• No results found

A cross-national study of direct and indirect effects of cyberbullying on cybergrooming victimization via self-esteem

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A cross-national study of direct and indirect effects of cyberbullying on cybergrooming victimization via self-esteem"

Copied!
10
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

w w w . e l s e v i e r . e s / p s e d

Psicología

Educativa

A

cross-national

study

of

direct

and

indirect

effects

of

cyberbullying

on

cybergrooming

victimization

via

self-esteem

Sebastian

Wachs

a,∗

,

Gabriela

Ksinan

Jiskrova

b

,

Alexander

T.

Vazsonyi

b

,

Karsten

D.

Wolf

c

,

Marianne

Junger

d

aUniversityofPotsdam,Germany bUniversityofKentucky,UnitedStates cUniversityofBremen,Germany dUniversityofTwente,TheNetherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received12June2015 Accepted19January2016 Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Cybergrooming Self-esteem Cyberbullying Childabuse

Sexualonlinesolicitation

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thepresentstudyreportsfrequencyratesofcybergrooming,profiledcharacteristicsofcybergrooming perpetrators,andexaminedirectandindirectassociationsbetweencyberbullyingvictimization, self-esteem,andcybergroomingvictimization.Thestudysampleincluded2,162adolescentsbetween11and 19yearsfromthreeWestern(Germany,theNetherlands,theUnitedStates)countriesandone South-eastAsiancountry(Thailand).Acrosscountries,18.5%ofparticipantsreportedhavinghadcontactwith acybergroomer.Westerngirls,ascomparedtoboys,wereatgreaterrisktohavebeencontactedbya cybergroomer.NosignificantsexdifferencewasfoundforSoutheastAsianadolescents.Also,Southeast AsianadolescentsreportedhigherratesofcybergroomercontactascomparedtoWesternadolescents. Cybergroomersweremostoftenmalesandolderthanvictims.Bothcyberbullyingvictimizationandlow self-esteemincreasedtheprobabilityofcomingintocontactwithacybergroomer,andself-esteem medi-atedtheeffectsofcyberbullyingvictimizationoncybergroomingvictimization.Theresultsarediscussed inrelationtopracticalimplicationsandfutureresearch.

©2016ColegioOficialdePsicólogosdeMadrid.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.Thisisanopen accessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Estudio

internacional

de

los

efectos

directos

e

indirectos

del

ciberacoso

escolar

en

la

victimización

por

ciberseducción

mediados

por

la

autoestima

Palabrasclave: Ciberseducción Autoestima Ciberacoso Abusoinfantil

Solicitudsexualporinternet

r

e

s

u

m

e

n

Elpresenteestudiopresentalafrecuenciadeacososexualcibernéticoyperfilescaracterísticosdelos acosadoresyexaminalaasociacióndirectaeindirectaentrevictimizacióncibernética,auto-estimay vic-timizacióndeacososexualcibernético.Lamuestradelestudioincluye2.162adolescentesentre11y19 a ˜nosdeedadprovenientesdetrespaísesoccidentales(Alemania,Holanda,EstadosUnidos)yunpaísdel suresteasiático(Tailandia).El18.5%delosparticipantesdelospaísesdelamuestramanifestaronhaber tenidoalgúncontactoconunacosadorcibernético.Lasjóvenesoccidentalescomparadasconlosjóvenes tienenmásriesgodeacosadorcibernéticosepongaencontactoconellas.Noseencontraron diferen-ciasdesexoenlosjóvenesdelsurestedeAsia.Además,losparticipantesdelsuresteasiáticotuvieron mayorfrecuenciadecontactosconacosadorescibernéticoscomparadoconlosjóvenesoccidentales.Los acosadorescibernéticossonensumayoríahombresmayoresquelasvíctimas.Tantolavictimización cibernéticacomolabajaauto-estimaincrementanlaprobabilidaddeentrarencontactoconunacosador cibernéticoylaauto-estimasirvecomomediadordelosefectosdelaagresióncibernéticaenla vic-timizacióncibernética.Secomentanlosresultadosencuantoalasimplicacionesprácticasdelestudioe investigacionesfuturas.

©2016ColegioOficialdePsicólogosdeMadrid.PublicadoporElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.Esteesun artículoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

∗ Correspondingauthor.UniversityofPotsdam.DepartmentofEducationalSciences.Karl-Liebknecht-Str.24-25.14476Potsdam,Germany. E-mailaddress:Wachs@uni-potsdam.de(S.Wachs).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.002

1135-755X/© 2016ColegioOficial de Psicólogosde Madrid.Publishedby ElsevierEspaña, S.L.U.This is anopenaccess articleunderthe CCBY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

(2)

Undoubtedly, information and communication technologies (ICTs)have changedtheway peopleinteractand communicate with each other rapidly in the last two decades. For adoles-cents,theuseofsocialnetworkingsites,instantmessenger,and mobileInternet devices arean integral component ofdaily life (Livingstone, Haddon, G ¨orzig, & Olafsson, 2011). This changing mediasocializationhasalsoaffectedthesexual socializationof adolescents(Krahé,2015).Inpuberty,adolescentsbeginto estab-lishindependence,theirownsexualidentity,andstartdatingand intimaterelationships.TheuseofICTsforsexualself-exploration andself-representation,toflirtwithothers,toreinforceexisting relationshipsorestablishnewonesandtomakefirstsexual experi-enceshasincreased(Subrahmanyam&Greenfield,2008).Suchuse ofICTsalsoincludesaccessingsiteswithinformationabout sex-uality,accessing siteswithpornographic content,and accessing chatrooms,teendatingsites,andsocialnetworkingsiteswhere adolescentscanmeetnewpeople.Adolescenceisalsomarkedby curiosity,uncertainties,trying,testing,andcrossingbordersand maygivethereforerisetosexualonlinesolicitation, cybergroom-ingandonlineabuseofadolescents.Inaddition,thereisincreasing evidencethatsomeadultsuseICTstogetaccesstoadolescentsin ordertosolicitandexploitthetargetedvictimforsexualpurposes (Davidson&Gottschalk,2010).

Severalstudieshavetriedtounderstandwhyadolescentsstart totalktostrangersonlineandwhichadolescentsmaybeathigher riskonline(Baumgartner,Valkenburg,&Peter2010,2012; Gámez-Guadix,Almendros,Borrajo,&Calvete,2015;Peter,Valkenburg, &Schouten,2006).Althoughthisresearchcanhelpunderstanding cybergroomingvictimizationamongadolescents,themagnitudeof theproblemisstillunknown.

Varying authors derived risk factors of cybergrooming vic-timizationfromthetraditionalgroomingandsexualchildabuse research.However,only averyfew clear-cutriskmarkers have beeninvestigatedempiricallyuntilnow(Wachs,2014).Research showedthatacombinationandinteractionofonlineandoffline vulnerabilitiesandriskfactorsmightexplainvaryingriskforsexual onlinevictimization(Averdijk,Mueller-Johnson,&Eisner,2011). Below,wereportpreviousresearchconductedoncybergrooming aswellasthereasonstoexpectwhycyberbullyingvictimization andself-esteemmightfacilitateadolescentstobecomeavictimof cybergroomingvictimization.

DefinitionandPrevalenceRatesofCybergrooming

Cybergroomingcanbedefinedasa“processbywhichaperson befriendsayoungpersononlinetofacilitateonlinesexualcontact and/oraphysicalmeetingwiththem,withthegoalofcommitting sexualabuse “(Websteretal.,2012,S.5).Hence,cybergrooming cancompriseunwantedsexualsolicitation(i.e.,requeststoengage insexualactivities),onlineharassment(i.e.,threatsorother offen-sivenon-sexualonlinebehavior),flattery,force,threats,bribery (Whittle,Hamilton-Giachritsis,Beech,&Collings,2013a).Although cybergroomingshouldnotbeconsideredasalinearprocess,five stageshavebeenidentifiedthatinclude:(1)friendshipformation -inthisstagethecybergroomerfirstgathersinformation,suchas sex,ageschoolgradeoftheintendedvictimandgetstoknowthe victim;(2)relationshipformation-inordertogainthevictim’s trust,thecybergroomerstartstodiscussmoreprivatetopicswith thevictim,suchasaboutthefamily,friends,school,anddailylife challenges;(3)riskassessment-atthispointthecybergroomer gathersinformation inordertoreducethelikelihoodofgetting caught,whichincludesthelocationofthePCathomeandparents’ workschedule;(4)exclusivity-thecybergroomerencouragesthe victimtonotdisclosetheirrelationshiptoothers;and(5)sexual stages-in thisfinal stage,thevictimis persuadedorforcedto

havesexualconversationsonline,tosendsexuallyexplicitimages ofthemselvesand/ortakepartinsexualactivitiesviavideochat (Berson,2003).Dependingontheresponsesofthevictim,oneor morestagesareskippedandsometimestheorderischanged.

