G Model

SOCSCI-1390; No. of Pages 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS

The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

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

The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required

John Chapin a,∗ , Grace Coleman b
a
Pennsylvania State University, USA
b
Crisis Center North, USA

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

Article history: Findings from a survey of 1,602 middle school and high school students suggests despite
Received 25 September 2016 heavy use of social media, adolescents believe they are less likely than peers to be victims of
Received in revised form cyberbullying and less likely to bully others. The results suggest a cycle of perceptions and
29 December 2016
behaviors: victims of cyberbullying bully others. Adolescents who believe they are likely
Accepted 6 March 2017
to be bullied acknowledge they are likely to continue bullying others and are also likely to
Available online xxx
blame victims for “bringing it on themselves.”
© 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Cyberbullying
Risk-perception
Optimistic bias
Victim blaming

1. Introduction are reported to law enforcement; one in 10 adolescents or

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(2016) define bullying as unwanted, aggressive behavior
among school aged children that involves a real or per-
ceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has
the potential to be repeated, over time. Attacking some-
one physically or verbally, making threats, and spreading
rumors are all forms of bullying. Cyberbullying is bullying
that takes place using electronic technology (devices and
equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets,
as well as social media sites and text messages). Rumors
sent by email or posted on social networking sites, mean
text messages or emails, and embarrassing pictures, videos,
websites, or fake profiles are some examples of cyberbul-
lying. The U.S. Uniform Crime Report (BJS, 2015) indicates
around half of teens have been the victims of cyber bullying,
but only 10% tell a parent and few cyber bullying incidents
∗ Corresponding author at: Penn State University, 100 University Drive,
Monaca, PA 15061, USA.
E-mail address: Jrc11@psu.edu (J. Chapin).
teens have had embarrassing or damaging pictures taken
of themselves without their permission, often using cell
phone cameras; about one in five teens have posted or
sent sexually suggestive or nude pictures of themselves to
others; cyberbullying victims are more likely to have low
self-esteem and to consider suicide (BJS, 2015).
On the perpetration side, a recent study of parent/child
dyads (Barlett & Fennel, 2016) found parents’ perceptions
of their child’s Internet activity does not match the actual
amount of time spent online and cyberbullying behav-
iors. Monitoring does seem to reduce bullying though, as
ignorance was positively related to cyberbullying behav-
ior. Parental involvement also seems to play a role on the
victim side. A study of 2,000 high school students found
strong parental relationships and friends at school were
more effective at limiting the harmful effects of cyberbully-
ing than restrictions of Internet use (Davis & Koepke, 2016).
A large scale survey of 23,000 Canadian adolescents con-
firmed that all kinds of resources, including financial ones,
predict cyberbullying and can offset the consequences for
victims (Napoletano, Elgar, Saul, & Dirks, 2016).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
0362-3319/© 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required. The
Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
G Model
SOCSCI-1390; No. of Pages 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 J. Chapin, G. Coleman / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
The purpose of this paper is to explore the cycle of cyber-
bullying from victim to perpetrator, using optimistic bias
as a theoretical framework.
2. Optimistic bias and violence
Optimistic bias (Weinstein, 1980) is the belief that bad
things happen to other people. The concept is grounded
in health psychology and most frequently documented
within health contexts, like skin cancer (Bryant, Zucca,
Brozek, Rock, & Bonevski, 2015), environmental hazards
(Flanagan, Marvinney, & Zheng, 2015), and healthy eat-
ing habits (Sproesser, Klusmann, Schupp, & Renner, 2015).
Crime and violence contexts have been explored more
recently. College students believe they are less likely than
peers to be sexually assaulted (Untied & Dulaney, 2015).
This is a classic example of optimistic bias. Similar results
were found regarding dating violence (Chapin, Strimel, &
Coleman, 2014), burglary (Joshi & Carter, 2013), even office
data security (Bullee, Montoya, Pieters, Junger, & Hartel,
2015). People act on their perceptions, so understanding
skewed risk perception is important. This is well docu-
mented within the optimistic bias literature: People who
believe they are less likely to get skin cancer are more likely
to tan without sun screen; people who believe their data is
secure at work take less precautions; people who believe
they are unlikely to be sexually assaulted also take fewer
precautions.
