esteem (F [6, 103] = 6.48, p = .000). A negative association existed between frequency of cyberbullying victimization and self-esteem as well as between avoidance coping strategies and self-esteem. As the frequency of cyberbullying victimization or the use of avoidance coping strategies increased, self-esteem decreased for the sample of college students. Only the frequency of cyberbullying victimization and avoidance coping strategies were associated with self-esteem. Therefore, H3 was partially supported. See Table 5. DISCUSSION For the sample of college student cyberbullying victims, avoidance coping strategies were positively associated with depression and anxiety as hypothesized and were negatively associated with self-esteem as hypothesized. Frequency of cyberbullying victimization was associated only with self-esteem, and this was a negative association as hypothesized. Approach coping strategies were associated only with anxiety. This association was positive unlike the negative association that we hypothesized between approach coping strategies and anxiety. Cognitive appraisals were not associated with depression, anxiety, or self-esteem. As the frequency of cyberbullying increased, self-esteem decreased among the sample of college students who had been cyberbullied in the previous year. This result is consistent with the findings of Patchin and Hinduja (2010), who revealed that cyberbullying victims had significantly lower self-esteem than those who had no experience of cyberbullying. The students in our study who more frequently used approach coping strategies were more likely to have increased anxiety. Similarly, Thorne, Andrews, and Nordstokke (2013), who studied a sample of 8to 11-year-old students, found that the seeking social support strategy was associated with high anxiety among these students; the researchers Table 3 Multiple Linear Regression Models for Depression.

concluded that dependence on others did not give the students the opportunity to develop the skills and resources necessary to solve their own problems. Because we did not separately analyze the seeking social support strategy and problem solving strategy, both of which constitute approach coping strategies, we cannot determine which is more strongly associated with anxiety for college student cyberbullying victims. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on college student cyberbullying victims. The positive relationship between avoidance coping strategies and both depression and anxiety for college student cyberbullying victims is consistent with findings for 9- and 10year-old children experiencing traditional bullying (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). In addition, the college student cyberbullying victims in our study who used avoidance coping strategies were more likely to report low self-esteem, which is consistent with the findings of Lodge and Feldman (2007), who studied adolescents aged between 10 and 13 years. These consistencies suggest that the relationship between avoidance coping strategies and psychological adjustments is robust across age groups and across traditional bullying and cyberbullying victims. Implications for Future Studies Further research is needed to clarify the impact of cognitive appraisals and coping strategies on depression, anxiety, and self-esteem among college student cyberbullying victims. In particular, additional investigation is needed of the role of cognitive appraisals and coping strategies in determining the relationships between cyberbullying victimization and depression, cyberbullying victimization and anxiety, and cyberbullying victimization and self-esteem. Moreover, further research is needed to determine how cyberbullying victims cope based on the use of different cognitive appraisals. Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkelschetter, Delongis, and Gruen (1986); Kliewer, Fearnow, and Walton (1998); and Ptacek, Smith, and Zanas (1992) argued that the type of cognitive appraisal perceived is related to the choice of coping strategies. However, no study has been performed to examine the relationship between cognitive appraisal types and coping strategies among victims of cyberbullying. An in-depth examination of cognitive Table 4 Multiple Linear Regression Models for Anxiety.

Variables

B

SE B

Frequency of cyberbullying victimization Cognitive appraisals Challenge Threat Control Coping strategies Approach Avoidance R2 (Δ R2) F for R2

0.147 0.313 −0.360 1.421 1.986 1.439 −1.303 1.065 1.121 0.681 1.840** 0.567 0.299 (0.258) 7.331 (6, 103)**

CI = Confidence Interval; Δ: Adjusted; *p b 0.05; **p b 0.01.