Online environments posses favorable conditions for cyber-groomersduetothepossibilitiesofanonymizedinteractions,the lackofgeographicboundaries,increasedpossibilitiestogetaccess toanintendedvictimwithoutgettingdisturbedthroughthesocial environment, and the possibilities to victimize simultaneously varyingadolescents(Berson,2003;Wachs,2014).

Researchoncybergroominghasmainlyfocusedonself-reports (morequalitativeapproachesthanquantitativeapproaches),police reportsorlaw-enforcementagentsinterviews.Hence,the preva-lence rateof cybergrooming is difficulttodetermine giventhe paucityofresearchandlimitationofeachmethod(e.g.,unrecorded datawhenanalyzingpolicereportsorself-reportbiasinsurvey studies).Inaddition,previousresearchdoesnotuniformlydefine andmeasurecybergrooming,makingitdifficulttocompare.Finally, thesamplesizesandcharacteristicsdifferamongstudiesgreatly andsostatisticsvary(Wachs,2014).Statisticsinthefollowing para-graphrepresentsomeoftheresearchconductedonsexualonline solicitationandmorespecificallyoncybergroomingvictimization. In Germany, 5% of the participants (N=700, age=10-18) reportedofunwantedsexualonlinesolicitationthroughanadult perpetratorandadditional7%reportedbeingonlinesolicitedby peers (Bitkom, 2011). In another study, 21.4% of participants (N=512,age=12-18years)reportedcybergroomingvictimization within the last twelve months (Wachs, Wolf, &Pan, 2012). In theNetherlands,inarepresentativestudy(N=1,765,age=12-17 years),5.6%ofthemaleparticipantsand19.1%ofthefemale partic-ipantsreportedunwantedsexualonlinesolicitation(Baumgartner etal.,2010).InarecentstudyintheNetherlands,25.4%ofthe par-ticipants(N=4,453,age=11-18years)reportedreceivingonline sexualrequests(Kerstens&Stol,2014).IntheUSA,inanational sur-vey(N=1,500,age=10-17years),19%oftheparticipantsreported thattheyhadbeenvictimsofonlinesexualsolicitationin2000 (Mitchell, Ybarra,&Finkelhor, 2007), comparedto10% in2010 (Jones,Mitchell,&Finkelhor,2012).Oneofthefewstudies, inves-tigatingonlineriskforThaiadolescents,found,inaconvenience sampleof557Thaiparticipantsbetween11and18yearsold,80% ofparticipantsusingICTswithoutparentalmonitoring,52% repor-tingnoproblemswithdepictionsofnakedness,and33%having encounteredpeoplewantingtospeaktothemaboutsexinchat rooms(Michelet,2003).Morerecently,inastudywithasample of420Malaysianadolescentsagedbetween9and 16yearsold, 17.9%ofparticipantsreportedunwantedsexualonlinesolicitation (Teimourietal.,2014).

Oneofthefewcross-nationallarge-scalestudieswasconducted in25Europeancountries(N=25,142,age=9-16)andrevealedthat 22%ofthe15-16yearoldparticipantsexperiencedunwanted sex-ualonlinesolicitation(Livingstoneetal.,2011).Insum,thestudies showthatsexualonlinerisksareaconcernofadolescentsaround theworld.

DemographicCharacteristicsofCybergrooming PerpetratorsandVictims

Researchoncybergroominghasfocusedonboththevictimsand theperpetrators.Althoughcybergroomersarepredominantlymale (Davidson&Gottschalk,2010;Websteretal.,2012),thereissome evidencethatwomenalsouseICTstogroomadolescents, espe-ciallymalevictims(Elliott&Ashfield,2011).Concerningtheageof perpetrators,studiesbasedonrecordedpolicecaseshaveshown thatcybergroomersarenotahomogeneousgroup.IntheNational JuvenileOnlineVictimizationstudy(N-JOV),23%ofonlinesexual

(3)

solicitationperpetratorswerebetween18and25yearsold,41% between26and39yearsold,and35%40yearsandolder(Wolak, Finkelhor,&Mitchell,2004).Inanotherstudyofrecordedcasesof sexualonlinesolicitationinSweden,aroundonethirdofthe per-petratorswerebetween18and24yearsold,onethirdbetween 24and44,andonethirdwaseitherunder18orover44yearsold (Shannon,2008).

Regarding the victims of cybergrooming, previous research suggeststhatgirlsaremorelikelytoexperiencesexualonline solic-itationandcybergroomingcompared withboys,even thoughit shouldnotbeenoverlookedthatboysmaybecomealsovictimized (Baumgartneretal.,2010;Gámez-Guadixetal.,2015;Jonesetal., 2012;Wachsetal.,2012;Whittle,Hamilton-Giachritsis,Beech,& Collings, 2013b).Therearedifferentexplanationswhy girlsare athigherrisk:theearlymaturityofgirls,themoreintensiveuse ofICTsforcommunicationandinteraction(i.e.,socialnetworking site),specificriskyonlinebehavior(i.e.,disclosingofprivate infor-mationonsocialnetworkingsitesordisclosingofcontactdetails likephonenumber,instantmessengerid),orthewillingnessto flirtonlineandgetincontactonlinewithstrangers(Katzer,2009). Inaddition,acontentanalysisofpersonalinformationpostedon socialnetworkingsitesrevealedthatgirlsincludedriskierand sex-ualcontentthanboys(Pujazon-Zazik,Manasse,&Orrell-Valente, 2012).Girlsmightalsoshowahigherriskbecauseperpetratorsof sexualabusearemoreoftenheterosexualmenwhoarelookingfor femalevictims(Berson,2003).

Concerning age, research revealed that adolescents are at higher risk of cybergrooming compared tochildren and adults (Baumgartneretal.,2010;Whittleetal.,2013b).Througha devel-opmentallens,adolescentsaremoreinterestedininterpersonal interactionandcommunication,andaremoreinterestedinsexual topicsandexchangethanchildren.Theypossessthesocial, com-municative,andcognitiveabilitiesbutalsothepossibilities,since theyuseICTsmoreprivatelyandhavemoreaccesstoICT com-paredwithchildren(Livingstoneetal.,2011).Olderadolescents arenotonlymoreatriskofreceivingonlinesexualsolicitations butalsoaremorelikelytoengageinriskyonlinebehavior (i.e., talkingaboutsexwithstrangers,seekingtohaveonlinesex, send-ingofnude/semi-nudepicturesandvideos,disclosingofprivate information;Baumgartneretal.,2010;Wachs,Junger,&Sittichai, 2015).

While there is little researchon cybergrooming in Western countries, research in Southeast Asian countries like Thailand barelyexists.However,therearesomeincidentstosuggestthat in Thailandtheprevalence rates aresame highor even higher comparedtoWesterncountries.Since2008,mobileInternetusers in Thailand grew more than 400% and Internet users in Thai-land grew more than 660%, rising from 3.5 million in 2001to 24 million in 2010 (Asia Digital Marketing Association, 2014). Thisrapidchangeissuesachallengetoparents,schools,and soci-etybecauseincontrasttoaround30%ofadultregularlyInternet users,75%ofThaiadolescentsareusingICTregularly(AsiaDigital MarketingAssociation,2014).Inastudy,onlyonequarterof par-ticipatingThaiparentsreportedtomonitortheonlineactivities of theirchildren (Michelet, 2003).Also,more recentlyresearch indicatesthatmostThaiparentsdonotmonitorchildren’sonline activitiesproperly(Cook,Heykoop,Anuntavoraskul,&Vibulphol, 2012).

Inthesamevein, Thailandhasbeenidentified asoneofthe mostpopulardestinationsforchildsextourismsincethe1980s (Davy, 2014), withthe rapid growth of ICTs child sex tourism and hencesexualonline abuse.Previous researchsuggeststhat sexuallyabusiveactsthatdonotinvolvephysicalcontact,suchas sexchattingorforcingsomeonetorevealtheirbodyviawebcam, arenotrecognizedasformsofsexualonlineabusebyThaiparents (Michelet, 2003).Insum,there isaneedforresearchonsexual

online solicitation among Thai adolescents and cross-national comparativeresearch.

WhyinvestigatetheAssociationsbetweenCybergrooming andCyberbullyingandSelf-Esteem?