2.1. Optimistic bias and experience
A number of predictors of optimistic bias have been
explored over the years, including education (Flanagan
et al., 2015; Singh & Jha, 2013) and perceived exper-
tise (Chapin et al., 2014; Zeeb & Zeeb, 2013), but the
best established is experience (Greenberg, Dyen, & Elliott,
2013; Raptou, Galanopoulos, Katrakilidis, & Mattas, 2012;
Sargeant, Majowicz, Sheth, & Edge, 2010; Trumbo, Lueck,
Marlatt, & Peek, 2011; Wolfers, de Zwart, & Kok, 2011). For
example, a college student who believes she will not be
robbed is more likely to leave her dorm room unlocked.
Once she is robbed, the optimistic bias is reduced, and
she begins locking her door, even for quick trips to the
restroom. The studies above consistently document this
pattern in a wide range of contexts, including communi-
cable diseases, smoking, and natural disasters. Greenberg
et al. (2013) interviewed over 1,000 people living poten-
tial disaster areas. Participants who experienced a natural
disaster first-hand, were taking precautions for future
disasters. Participants with no experience, exhibited opti-
mistic bias and were taking no precautions.
2.2. Victim blaming
Optimistic bias is the belief that bad things happen to
other people. One way to maintain this belief is blaming
the victim. People who get cancer smoke more than I do;
people who get speeding tickets are worse drivers than I
am, etc. (Chapin & Chirico, 2003). Victim blaming is well
documented in sexual assault studies (Rich, Utely, Janke,
& Moldoveanu, 2010; Taylor, 2009). For instance, male
Please cite this article in press as: Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required. The
Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
college students do not attend sexual assault workshops,
because they blame women for their own victimization
(Rich et al., 2010). Men convicted of domestic violence often
blame their victims for putting them the situation (Armenti
& Babcock, 2016). The study also concluded that mandated
group therapy can be counter-productive, as other group
members often reinforce that using violence in relation-
ships is acceptable. Even unconscious women are blamed
for their own sexual assaults, whether they are sleeping,
intoxicated, or drugged (Heyes, 2016).
Based on the preceding review of the literature, the fol-
lowing hypotheses are posited:
H1. Adolescents believe they are less likely than others to
become the victim of cyberbullying.
H2. Adolescents believe they are less likely than others to
cyberbully others.
H3. As optimistic bias about victimization is related to
optimistic bias about perpetration.
H3. As experience with bullying increases, optimistic bias
decreases.
RQ1. What is the relationship between optimistic bias and
victim blaming?
RQ2. What is the relationship between optimistic bias and
social media?
3. Method
3.1. Procedures and participants
Participants were recruited in the USA through school-
based programs about bullying offered by a Pennsylvania
women’s center during the 2015–2016 school year. Grades
seven through 12 from multiple school districts were
included. Survey instruments were completed prior to
the sessions to avoid skewing the data. Post-tests were
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the presen-
ter/presentation, but were not used for this analysis.
Students could attend the presentation while opting out of
the study, but none did so. Students could also choose not
to answer individual items. The most commonly skipped
items dealt with demographics (169 students did not dis-
close their gender, and 318 students did not disclose their
race). The sample (N = 1,602) was 51% female, with an aver-
age age of 13 (range = 9 (middle school) to 18 (high school)).
These age ranges were selected, because they represent
the most common reported cases of bullying (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Consistent with the
demographics of the region, 80% of the participants were
Caucasian, 9% African–American, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian and
the remaining identified as mixed-race or “other.”
3.2. Materials
Optimistic bias was measured with a standard instru-
ment (Weinstein, 1989): “Cyberbullying is bullying that
takes place using electronic technology (cell phones, com-
puters, social media sites, text messages, and websites).
Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or
G Model
SOCSCI-1390; No. of Pages 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Chapin, G. Coleman / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Zero-order correlations among variables predicting optimistic bias.

2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Optimistic bias (victim) .31** −.23** .13** .07** .03 −.01

2. Optimistic bias (perpetrator) – .03 .04 .03 .15** −.03
3. Experience (victim) – .06* .01 .26** −.09**
4. Social media – .37** .10** .18**
5. Age – .11** .21**
6. Experience (perpetrator) – .03
7. Experience (bystander) –

Note: Optimistic bias is indicated by a negative mean. For ease on interpretation, the signs in the first two rows have been reversed.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Table 2
Summary of linear regression analysis for variables predicting optimistic bias.