β

95% CI

Variables

B

0.045 −0.030 0.160 −0.132 0.160 0.310

[−0.47, 0.76] [−3.17, 2.45] [−0.86, 4.84] [−3.41, 0.80] [−0.23, 2.47] [0.71, 2.96]

Frequency of cyberbullying victimization Cognitive appraisals Challenge Threat Control Coping strategies Approach Avoidance R2 (ΔR2) F for R2

0.252 0.286 −1.289 1.298 0.158 1.314 −0.957 0.960 1.427* 0.631 1.774** 0.526 0.302 (0.260) 7.148 (6, 99)**

SE B

β

95% CI

0.086 −0.119 0.014 −0.110 0.224 0.329

[−0.31, 0.81] [−3.86, 1.28] [−2.44, 2.76] [−2.86, 0.94] [0.17, 2.67] [0.73, 2.81]

CI = confidence interval; Δ: adjusted; *p b 0.05; **p b 0.01

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

6

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 5 Multiple Linear Regression Models for Self-esteem. Variables

B

Frequency of cyberbullying victimization Cognitive appraisals Challenge Threat Control Coping strategies Approach Avoidance R2 (Δ R2) 2 F for R

−0.399* 0.158 0.518 0.720 −0.084 0.723 0.595 0.535 0.548 0.349 −0.736* 0.287 0.274 (0.232) 6.480 (6, 103)**

SE B

β

95% CI

−0.243 0.087 −0.014 0.122 0.156 −0.251

[−0.71, −0.08] [−0.90, 1.94] [−1.51, 1.35] [−0.46, 1.65] [−0.14, 1.24] [−1.30, −0.16]

have limited generalizability for cyberbullying victims in other regions and age groups. Finally, self-reported measurements were used in the study, and such measurements tend to result in higher reported prevalence rates than other measurements (Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013). Moreover, specific cognitions and behaviors related to previous cyberbullying victimization may not have been accurately recalled. Self-reported data obtained in future studies should be cross-validated with, for example, peer or teacher data or observational data. CONCLUSION

CI = confidence interval; Δ: adjusted; *p b 0.05; **p b 0.01.

appraisals and coping strategies guided by the transactional model of stress and coping would provide insight into the applicability of the model to college student cyberbullying victims. Previous studies argued that some victims of cyberbullying also bully others (i.e., bully-victims) (Dehue, 2013; Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013). Use of coping strategies has been found to differ significantly between cyberbullying victims who do and do not bully others (Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013). Therefore, to understand the unique characteristics of cyberbullying victims in more depth, future studies similar to ours should include a sample of cyberbullying victims, bullies, bully-victims, bystanders, and non-involved persons. Implications for College and University Campuses Our study has important implications for health professionals and teachers working at colleges and universities. Health professionals and teachers who work with campus health services should be aware of cyberbullying and should conduct routine assessments of cyberbullying on campus; such assessments should address cyberbullying victimization, cyberbullying victims and perpetrators, coping strategies, depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. These assessments would help to identify both cyberbullying victims and those victims who may be at particular risk of experiencing depression, anxiety, and low selfesteem. Early identification of at-risk victims would help to minimize and/or prevent negative consequences of cyberbullying. In addition, when students are being cyberbullied, a school-based group workshop is needed to reduce and/or prevent negative psychological adjustments. The workshop should include content that (a) raises students’ awareness of the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization, (b) informs students about the relationship between depression and avoidance coping strategies, between anxiety and avoidance coping strategies and approach coping strategies, and between self-esteem and avoidance coping strategies, (c) provides effective strategies for reducing the risk of depression and anxiety and enhancing self-esteem, and (d) provides information on school resources for cyberbullying victims. Finally, health professionals and campus health services should provide individualized interventions for college students who are at risk of depression and anxiety after experiencing cyberbullying victimization. These face-to-face interventions should motivate the victims to practice using appropriate coping strategies. Such interventions could help victims cope more effectively with their cyberbullying experience and promote their overall psychological adjustment. Limitations A cross-sectional research design was used for our study. Therefore, we could not determine the causality or long-term effects of cognitive appraisals and coping strategies among cyberbullying victims. In the future, a longitudinal study design should be used to examine the long-term effects of cyberbullying victimization. In addition, convenience sampling was used in our study. Therefore, the study findings