There is a large body of literature suggesting that sexual victimizationis oftenassociated withotherforms of victimiza-tion,includingverbal,physical,relationalvictimization(Finkelhor, Ormrod,&Turner,2007;Ojanenetal.,2015;Yahner,Dank,Zweig, &Lachman,2014).Thisresearchmakesitreasonabletosuggest thatassociationsbetweencybergroomingvictimizationand cyber-bullyingvictimizationdo exist.Cyberbullyingcanbedefinedas “anybehaviorperformedthroughelectronicordigitalmediaby individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressivemessagesintendedtoinflictharmordiscomforton oth-ers”(Tokunaga,2010,p.278).Victimsofcyberbullyinglackgood peerrelationships,feelsociallymoreineffective,andhavegreater interpersonaldifficulties(Tokunaga,2010).Thissocial vulnerabil-itymighteasemanipulationofthevictimwithoutgettingdisturbed byfriendswhomightdistractorwarnthevictim.Researchshowed that adolescents who feel lonely and bored online show high needforaffectionandattentionandtrytofindentertainmentand socialcompensationaremorelikelytocommunicateonlinewith strangers(Baumgartneretal.,2010;Valkenburg,Peter&Schouten, 2006).

AnotherexplanationaddressestheICTuseofcyberbullying vic-timswhichmightbeariskforfurthervictimization.Indeed,some researchfoundthatvictimsofcyberbullyingusedICTsmore com-pulsively,flirtedonlinewithstrangersmoreoften,disclosedmore privateinformationandcontactdetailslikephonenumber,instant messengeridonsocial networkingsitesand sentself-produced imagesandvideoswithexplicitlysexualcontent(sexting)more often(Sengupta&Chaudhuri,2011;Wachsetal.,2015).

Indeed,astudywithGermanadolescentsaddressingthe asso-ciationsbetweencybergroomingandcyberbullyingvictimization revealedthatvictimsofcybergroomingdisplayednearly2times higheroddsratiostobecomecybergroomedaftercontrollingfor traditionalbullyingvictimization(Wachsetal.,2012).However, thissamplewasrelativelysmall,withonlystudentsfromone coun-tryandthereforefurtherinvestigationisneeded.

Another crucial risk factor for cybergrooming victimization might be a low self-esteem. Self-esteem is often defined as “a favourableorunfavourableattitudetowardstheself”(Rosenberg, 1965,p.15).Self-esteemiscrucialforadolescentsbecauseprevious researchhasshownthatlowself-esteemisassociatedwith health-compromising behaviors, including substance use, early sexual activity,eatingproblems,andsuicidalideation(McGee&Williams, 2000).Lowself-esteemwasalsofoundtobeassociatedwith sex-ualriskbehaviorandsexualabuseoffline(Wild,Flisher,Bhana,& Lombard,2004).Hence,lowself-esteemcouldbeconsideredasa riskfactor(Fryer,Kraizer,&Mlyoshi,1987)but mightalsobea consequenceofabuse(Fergusson,McLeod,&Horwood,2013).

Building on traditional research of child abuse, it is rea-sonable to suggest associations between low self-esteem and cybergroomingvictimization.Lowself-esteemisoftenassociated with feelings of worthlessness, inadequacies, deficiencies, and lackofconfidence (Rosenberg,1965),which mightexplainwhy cybergrooming victims werefoundto endurenegative feelings associated with cybergrooming (i.e.,guilt, self-blame) (Whittle, Hamilton-Giachritsis,&Beech,2014).Thefeelingofworthlessness mightalsoexplainwhyvictimsdonotaskforhelporbelievethat noonewillbelievethem.Inthesamevein,lowself-esteemmight alsomakeiteasiertoconveytothechildthatnoonecareswhat happens.

(4)

Peoplewithlowself-esteemwerealsofoundtohavea prefer-enceforICT-relatedcommunicationcompared withface-to-face communication(Joinson,2004).Therefore,itmightbethat adoles-centswithlowself-esteempreferalsotoflirtonline,lookingfor friendsonline,andpreferestablishingonlinerelationships,which mightincreasetheriskforcybergroomingvictimization.

In a qualitative interview study, cybergrooming victims reportedloosingself-esteemafterthecybergroomingvictimization (Whittleetal.,2014).IntheEuropeanOnlineGroomingProject con-ductedinfourEuropeancountries(UK,Belgium,Norway,andItaly) DavidsonandGottschalk(2010)usedanalysesofpolicerecorded cybergroomingcasestoderiveriskfactorsforcybergrooming vic-timization.Theyfoundthatthevictimsofcybergroomingmight showlowerself-esteem.However,thisfindingmightbedistorted asresearchwasnotconductedusingdirectvictimaccounts.Insum, thereisaneedforresearchinvestigatingtheassociationsbetween self-esteemandcybergroomingvictimizationwithvalidatedscales onaquantitativelevel.

Lastly,inseveralstudies,lowerself-esteemappearedtobe asso-ciatednotonlywithcybergroomingbutalsowithcyberbullying victimization(Brighietal.,2012;Olweus,2012;Patchin&Hinduja, 2010).Inthesamevein,otherresearchfoundthatnegative feed-backonsocialnetworkingprofileslessensadolescents’self-esteem (Valkenburgetal.,2006).Cyberbullyingisalsoknowntoinclude negativefeedbacksonpostingpicturesorvideosonsocial network-ingsites.Therefore,it isreasonabletoinvestigateifself-esteem mediatestheassociationsbetweencybergroomingvictimization andcyberbullyingvictimizationandplaysaroleinexplaining poly-victimizationinadolescents.

Insummary,previousresearchfoundevidenceofarelationship betweencybergroomingvictimizationandcyberbullying victim-ization and between cybergrooming victimization and lowered self-esteem.Researchhasalsofoundthatlowself-esteemcanput adolescentsatanincreasedriskofbeingcyberbullied.

ThePresentStudy

Thisstudyhadthreeaims:1)toreportthefrequencyratesof cybergroominginadolescentsbysex,age,andnationality;2)to investigatedemographiccharacteristics(sexandage)ofthe cyber-groomerreported bythevictims, whileconsidering differences incybergroomingvictimsbysexandnationality;and3)to ana-lyzetheassociations betweencybergrooming victimizationand cyberbullyingvictimizationandself-esteem,whilecontrollingfor sex,age,andnationality.Asmentionedabove,cyberbullying vic-timshaveahigherriskforcybergroomingvictimizationbecauseof thesocialvulnerabilityandriskyonlinebehavior.Lowself-esteem mightbeariskfactorbecauseoftheemotionalvulnerabilitytothe cybergroomerandthepreferenceforusingICTsforinterpersonal relations.Itishypothesizedthathigherinvolvementin cyberbul-lyingvictimizationandlowerlevelsofself-esteemis associated withhigherprobabilityofexperiencingcybergrooming victimiza-tion.Additionally,wehypothesizedthattheassociationbetween cyberbullyingvictimization and cybergrooming victimization is mediatedbylowerself-esteeminthewaythatcyberbullying vic-timizationdecreasesself-esteemthatinturnincreasestheriskof cybergroomingvictimization.

Method

Participants

Participantsincluded2,162adolescentsfrom6thto10thgrade fromthreeschoolsinGermany,threeschoolsintheNetherlands, oneschoolintheUnitesStatesandoneschoolinThailand.Age

rangedbetween11and19years(Mage=14.49,SD=1.66).Interms of gender, 45.4% (Mage=14.3, SD=1.6, n=982) were boys and 54.6%(Mage=14.5,SD=1.7,n=1,180)weregirls.Regardingcountry, thestudysampleincludedn=849German(Mage=14.1,SD=1.2), n=379Dutch(Mage=14.5,SD=1.4),n=234American(Mage=14.2, SD=1.7),andn=700Thaisubsamples(Mage=15.0,SD=2.0). Measures

Dependentvariable.Untilnow,therearenoinstrumentswith adequatepsychometric properties for measuringcybergrooming available.Inthecurrentstudy,weassessedcybergroomingbyusing aninstrumentthathadbeenusedbefore(Wachsetal.,2012).In ordertoimprovethevalidityofresponses,participantsweregiven firstadefinitionofacybergroomerbeforeansweringthequestion: “Acybergroomerisapersonwhoisatleast7yearsolderthanyou andwhomyouhaveknownforalongperiodexclusivelythrough onlinecommunication.Atthebeginning,theonlinegroomerseems tobeinterestedinyourdailylifeproblems,butafteracertaintime s/heappearstobeinterestedinsexualtopicsandintheexchange ofsexualfantasiesand/ornudematerial(picturesorvideochats).” Thenparticipantswereasked“Howmanytimesdidyouhave con-tactwithacybergroomerinthelasttwelvemonths?”.Theresponse scalewasasfollows:1=never,2=1or2times,3=2or3timesa month,4=aboutonceaweek,and5=severaltimesaweek.These answeroptionswerederivedfromthebullyingitemsusedinthis studyinordertoenlargethecomparability.