Predictor Optimistic bias/victim Optimistic bias/perpetrator

Adj. r2 = .25 Adj. r2 = .22
N = 1,498 N = 1,492

B SE B ˇ B SE B ˇ

Optimistic bias/perp .27 .02 .30*** – – –

Optimistic bias/victim – – – .33 .03 .30***
Experience/victim .30 .03 .21*** – – –
Experience/perp – – – .28 .05 .13***
Social media use .08 .02 .09*** – – –
Age .01 .02 .02 – – –
Victim blaming – – – .06 .02 .09***
***
p < .001.

emails, rumors posted on social media, and embarrassing to confine how the adolescents defined themselves. No dif-
pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. “Compared to ferences were predicted by gender, age, or race, and none
other people my age in the U.S., my chances of being cyber- were found.
bullied are:” (−3 = much less than others; 3 = much greater
than others). Optimistic bias is indicated by a negative
4. Results
mean. Participants were also asked about the likelihood
cyberbullying others: “Compared to other people my age
SPSS software was used for analysis. T-tests, cor-
in the U.S., my chances of cyberbullying are:”
relations, and linear regression analysis were used for
Experience was measured by combining responses to a
hypothesis testing. Table 1 shows zero-order correlations;
series of questions asking participants about verbal bully-
Table 2 shows the regression model for variables predicting
ing, physical bullying, and cyberbullying: “Verbal bullying
optimistic bias.
(Teasing, name-calling, inappropriate comments, taunting,
H1 predicted optimistic bias. Around a third (38%)
threats to cause harm); Physical bullying (Hitting, kick-
believed they were less likely than peers to become vic-
ing, pinching, spitting, tripping, pushing, taking or breaking
tims of cyberbullying. Some (17%) believed they were more
someone’s things); Cyberbullying (Mean text messages
likely than others to become victims. A single-sample t-
or emails, rumors posted on social networking sites, and
test was used to demonstrate the mean (−1.5, SD = 1.4)
embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles).”
was significantly less than zero, t (1565) = 96.3, p < .000. The
Participants circled responses to indicate “I have witnessed
negative mean indicates optimistic bias. H1 was supported.
this,” “This has happened to me,” and “I have done this to
H2 predicted optimistic bias regarding bullying oth-
others.” Three measures ranging from zero to three were
ers. The majority (73%) believed they were less likely than
created to indicate experience as a bystander (witness), as
peers to become perpetrators of cyberbullying. Some (8%)
a victim, and as a perpetrator.
acknowledge they are more likely than peers to become
Victim blaming was measured using an item adapted
bullies. A single-sample t-test was used to demonstrate
from Just World Beliefs scale: “I feel that many of the
the mean (−2.3, SD = 1.6) was significantly less than zero,
kids who are picked on bring it on themselves by the way
t (1542) = 57.2, p < .000. The negative mean indicates opti-
they dress or act.” Responses were on a Likert-type scale
mistic bias. H2 was supported.
(1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
H3 predicted a relationship between both forms of opti-
Participants were asked to indicate if they ever used the
mistic bias. Table 2 shows the strongest predictor of each
following social media platforms: texting, Facebook, Twit-
form of optimistic bias is the other form. Adolescents who
ter, Instagram, YikYak, Pinterest, SnapChat, or other. They
believe they will be victims, acknowledge they will also be
were also asked to indicate which one was their favorite.
perpetrators. Adolescents who acknowledge they are likely
Participants were also asked to provide their gender,
to cyberbully others in the future, believe they will also be
age, and race. These items were left open-ended, so as not
victims. H3 is supported.