The frequency of cyberbullying victimization, approach coping strategies, and avoidance coping strategies were associated with depression, anxiety, and self-esteem for college student cyberbullying victims. Because avoidance coping strategies were associated with all three indicators of psychological adjustment (depression, anxiety, and self-esteem), interventions should focus on teaching college student cyberbullying victims to not use avoidance coping strategies. However, additional research is needed to discern the coping strategies that promote psychological adjustment for this population. References American College Health Association (2013). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference Group executive summary Fall 2012. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 47–59. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Youth risk behavior surveillance. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Website: http://www. cdc.gov/yrbs Dehue, F. (2013). Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative methodologies. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.2139. Dilmac, B. (2009). Psychological needs as a predictor of cyber bullying: A preliminary report on college students. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 9(3), 1307–1325. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2007.00367.x. Fallows, D. (2004). The internet and daily life (Report No. 202-296-0019). Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project Website: http://www.pewinternet.org/2004/ 08/11/the-internet-and-daily-life/ Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149. Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468–483, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260503262083. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkelschetter, C., Delongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037// 0022-3514.50.5.992. Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P. K., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446–452, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.030. Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large nonclinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239, http://dx.doi. org/10.1348/014466505x29657. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156, http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Horrigan, J. (2009). Wireless internet use (Report No.202-419-4500). Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project Website: http://www.pewinternet.org/Repports/ 2009/12-Wireless-Internet-Use.aspx Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control in the victims of school bullying: the importance of early intervention. Educational Research, 44(3), 323–336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188022000031614. Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchan, J., & Ortega, R. (2004). The long-term effects of coping strategy use in victims of bullying. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 3–12. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? – Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1746-1561.2008.00335.x.

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008

H. Na et al. / Archives of Psychiatric Nursing xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M. D., & Walton, M. N. (1998). Dispositional, environmental, and context-specific predictors of children’s threat perceptions in everyday stressful situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(1), 83–100. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 267–278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6 Suppl.), S22–S30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2007.08.017. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Pub. Co. Lodge, J., & Feldman, S. S. (2007). Avoidant coping as a mediator between appearancerelated victimization and self-esteem in young Australian adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 633–642, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 026151007x185310. MacDonald, C. D., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying among college students: Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003–2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169, http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 614–621, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x. Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Zanas, J. (1992). Gender, appraisal, and coping: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality, 60(4), 747–770, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14676494.1992.tb00272.x. Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167201272002.

7

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowley, A. A., Roesch, S. C., Jurica, B. J., & Vaughn, A. A. (2005). Developing and validating a stress appraisal measure for minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28(4), 547–557, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.10.010. Schenk, A. M. (2011). Psychological impact of cyberbully victimization among college students. (Master’s thesis) (Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (M.S. 1501716)). Thorne, K. J., Andrews, J. J. W., & Nordstokke, D. (2013). Relations among children’s coping strategies and anxiety: The mediating role of coping efficacy. The Journal of General Psychology, 140(3), 204–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2013. 792235. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 321–344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_3. Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A. W., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. L. (2013). Coping with cyberbullying: Differences between victims, bully-victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 7–24, http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/casp.2142. Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A. W., Eppingbroek, A., & Dehue, F. (2013). Emotion-focused coping worsens depressive feelings and health complaints in cyberbullied children. Journal of Criminology, 2013, 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/416976. Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Research Press Publisher,IL: Research Press. Zullig, K. J., & Divin, A. L. (2012). The association between non-medical prescription drug use, depressive symptoms, and suicidality among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 37(8), 890–899, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012. 02.008.

Please cite this article as: Na, H., et al., College Student Engaging in Cyberbullying Victimization: Cognitive Appraisals, Coping Strategies, and Psychological Adjustments, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.01.008