Independentvariable:

a)Cyberbullyingvictimization.Fortheassessmentof cyberbul-lyingtheMobbing Questionnairefor Students,by Jäger, Fischer, andRiebel(2007),wasused.Thisquestionnairestartswitha def-inition of cyberbullying to improve validity of responses. This definitioncontentsthethreecriteriaderivedfromtraditional bul-lyingresearch:intenttoharm,powerimbalancebetweenvictim andperpetrator,andrepetition.Afterthedefinition,participants couldstatehowoftentheyhaveexperiencedfourformsof cyber-bullying victimization. For the assessment of cyberharassment, participants were asked “How many times has someone sent youthreats,defamations,orotheraggravating messagesviathe Internet/cellphoneinthelasttwelvemonths?”;for cyberdenigra-tion,“...didsomeonespreadrumorsordefamationsaboutyou viatheinternet/cellphone...?”;forcyberouting,“...did some-onehandonprivateemails,chatmessagesorpicturesofyouto otherswiththeintentionofexposingyou...?”;andfor cyberex-clusion, “...someone excludedyou fromthe group in chats or onlinegames...?”.Allcyberbullyingitemscouldbeansweredon afivepointLikertscale:1=never,2=1or2times,3=2or3timesa month,4=aboutonceaweek,and5=severaltimesaweek.Thefour itemswereusedtobuildascale,totalsample (␣=.71,M=1.35, SD=0.64, N=2,160),German(␣=.73, M=1.3,SD=0.61, N=849), Dutch(␣=.70,M=1.3,SD=0.63,N=379),American(␣=.70,M=1.5, SD=0.76,N=232),andThaisubsample(␣=.72,M=1.3,SD=0.64, N=700).

b) Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)isa10-itemscaleofglobalself-esteem,whichincludesboth positiveandnegativefeelingsabouttheself.Participantsrespond tostatementssuchas“OnthewholeIamsatisfiedwithmyself” and“IfeelIdonothavemuchtobeproudof”,onafourpointLikert scale(1=stronglydisagree,2=disagree,3=agree,4=stronglyagree). Thehigherparticipantsscoredonthisscale,thehighertheir self-esteem,totalsample(␣=.85,M=2.0,SD=0.64,N=2,144),German (␣=.89,M=2.0,SD=0.75,N=847)Dutch(␣=.82,M=2.0,SD=0.55, N=372),American(␣=.89,M=2.1,SD=0.74,N=225)andThai sub-sample(=.76,M=2.1,SD=0.49,N=700).

c)Sexandageofthecybergroomer.Participantswereaskedfor sexandageofthecybergroomer.ThequestionWhichsexhadthe

(5)

cybergroomer?couldbeansweredbystating,thecybergroomerwas male,thecybergroomerwasfemale,bothfemaleandmale(i.e.,a cou-ple)orIdon’tknow.ThequestionHowoldwasthecybergroomer? couldbeansweredwithyoungerthanme,olderthanme,nearlythe sameageandIdon’tknow.

Demographicvariables.Participantswereaskedforsexandageto determinedemographiccharacteristics.Nationalitieswere deter-minedafterdatacollection.

Procedure

Participationinthis studywasvoluntaryandbasedon writ-ten parental consent.About 95% of eligible pupils participated inthestudy.InGermanyandtheNetherlandsanonlinesurvey wasused,whileinThailandandtheUSAapaper-pencilmethod wasimplemented1.Thesurveywascompletedduringoneregular schoolhourintheschool’scomputerlabrespectiveinclassrooms underthesupervisionoftrainedresearchassistants.Alldatawere collectedin2013.Inallcountries,participantswereinformedthat theirparticipationwasanonymousandthattheywerefreeto with-drawfrom thestudy atany time. The averagetime neededto completethequestionnairewasabout30minutes.Thestudywas reviewedandapprovedbythedataprotectionofficerand educa-tionalauthorityofthefederalstateofLowerSaxony,Germany(OS1 R.24-0541/2N).Inordertopreventdistressandfurtherharmfrom participatinginthisstudy,oralandwritteninformationwas pro-videdwherethosewhohadtakenpartintheresearchcouldget counselingonlineandofflinewasgiven.

DataAnalysis

Descriptive statistics wereused to determinethe frequency rates of cybergrooming. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to assessthebivariateassociationsbetweenthebullyingtypologies andsexandcountry.Cramer’sVwasusedtocalculatetheeffect size. Whenassumptions of Pearson’s chi-square test were vio-lated(i.e.,toofewcases)weusedFreeman-Haltonextensionofthe Fisher’sexactprobabilitytestfor3x4or4x4contingencytables (Freeman&Halton,1951).

Toanalyzethemultivariateassociationsbetweenthedependent variable(cybergroomingvictimization)andtheindependent vari-ables(cyberbullying victimization,self-esteem),a simplebinary logisticregressionwasconductedusingdichotomousdependent variables, while controllingfor demographics (sex, age, nation-ality). The statistical significance of parameter estimates was determinedusingbootstrappedprocedures(Tabachnick&Fidell, 2013).In thepresent study,1,000 bootstrappingsampleswere derivedusing95%confidenceintervals.

Thedecisiontodichotomize theoutcomevariablewasmade through different reasons. Firstly, the cybergrooming variable waspositivelyskewed,whatcontradictstheapplicationof OLS-regressionandmightleadtobiasedparameterestimates.Logistic regressiondoesnothavenormalityassumptionsfortheDVsaslong asthecategoriesshowanadequateabsolutecasenumber(e.g.,30 cases;Tabachnick&Fidell,2013).Weacceptedlossofstatistical powerbutavoidedbiasedparameterestimatesduetonon-normal deviatedDV.Secondly,treatingtheoutcome-categories(contact vs.nocontact)asqualitativedistinctinbinaryregressionsallows

1Totestwhetherthemethodofdatacollection(paperandpencilversusonline)

hadanyundueinfluenceonthestudyresults,were-runallanalyseswithadummy codedvariable“methodofdatacollection”(paperandpencilversusonline)added toasetofcontrolvariables.Theeffectofthedatacollectionmethodonour depend-entvariable,namelycybergroomingvictimizationwasnotstatisticallysignificant; furthermore,wedidnotobserveanychangesintheobtainedresults.

fordistinctanalysesandcomparisonsofassociatedriskfactorsof eachgroup.

Before conducting binary regression analysis we tested two assumptions: multicollinearityand linearity of the logit. Multi-collinearitywasexaminedbyrunningalinearregressionanalysis with all predictors to proof for multicollinearity. The analysis revealedthatmulticollinearitywasnotanissueamongour inde-pendentvariables(VIFs<2.0).Inordertoprooflinearityoflogitwe rantheregressionanalysiswithcyberbullyingvictimizationand self-esteemasinteractiontermsofeachpredictorandthelogof itself.Bothinteractionswerenotsignificant,suggestingthatthe assumptionoflinearityofthelogithasbeenmetforcyberbullying victimizationandself-esteem.

Lastly,weconductedmediationanalysisusingPROCESSmacro (Hayes, 2013) to examine whether cyberbullying victimization predicted likelihood of experience with cybergrooming victim-ization via self-esteem. To estimate the significance of the indirecteffect estimate,weused bootstrappingprocedurewith 1,000re-samples.

Results

FrequencyRatesofCybergrooming

Concerningourfirstresearchquestion,thedatashowedthat overall 18.5%(n=399) ofparticipantsreportedthattheyhadat least once contact with a person who tried to sexually solicit themonline.Regardingthecontactfrequencies,81.5%(n=1,755) reportedtheyhadneverhadcontactwithacybergroomer,10.9% (n=235)reportedcontactoneortwotimes,3.0%(n=64)twoor threetimesamonth,1.4%(n=30)onceaweek,and3.2%(n=70) severaltimesa week.Table 1illustrates thefrequency ratesof cybergroomingvictimsintotal,bysexandnationality.