Please cite this article in press as: Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required. The
Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
G Model
SOCSCI-1390; No. of Pages 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 J. Chapin, G. Coleman / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
H4 predicted optimistic bias would decrease as expe-
rience with bullying increased. Most (65%) say they have
witnessed some form of bullying. Witnessing was not
related to optimistic bias. Participants reported a range
of experience as victims of bullying: verbal (46%), physi-
cal (25%), and cyberbullying (23%). As predicted, Table 1
shows a significant inverse relationship between optimistic
bias regarding victimization and experience with bully-
ing. Participants also reported a range of experience as
perpetrators of bullying: verbal (18%), physical (9%), and
cyberbullying (7%). Table 2 shows past experience with
bullying as a relatively strong predictor of future bullying.
RQ1 explored the relationship between optimistic bias
and victim blaming. More than half (56%) exhibited some
level of victim blaming, with 30% on the high end of the
scale (Many of the kids who are picked on bring it on them-
selves by the way they act.). Only 14% were at the low
end of the scale, believing bullying is always unwarranted.
Tables 1 and 2 show a significant relationship between
optimistic bias and victim blaming. Adolescents who blame
the victim say they are more likely to be bullies in the
future.
RQ2 explored the relationship between optimistic bias
and social media. Results suggest a shift in social media use
among adolescents. Texting was the most common, with
75% of participants saying they text and 44% saying it was
their favorite method of social networking. Instagram came
in second, with 62% saying they use the site and 23% saying
it was their favorite. Snapchat, which was introduced since
the previous studies were published, came in third with
51% saying they use the app and 19% saying it was their
favorite. Usage of the remaining social networking sites and
applications was Twitter (27%), Facebook (22%), Pinterest
(17%), and Yikyak (1%). Social media use in the tables is
a sum of the number of sites/apps used. Findings suggest
the more social media sites adolescents use, the less they
believe they will be victims of cyberbullying.
5. Discussion
Despite heavy use of social media, adolescents believe
they are less likely than peers to be victims of cyberbully-
ing and less likely to bully others. While the self-reported
incidence rates of experience with bullying (bystanding,
victimization, and perpetration) are likely under-reported,
most (65%) say they have witnessed some form of bullying;
nearly half (46%) say they been victimized in some form,
and some (18%) acknowledge bullying others. The results
suggest a cycle of perceptions and behaviors: Victims of
cyberbullying bully others. Adolescents who believe they
are likely to be bullied acknowledge they are likely to con-
tinue bullying others and are also likely to blame victims
for “bringing it on themselves.” More than half of the par-
ticipants engage in victim blaming. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (2016) warns there is “no
safe space” to escape cyberbullying, which can occur 24 h,
seven days a week, 365 days a year. Adolescents need
to be aware of the dangers of social media use and the
potential consequences of sharing sexual images of them-
selves electronically. Even Snapchat images, designed to
be temporary, can be screen-captured and shared. Findings
Please cite this article in press as: Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required. The
Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
that the app has surpassed Facebook in popularity among
adolescent users suggests an urgency to school-based pre-
vention education initiatives.
A number of limitations should be considered before
interpreting these results. Participants were all Pennsyl-
vania students participating in anti-violence programs
offered by a women’s center. Although all study mea-
sures were drawn prior to the programs, students were
aware of the topic area, so it is possible response sets
were skewed. Although multiple schools were included,
Pennsylvania adolescents are not representative of adoles-
cents across the USA. Findings may not be generalizable to
other populations. A number of students opted not to pro-
vide information about their gender and race. While the
disclosed demographics were consistent with the demo-
graphics of the region, there’s no way to determine why
these students chose not to disclose. Some of the mea-
sures should be revised for future research, including the
one-item measure of victim blaming.
The current study shows relationships between risk
perception, experience, and cyberbullying. Future research
should delve deeper to establish how such mispercep-
tions are formed and why they persist, despite heavy social
media use. There is much to learn, and the stakes are high.
Optimistic bias dissipates quickly in the face of negative
consequences. The challenge is to get children and ado-
lescents to take the precautions before the “bad thing”
happens to them.
References
Armenti, N., & Babcock, J. (2016). Joint treatment for intimate partner
violence: A systematic review and implications. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and Practice, 5(2), 109–123.