Forfurtheranalysis,wedichotomizedthecybergrooming vari-able(yes/no)inordertodistinguishbetweenparticipantswhohad contactwithacybergroomerandthosewhohadnot.Inthetotal studysample,differencesinthesexcompositionof cybergroom-ingvictimizationwerestatisticallysignificant,␹2(1,2,154)=24.40, p<.0001,Cramer’sV=.106,suggestingthatgirlsweremorelikely thanboystohavecontactwitha cybergroomer(22.3%vs.14%). Therewere nodifferencesin ageof participantswho had con-tactwithacybergroomer(M=14.2, SD=1.40)andwho hadnot (M=14.6,SD=1.78),t(2,149)=-1.88,p=.60. Thefrequency rates compared by nationality revealed a statisticallysignificant dif-ference. MoreThaiparticipants(36.5%) compared withGerman (10.2%),Dutch(7.4%)orAmerican(12.6%)hadatleastonce con-tactwithacybergroomer,␹2(3,2,154)=224.62,p<.0001,Cramer’s V=.323.

Finally, we compared sex and age differences in Western (Germany, theNetherlands,andUSA) and theSouthEastAsian (Thailand)participantsbydichotomizingthenationalityvariable. Intotal,fewerWesternparticipantsreportedhavingcontactwith acybergroomercomparedwithSoutheastAsianparticipants(9.9% vs.36.5%),␹2(1,2,154)=221.90,p<.0001,Cramer’sV=.321.

Westerngirls weresignificantly morelikely tohave contact witha cybergroomerthan Westernboys(14.0%vs. 6.1%),␹2(1, 1,456)=25.19,p<.0001,Cramer’sV=.132.However,inSoutheast Asianparticipantsnostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetween boys(40.4%)andgirls(34.7%)wereobserved,␹2(1,698)=25.19, p=0.13, indicating that Southeast Asian girls were not more likely involvedin cybergroomingthanboys.Therewereno dif-ferences in age for Western victims (M=14.2, SD=1.40) and non-victims(M=14.3,SD=1.45),t(1,451)=-0.531,p=.595orin South East-Asian victims (M=14.8, SD=1.92) and non-victims (M=15.1,SD=2.04),t(696)=1.6,p=0.091.

(6)

Table1

FrequencyRatesofCybergroomingbySexandNationality.

Sex Nationality

Male Female German Dutch American Thai Total Never 842 913 762 349 201 443 1755 86.0% 77.7% 89.8% 92.6% 87.4% 63.5% 81.5% One or two times 69 166 69 19 21 126 235 7.0% 14.1% 8.1% 5.0% 9.1% 18.1% 10.9% Two or three times a month 24 40 8 4 3 49 64 2.5% 3.4% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 7.0% 3.0% About once a week 17 13 4 0 4 22 30 1.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 1.7% 3.2% 1.4% Several times a week 27 43 6 5 1 58 70 2.8% 3.7% 0.7% 1.3% 0.4% 8.3% 3.2% Total 979 1175 849 377 230 698 2154 45.5% 54.5% 39.4% 17.5% 10.7% 32.4% 100.0%

SexandAgeofCybergroomers

To answer our second research question, participants were askedwhethertheyknewwhichsexandagethecybergroomer had.Concerningthesexof thecybergroomer,participantsmost oftenreportedthattheperpetratorsweremale(66.3%,n=269), fol-lowedbyfemale(25.4%,n=103),notknowingthesex(5.7%,n=23) andbothmaleandfemale(i.e.,couples)(2.7%,n=11).Moreboys thangirlsreportednotknowingthesexoftheperpetrator(10.4%vs. 3.3%),fewerboysreportedbeingsexuallyonlinesolicitedbyamale perpetratorcomparedwithgirls(43.7%vs.77.5%),moreboysthan girlsreportedbeingsexuallyonlinesolicitedbyafemale perpetra-tor(44.4%vs.15.9%),fewerboysreportedbeingcybergroomedbya maleandfemalecybergroomer(i.e.,acouple)(1.5%vs3.3%), Fisher-Freeman-Halton’stest,p=.000. MoreDutchparticipants(32.1%) reportedcomparedwithGerman(11.5%),American(14.8%),and Thai (0%) participants that they did not know the sex of the Cybergroomer.FewerGermanparticipants(12.6%)reportedbeing sexuallyonlinesolicitedbyafemaleperpetratorcomparedwith Dutch(14.3%), American (37.0%), and Thaiparticipants (29.5%), ␹2(3,406)=64,74,p<.000,Cramer’sV=.282.

Regardingageofthecybergroomer,participantsreportedmost oftennotknowinghowoldtheperpetratorwas(49%,n=387), fol-lowedbyolderperpetrators(35%,n=276),perpetratorsinthesame age12.5%(n=99),andyoungerperpetrators(3.4%,n=27). Signifi-cantlymoreboysthangirlsreportedbeingsexuallyonlinesolicited by a younger person (6.2% vs. 2.1%), ␹2(3, 789)=9.64, p<.05,

Cramer’sV=.111.Somesignificantcountrydifferenceswerefound. MoreThaiparticipants(55.3%)reportednotknowingtheageof theperpetratorcomparedwithDutch(14.3%),German(27.6%),and Americanparticipants(7.1%).MoreAmericanparticipants(17.9%) reportedbeingsexuallyonlinesolicitedbyyoungerperpetrators comparedwithDutch(3.6%),German(2.3%),andThai(2.9%).Fewer Thaiparticipantsreportedbeingsexuallyonlinesolicitedby per-soninthesameage(9.4%)comparedwithDutch(28.6%),German (29.9%),and American(14.3%).More Americanstudents (60.7%) reportedbeing sexually onlinesolicited by older persons com-paredwithDutch(53.6%),German(40.2%),andThai(32.4%),␹2(3,

789)=89.61,p<.000,Cramer’sV=.195.

AssociationsbetweenCybergroomingandCyberbullyingand Self-Esteem

Regardingourthird researchquestion,weanalyzedwhether cyberbullying victimization and low self-esteem increased the probability of reporting cybergrooming victimization. For this analysis, we estimated a logistic regression model including cyberbullying victimization and low self-esteem as predictors. Cybergroomingwasdichotomizedasacriterion variable.Inthe

regression analysis we controlledfor sex, age, and nationality. As Table 2 illustrates, there were statistically significant influ-ences onwhether participantswere cybergroomed. The model wassignificant,Loglikelihood(null)=2059.30;LR(full)=1715.41; LR␹2=15.37,df=8,p<.05, Nagelkerke’sR2=.231.Cyberbullying victimizationandcybergroomingvictimizationweresignificantly associated(B=0.812,p=.0001).Alsoself-esteemand cybergroom-ingvictimizationhada statisticallysignificantrelationship(B= -0.226,p=.02).Specifically,eachincreaseofonepointonthefive point scale of cyberbullying victimization was associated with increasingtheoddsofcybergroomingvictimizationby2.2times (OR=2.25,95%CI%[1.9,2.6])andeachincreaseofonepointonthe fourpointself-esteemscale wasassociatedwithdecreasingthe oddsratiosby0.80times(OR=0.80CI95%[0.65,0.97]).Inaddition, girls(B=0.278,p=.03)andSoutheastAsianparticipants(b=1.76, p=.0001)weresignificantlymorelikelytosuffercybergrooming victimization.

To analyze whether the association between cyberbullying victimizationandcybergroomingvictimizationwasmediatedby self-esteem,amediationmodelwastested.Resultsrevealedboth significantdirect effects of cyberbullying victimization on self-esteem (B=-0.149, p<.001, 95% CI [-0.19, -0.11]) and on the likelihoodofexperiencingcybergroomingvictimizationinthepast (OR=2.45,95%CI[p<.001,95%CI[2.02,2.96]).Additionally,higher self-esteem decreased likelihood of ever being cybergroomed (OR=0.77,95%CI[p=.021,95%CI[0.61,0.96]).Theindirecteffect of cyberbullying victimization on cybergrooming victimization throughself-esteemwassmall,butstatisticallysignificant(B=0.04, 95%bootstrappedCI [0.01,0.09]). Inthemediationanalysis,we controlledforage,sex,anddichotomizednationality(Westernvs. SoutheastAsiancountry,Figure1).

OR = 0.77* B = – 0.15*** CYBUV Self-esteem CYGRV OR = 2.45*** (B = 0.04)

Figure1. Directandindirecteffectsofcyberbullyingvictimization(CYBUV)and self-esteemoncybergroomingvictimization(CYGRV).Theindirecteffectof cyber-bullyingvictimizationoncybergroomingvictimizationviaself-esteemisreported inparentheses.

(7)

Table2

CoefficientsoftheModelPredictingwhetheranAdolescenthadContactwithaCybergroomerornot.

B* SE Wald p OR C.I.95% Cyberbullying 0.812[0.650–0.970] 0.085 92.14 .000 2.25 1.90–2.65 Self-Esteem -0.226[-0.030–-0.435] 0.100 5.07 .024 0.80 0.65–0.97 Beingagirl 0.278[0.034–0.523] 0.130 4.61 .032 1.32 1.02–1.70 Age -0.038[-0.112–0.030] 0.035 1.21 .270 0.962 0.899–1.03 SoutheastAsian 1.762[1.49–2.03] 0.129 186.58 .000 5.82 4.52–7.49 (Constant) -3.539[-4.65–-2.44] 0.568 38.81 .000 0.029

Note.*95%BCabootstrapconfidenceintervalsbasedon1,000samples.

Discussion

ICTspossessmanybenefitstoadolescentsandplayan impor-tantroleintheirdailyinteractionandcommunication.Despitethe numerousbenefitsofICTs,therearealsoseveralpotentialrisksthat canbedetrimentaltoapositivedevelopmentinadolescence.This studydemonstratedthatcybergroomingshouldbeconsideredas oneoftheseonlinerisksforadolescents.

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoinvestigatecybergroomingand toexpandtheempiricalevidence ofitsextentand nature.This objectivewasrealizedby2,162self-reportsofadolescentsaged between11and19yearsoldfromGermany,theNetherlands,USA, and Thailand.Hence,this studyisone ofthefirst investigating cybergrooming,itsextent,andnature,inacross-nationalsample consideringWesternandSoutheastAsiandifferencesinvictims.

Concerningourfirstresearchaim,toinvestigatethefrequency ratesofcybergrooming,wefoundnearlyoneinfiveparticipants (18.5%)reportedthattheyhadatleastoncecontactwithaperson whotriedtosexuallyonlinesolicitthem.Thisresultiscomparable toWachsetal.(2012),whofoundwiththesameresearch instru-ment,butadifferentsample,21.4%ofparticipantsreportedcontact withacybergroomeratleastonce.

Withrespecttoourfirstresearchquestion,wefoundthe fre-quencyratesofcontactwithacybergroomervariedbetween36.5% inThailand,12.6%intheUSA,10.2%inGermany,and7.4%inthe Netherlands.Consequently,ourdataindicatedthatparticipantsin Westernnationsexhibitedaclearlylowerriskforcybergrooming victimizationcomparedwithSoutheastAsianparticipants.These differencesmightbeexplainedbysocioeconomicandcultural dif-ferences,lessparentalmonitoringofadolescents’onlineactivities, andmissingsensitivityforsexualaggressionsthatareconducted online(Cooketal.,2012;Michelet,2003).Thereisalsosome evi-dencethatThaiparentsneedtoimprovesexualriskcommunication withtheirchildren(Sridawruang,Pfeil,&Crozier,2010).

Thedatashowedthatinthetotalsamplegirlsweremorelikely tohave had contact witha cybergroomercompared with boys (22.3%vs.14%),basedonthetotalsample.Thisresultislargely inlinewithpreviousresearch(Baumgartneretal.,2010; Gámez-Guadixetal.,2015;Jonesetal.,2012;Wachsetal.,2012).However, a more detailed analysisrevealed some interesting differences betweenWesternandSoutheastAsianadolescents.While West-erngirlsshowedhigherrisktobecomeavictimofcybergrooming comparedwithWesternboys(14.0%vs.6.1%),inSoutheastAsian adolescentsnosuchdifferencewasfound, butboys’rateswere slightlyhigherthantheoneofgirls(40.4%vs.34.7%).Thereissome previousworkthathasshownthatAsianboysaremorelikelytobe involvedinsexualchildabusecomparedwithAsiangirls, includ-ingsexualonlinesolicitation(Chan,Yan,Brownridge,&Ip,2013; Finkelhor,Lannen,&Quayle,2011).Furthermore,noage differ-enceswerefoundinthepresentstudybetweenparticipantswho hadcontactwithacybergroomerandparticipantswhohadnot, withintheage range ofthe presentstudy, namely11 to19 of age.

Regardingoursecondresearchquestion,toinvestigatereported sex and ageof the cybergroomer,we foundsupport for previ-ous research that cybergroomers are not a homogenous group butmorelikelymaleandolderthantheirtargetedvictim(Elliott &Ashfield,2011;Whittleetal.,2013a;Whittleetal., 2014).In linewithFinkelhor, Mitchell,and Wolak(2000), wefoundthat aroundthreequartersoftheperpetratorsweremaleandone quar-terfemale.Morespecifically,wefoundgirlsreportingmoreoften sexualsolicitationbymaleperpetratorsandboysreportingmore oftenvictimizationthroughafemaleperpetrator.Itmightbethat thereportsofboyswerebiased.Malevictimsmightbeashamed ofbeingcybergroomedbyamaleperpetratorandthereforethey reportthattheperpetratorwasfemaleandnotmale.Moreresearch onthisissueisrecommended.

Whileinallnationsofthecurrentstudyparticipantsreported most often cybergrooming through a male perpetrator, further analysisrevealedsomespecificcountrydifferences:German par-ticipants reported less often being cybergroomed by a female perpetratorandDutchadolescentsreportedmoreoftennot know-ingthesexoftheperpetrator.

Whereasin91%ofthecasestheadolescentsreportedtoknow thesexoftheperpetrators,onlyin51%thesamewastrueforthe age.Thisresultisalsoin linewithpreviousresearchonsexual onlineperpetrationthatmoreoftenthesexastheageofthe perpe-tratorisclearlyknowntothevictim(Finkelhoretal.,2000).Theonly differencesbetweenmaleandfemalevictimsregardingtheageof thecybergroomerwerethatmoreboysthangirlsreportedbeing sexuallyonlinesolicitedbyayoungerperson.Regarding nationali-ties,Americanparticipantsweremorelikelycontactedbyolderand youngercybergroomers,Thaiparticipantsreportedmoreoftennot knowingtheageandlessoftencybergroomingbysameaged per-petrators.WhileinthethreeWesternnationsparticipantsreported most often beingcybergroomed by an older person, Southeast Asianparticipantsreportedmostoftennotknowingtheageofthe cybergroomerfollowedbyreportingthatthecybergroomerwas older.

Concerning our third research question, to analyze the associations between cybergrooming victimization, cyberbully-ing victimization, and self-esteem, we found somesupport for bothhypotheses.Cyberbullyingvictimizationwasassociatedwith cybergrooming victimization what was also observed before (Averdijk et al., 2011;Wachs et al.,2012; Wachs et al., 2015). Inaddition,ourdataconfirmedinitialresearchthatshowed sig-nificant associations between cybergrooming victimization and self-esteem(Whittleetal.,2014).Wefoundalsosupportforthe secondhypothesisthatcyberbullyingvictimizationisassociated withdecreasedself-esteemthatinturnpredictshigherlikelihood ofcybergroomingvictimization.Althoughthisindirecteffectwas smallinmagnitude,itisoneofthefirstexplanatoryfactorsforthe relationshipbetweencybergroomingvictimizationand cyberbul-lyingvictimizationinvestigatedsofar.Next,thestudyfindingsare discussedinmoredetailregardingtheirimplicationsforpractice andfutureresearch.

(8)

ImplicationsforPractice

Theresultsfoundinthecurrentstudyhaveimportant impli-cationsforpractice.Firstly,althoughthemajorityofadolescents inthis studyhave never experienced cybergrooming victimiza-tion,participantswhoreportedcontactswithacybergroomerat leastoncewerefairlycommon.Fortheseadolescentsitseemsto beimportant toinform aboutpossibleonline risksand educate themhowtouseICTsafeandresponsible.Secondly,prevention measurementagainstcybergroomingshouldnotonlyaddressgirls butalsoboys,while consideringnotonly malebut alsofemale perpetrators.Also,itseemstobeimportanttoconsidercultural differencesincybergroomingprevention.Furtherprevention mea-surementsshould focusona broaderrange of onlinerisks and combinemeasurementsagainstaggressiveandsexualonlinerisks. Thirdly,sincethepresentstudyrevealedthatsomecybergrooming victimshaveproblemswithpeersandstrugglewiththemselves, prevention measurements against cybergrooming victimization shouldfocusonimprovementofsocialrelationshipsand empow-ermentapproaches.Schoolsmightplayhereaspecialrolebecause theypossesstherightlearningenvironmentforboththe devel-opmentof a strongpersonalitythat believesin her or himself but also establishing close social relationships to other peers. More specifically,the present study showedthat the improve-mentofself-esteemmight decreasetherisk offallingvictimto bothcybergroomingvictimizationandcyberbullyingvictimization simultaneously.