Barlett, C., & Fennel, M. (2016). Examining the relation
between parental ignorance and youths’ cyberbullying
perpetration. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1–14.
http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/ppm0000139
Bryant, J., Zucca, A., Brozek, I., Rock, V., & Bonevski, B. (2015). Sun protec-
tion attitudes and behaviors among first generation Australians with
darker skin types: Results from focus groups. Journal of Immigrant and
Minority Health, 17, 248–254.
Bullee, J., Montoya, L., Pieters, W., Junger, M., & Hartel, P. (2015). The
persuasion and security awareness experiment: Reducing the stress
of social engineering attacks. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11,
97–115.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2015). Uniform crime report: Victim char-
acteristics. U.S. Department of Justice office of Justice Programs.
Chapin, J., & Chirico, J. (2003). Why it won’t happen to me: How older ado-
lescents process personal risk assessments. Communication Annual,
107, 44–59.
Chapin, J., Strimel, L., & Coleman, G. (2014). It won’t happen to me:
Addressing adolescents’ risk perception of dating violence. Interna-
tional Journal of Violence and Schools, 14, 44–54.
Davis, K., & Koepke, L. (2016). Risk and protective factors associated with
cyberbullying: Are relationships or rules more protective? Learning,
Media, and Technology, 41(4), 521–545.
Flanagan, S., Marvinney, R., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Influences on domestic
well water testing behavior in a Central Maine area with frequent
groundwater arsenic occurrence. Science of the Total Environment, 505,
1274–1281.
Greenberg, M., Dyen, S., & Elliott, S. (2013). The public’s preparedness:
Self-reliance, flashbulb memories, and conservative values. American
Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 85–91.
Heyes, C. (2016). Dead to the world: Rape, unconsciousness, and social
media. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(2), 361–383.
Joshi, M., & Carter, W. (2013). Unrealistic optimism: East and west? Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15.
G Model
SOCSCI-1390; No. of Pages 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Chapin, G. Coleman / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Napoletano, A., Elgar, F., Saul, G., & Dirks, M. (2016). The view from the
bottom: Relative deprivation and bullying victimization in Canadian
adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(2), 3443–3463.
National Center for Education Statistics (2014). Student
reports of bullying and cyberbullying. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013329.pdf.
Raptou, E., Galanopoulos, K., Katrakilidis, C., & Mattas, K. (2012). Public
support toward tobacco control: Consumer responsiveness and policy
planning. American Journal of Health Behavior, 36(5), 666–680.
Rich, M., Utley, E., Janke, K., & Moldoveanu, M. (2010). “I’d rather be doing
something else:” Male resistance to rape prevention programs. The
Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(3), 268–288.
Sargeant, J., Majowicz, S., Sheth, U., & Edge, V. (2010). Perceptions of risk
and optimistic bias for acute gastrointestinal illness: A population
survey. Zoonoses and Public Health, 57, 7–8.
Singh, I., & Jha, A. (2013). Anxiety, optimism ad academic achievement
among students of private medical and engineering colleges: A com-
parative study. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,
3(1), 222–233.
Sproesser, G., Klusmann, V., Schupp, H., & Renner, B. (2015). Comparative
optimism about healthy eating. Appetite, 90, 212–218.
Taylor, R. (2009). Slain and slandered: A content analysis of the portrayal
of the portrayal of femicide in crime news. Homicide Studies, 13(1),
21–49.
Please cite this article in press as: Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. The cycle of cyberbullying: Some experience required. The
Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.03.004
5
Trumbo, C., Luek, M., Marlatt, H., & Peek, L. (2011). The effect of proximity
to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on subsequent hurricane outlook and
optimistic bias. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1907–1918.
Untied, A., & Dulaney, C. (2015). College students’ perceived risk of sexual
victimization and the role of optimistic bias. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 30(8), 1417–1431.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). What is bully-
ing? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from.
http://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/index.html
Weinstein, N. (1989). Perceptions of personal susceptibility to harm. In
V. Mays, G. Albee, & F. Schneider (Eds.), Psychological approaches to
the primary prevention of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (pp.
142–167). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 460–806.
Wolfers, M., de Zwart, O., & Kok, G. (2011). Adolescents in the Netherlands
underestimate risk for sexually transmitted infections and deny the
need for sexually transmitted infection testing. AIDS Patient Care and
STDs, 25(5), 311–319.
Zeeb, F., & Zeeb, H. (2013). Higher risk perception of HIV than chlamydia
and HPV among secondary school students in two German cities. PLOS
One, 8(4), 1–8.