Finally,parentsandeducatorsshoulddiscussthepotentialrisk ofcybergroomingwithadolescents.Hence,theyshoulddiscussthe issueofsexuality,friendshipsandhealthyromanticrelationships online.Atthesametime,parentsandeducatorsshouldbeaware thatonlinecontactsofadolescentsareinmostcasesfriendship ori-entatedandbetweenindividualsfromnearlythesameage(Wolak, Mitchell,&Finkelhor2002).Further,onlinecontactscanhave a compensationfunctionforadolescentswhofeellonelyand posi-tivefeedbackthroughICTcanimprovetheself-esteem(Valkenburg etal.,2006).ThesepositiveaspectsofICTuseshouldbeconsidered whentalkingwithadolescentsaboutcybergrooming.Finally, par-entsshouldalsoencouragetheirchildrentotalktothemabout anythingthatmakesthemfeeluncomfortable onlineaswellas offline.

ImplicationsforFutureResearch

Firstofall,itseemstobeimportanttodevelopavalidatedscale for measuringcybergrooming victimizationamong adolescents. Inordertogainmoreinformationabouthowmanyadolescents areinvolved,studieswithrepresentativedataareneeded.Future researchwouldalsobenefitfromincludingmorethanonegroup inresearch,forexampleadolescentsandtheirparents,peers,and teacherstogainmoreinformationaboutcybergrooming victim-izationinasocial ecologicalcontext.Thepresentstudyshowed thatitisworthconsideringcross-culturaldifferences.However, moreresearchisneededtounderstandunderlyingreasonsforthe varyinggenderdistributionbetweenWesternandSoutheastAsian adolescentsfoundinthisstudy.Thisissuemightbeimportantwhen itcomestothedevelopmentofinterventionandprevention mea-surementsand theircross-culturalvalidity. Finally,longitudinal studiesareneededinordertounderstandthetemporalrelationship betweencybergroomingvictimizationandcyberbullying victim-izationandtheirriskfactorsandconsequences.

Similarlytothecybergroomers,thevictimsarealsoa heteroge-neousgroup.Itisreasonabletosuggestthatnotallcybergrooming victimssuffersocialandpsychologicalvulnerabilitiesinvestigated inthecurrent study.Beside thesocial-psychological vulnerable

victim type, there might be furthervictim typeswho are well integratedamongpeersandareself-confidentbutareseekingfor sensationsonlineandthereforegetincontactwithacybergroomer. In the same vein, previous research discovered varying cyber-groomingstrategiesthatmightbeadoptedaccordingtothetype ofvictim(Gottschalk,2011).Gainingtheadolescents’confidence byofferingpositive attention,faking friendship,orprovidingan empatheticresponsewhentheydiscusproblemsmightbethemore appropriatestrategywhenitcomestothissocial-psychological vul-nerablevictimtype.Furtherresearchisneededtoidentifyvarying typesof cybergroomingvictimsand theirvulnerability for spe-cificcybergroomingstrategiesinordertodeveloppreventionand interventionmeasurements.

Thepresentstudyalsoshowsthatitisworthcombiningresearch onvaryingonlinerisks.Sincetherearerelevantoverlapsbetween varyingformsofcybervictimization,thestudypointsouttheneed toinvestigatecybervictimizationinabroaderview.

Investigating experiencesof abuseamong youngpeopleis a highlysensitiveissue.Ontheoneside,itisoftenproblematicto getthepermissionfromschools,parentsandeducational author-itytoinvestigatethisissue.Ontheotherside,anyeffectsofthe questioningontheparticipantmustbetakenunderconsideration. Forthisreason,wedecidednottoaskdirectlyforexperiencesand varyingkindsofsexualonlineabuse,buttoassessfrequencyrates ofcontactswithacybergroomer.

Finally,itisworthmentioningthatinthepresentstudy,in12.5% ofthereportedcasestheperpetratorwasthesameage(among USparticipantseven17.9%)asthevictim,whatraisesawareness aboutpeer-to-peersexualonlinesolicitation,somethingthathas notbeenadequatelyinvestigated.

LimitationsandStrengths

Thisstudyhasseverallimitationsthatneedtobementioned. Firstly, due tothe cross-sectional nature of the study, caution mustbeusedwhenestablishingcausalrelationshipsbetweenthe variables.Therefore,itisnotpossibletoconfirmthetemporal rela-tionshipbetweencybergroomingvictimizationandcyberbullying victimizationandself-esteem.Secondly, althoughoursampleis large,itcannotbeconsideredasrepresentative.Inaddition,only arelativesmallnumberofschoolswererecruited.Therefore, cau-tionisrecommendedwiththegeneralizationoftheresultstothe entirepopulationofadolescentsineachcountry.Thirdly,alldata reliedexclusivelyonself-reports.Therefore,thecorrelatesmight beinflatedthroughsharedmethodvariance. Amulti-informant approach would provide a fuller picture and is recommended for future research.In addition, we relied onsingleitem mea-surement for the assessment of cybergrooming; future studies shouldtrytoincludevalidatedscalestoovercomeproblemswith single-itemsmeasurements(i.e.,degreeofvalidity,accuracy,and reliability).

Thisstudyalsoincludesanumberofstrengths:firstly,thestudy investigatedcybergroomingriskfactorsinacross-nationalsample betweenWesternandSoutheastAsianadolescents;secondly, suf-ficientlylargesampleswereavailablefromeachcountrytopermit bycountrycomparisons;thirdly,identicaland validated instru-mentswereusedacrossstudysamples;finally,theresultsofthis studyprovidesclearimplicationsforpreventionandintervention ofcybergroomingvictimization.

Conclusions

Insummary,althoughcybergroomingseemstobeacommon phenomenon among adolescents, mostadolescents have never experiencedit.WefoundWesternadolescentsshowedalowerrisk

(9)

forcybergroomingvictimizationcomparedwithSoutheastAsian participantsandfemaleparticipantsonlyinWesterncountriesbut notintheSoutheastAsiancountryweremoreinvolvedin cyber-grooming.Thisstudyextendsthepreviousevidenceonassociations betweencybergroomingvictimizationandcyberbullying victim-izationbyusingacross-nationalsampleandaddstotheliterature significantassociationsbetweencybergroomingvictimizationand self-esteem.Further,wefoundasmallbutsignificantindirecteffect ofcyberbullyingvictimizationoncybergroomingvictimizationvia lower self-esteem. The findings suggest that prevention efforts shouldpayattentiontoimproveinterpersonalrelationshipsand psychologicalhealthinordertoprotectadolescentsfrom cyber-groomingvictimization.

ConflictofInterest

Theauthorsofthisarticledeclarenoconflictofinterest.

References

Asia Digital Marketing Association (2014).Asia Pacific Digital Marketing Year-book 2014. Asiadma. Asia Digital Marketing Association. Retrieved from http://www.asiadigitalmarketingyearbook.com.

Averdijk,M.,Mueller-Johnson,K.,&Eisner,M.(2011).SexualVictimisationofChildren andAdolescentsinSwitzerland[RapportfinalpourlaFondationUBSOptimus]. Retrievedfromwww.optimusstudy.org.

Baumgartner,S.E.,Valkenburg,P.M.,&Peter,J.(2010).Unwantedonline sex-ualsolicitationandriskysexualonlinebehavioracrossthelifespan.Journalof AppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,31,439–447.

Baumgartner,S.E.,Valkenburg,P.M.,&Peter,J.(2012).Unwantedonlinesexual solicitationandonlinesexualriskbehavior.EncyclopediaofCyberBehavior,2, 828–836.

Berson,I.R.(2003).Groomingcybervictims:Thepsychosocialeffectsofonline exploitationforyouth.JournalofSchoolViolence,2,5–18.

BITKOM(2011).Jugend2.0.Einerepr¨asentativeUntersuchungzum Internetverhal-tender10-bis18-j¨ahrigen.Retrievedfromwww.bitkom.org/files/documents/ BITKOM Stu-dieJugend2.0.pdf.

Brighi,A.,Melotti,G.,Guarini,A.,Genta,M.L.,Ortega,R.,Mora-Merchán,J.,... Thompson,F.(2012).Self-esteemandlonelinessinrelationtocyberbullying inthreeEuropeancountries.InQ.Li,D.Cross,&P.K.Smith,Cyberbullyinginthe globalplayground:Researchfrominternationalperspectives(pp.32-56). Chich-ester,UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

Chan,K.L.,Yan,E.,Brownridge,D.A.,&Ip,P.(2013).Associatingchildsexualabuse withchildvictimizationinChina.TheJournalofpediatrics,162,1028–1034. Cook,P.H.,Heykoop,C.,Anuntavoraskul,A.,&Vibulphol,J.(2012).Actionresearch

exploringinformationcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)andchildprotection inThailand.DevelopmentinPractice,22,574–587.

Davidson,J.,&Gottschalk,P.(Eds.).(2010).Internetchildabuse:Currentresearchand policy.Abingdon,UK:Routledge.

Davy,D.(2014).Understandingthecomplexitiesofrespondingtochildsex traf-fickinginThailandandCambodia.InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocial Policy,34,793–816.

Elliott,I.A.,&Ashfield,S.(2011).Theuseofonlinetechnologyinthemodusoperandi offemalesexoffenders.Journalofsexualaggression,17,92–104.

Fergusson,D.M.,McLeod,G.F.,&Horwood,L.J.(2013).Childhoodsexualabuseand adultdevelopmentaloutcomes:findingsfroma30-yearlongitudinalstudyin NewZealand.Childabuse&neglect,37,664–674.

Finkelhor,D.,Lannen,P.,&Quayle,E.(2011).OptimusStudySynthesis.Retrievedfrom http://www.optimusstudy.org/fileadmin/userupload/documents/Synthesis/ OptimusStudySynthesis2011e.pdf.

Finkelhor,D.,Mitchell,K.J.,&Wolak,J.(2000).Onlinevictimization:Areporton thenation’syouth(6-00-020).Alexandria,VA:NationalCenterforMissing& ExploitedChildren.

Finkelhor,D.,Ormrod,R.K.,&Turner,H.A.(2007).Poly-victimization:Aneglected componentinchildvictimization.Childabuse&neglect,31,7–26.

Freeman, G. H., & Halton, T. R. (1951). Note on exact treatment of contin-gency, goodness-of-fitand other problems of significance. Biometrika, 38, 141–149.

Fryer,G.E.,Kraizer,S.K.,&Mlyoshi,T.(1987).Measuringactualreductionofriskto childabuse:Anewapproach.ChildAbuse&Neglect,11,173–179.

Gámez-Guadix,M.,Almendros,C.,Borrajo,E.,&Calvete,E.(2015).Prevalenceand AssociationofSextingandOnlineSexualVictimizationAmongSpanishAdults. SexualityResearchandSocialPolicy,12,145–154.

Gottschalk,P.(2011).Adarksideofcomputingandinformationsciences: charac-teristicsofonlinegroomers.TheJournalofEmergingTrendsinComputingand InformationSciences,2,447–455.

Hayes,A.F.(2013).Introductiontomediation,moderation,andconditionalprocess analysis:Aregression-basedapproach.NewYork,NY:TheGuilfordPress. Jäger,R.,Fischer,U.,&Riebel,J.(2007):MobbingbeiSchülerinnenundSchülern

in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine empirische Untersuchung auf der

GrundlageeinerOnlineBefragungimJahre2007.Zentrumfürempirische päd-agogischeForschung(zepf),Landau.Retrievedfrom http://iamnotscared.pixel-online.org/data/database/publications/838MobbingSchueler[1].pdf. Joinson,A.N.(2004).Self-esteem,interpersonalrisk,andpreferencefore-mailto

face-to-facecommunication.CyberPsychology&Behavior,7,472–478. Jones,L.M.,Mitchell,K.J.,&Finkelhor,D.(2012).Trendsinyouthinternet

victim-ization:Findingsfromthreeyouthinternetsafetysurveys2000-2010.Journalof AdolescentHealth,50,179–186.

Katzer,C.(2009).SexuelleViktimisierungvonMädcheninInternet-Chatrooms[Sexual victimizationofgirlsinInternetchatrooms].JuventaVerlag:BetrifftMädchen. Kerstens,J.,&Stol,W.(2014).Receivingonlinesexualrequestsandproducingonline

sexualimages:Themultifacetedanddialogicnatureofadolescents’online sex-ualinteractions.Cyberpsychology,8.

Krahé,B.(2015).Pornografiekonsum,sexuelleSkriptsundsexuelleAggressionim Jugendalter.ZeitschriftfürEntwicklungspsychologieundPädagogischePsychologie, 43,133–141.

Livingstone,S.,Haddon,L.,G ¨orzig,A.,&Olafsson,K.(2011).Risksandsafetyonthe internet.PerspectiveofEuropeanchildren.Fullfindingsandpolicyimplications fromEUKidsOnlinesurveyof9-16yearoldsandtheirparentsin25countries. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/media%40lse/research/EUKidsOnline/ EU%20Kids%20II%20(2009-11)/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D4FullFindings.pdf. McGee,R.O.B.,&Williams,S.(2000).Doeslowself-esteempredicthealth

compro-misingbehavioursamongadolescents?Journalofadolescence,23,569–582. Michelet,I.(2003).OurChildrenatRiskOnline:TheExampleofThailand:SurveyReport.

ECPAT International. Retrieved from http://www.ecpat.net/sites/default/ files/OurChildrenAtRiskOnlineENG.pdf.

Mitchell,K.,Ybarra,M.,&Finkelhor,D.(2007).Therelativeimportanceofonline victimizationinunderstandingdepression,delinquency&substanceuse.Child Maltreatment,12,314–324.

Ojanen,T.T.,Boonmongkon,P.,Samakkeekarom,R.,Samoh,N.,Cholratana,M.,& Guadamuz,T.E.(2015).Connectionsbetweenonlineharassmentandoffline violenceamongyouthinCentralThailand.Childabuse&neglect,44,159–169. Olweus,D.(2012).Cyberbullying:Anoverratedphenomenon?EuropeanJournalof

DevelopmentalPsychology,9,520–538.

Patchin,J.W.,&Hinduja,S.(2010).Cyberbullyingandself-esteem*.JournalofSchool Health,80,614–621.

Peter,J.,Valkenburg,P.M.,&Schouten,A.P.(2006).Characteristicsandmotivesof adolescentstalkingwithstrangersontheInternet.CyberPsychology&Behavior, 9,526–530.

Pujazon-Zazik,M.A.,Manasse,S.M.,&Orrell-Valente,J.K.(2012).Adolescents’ self-presentationonateendatingwebsite:Arisk-contentanalysis.Journalof AdolescentHealth,50,517–520.

Rosenberg,M.(1965).Societyandtheadolescentself-image.Princeton,NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.

Sengupta,A.,&Chaudhuri,A.(2011).Aresocialnetworkingsitesasourceofonline harassmentforteens?Evidencefromsurveydata.ChildrenandYouthServices Review,33,284–290.

Shannon,D.(2008).OnlinesexualgroominginSweden—Onlineandofflinesex offencesagainstchildrenasdescribedinSwedishpolicedata.Journalof Scandi-navianStudiesinCriminologyandCrimePrevention,9,160–180.

Sridawruang,C.,Pfeil,M.,&Crozier,K.(2010).WhyThaiparentsdonotdiscusssex withtheirchildren:aqualitativestudy.Nursing,healthsciences,12,437–443. Subrahmanyam,K.,&Greenfield,P.(2008).Onlinecommunicationandadolescent

relationships.ThefutureofChildren,18(1),119–146.

Tabachnick,B.G.,&Fidell,L.S.(2013).UsingMultivariateStatistics(6thed.).Boston, MA:Pearson.

Teimouri,M.,Hassan,M.S.,Bolong,J.,Daud,A.,Yussuf,S.,&Adzharuddin,N.A. (2014).WhatisUpsettingOurChildrenOnline?Procedia-SocialandBehavioral Sciences,155,411–416.

Tokunaga,R.S.(2010).Followingyouhomefromschool:Acriticalreviewand syn-thesisofresearchoncyberbullyingvictimization.Computersinhumanbehavior, 26(3),277–287.

Valkenburg,P.M.,Peter,J.,&Schouten,A.P.(2006).Friendnetworkingsitesandtheir relationshiptoadolescents’well-beingandsocialself-esteem.CyberPsychology &Behavior,9,584–590.

Wachs,S.(2014).Cybergrooming-ErsteBestandsaufnahmeeinerneuenForm sexuellerOnlineviktimisierung.InD.Meister,F.vonGross,&U. U.Sander (Eds.),EnzyklopädieErziehungswissenschaftOnline.Weinheim,Germany;Basel, Switzerland:BELTZJuventa.

Wachs,S.,Junger,M.,&Sittichai,R.(2015).Traditional,CyberandCombined Bul-lyingRoles:DifferencesinRiskyOnlineandOfflineActivities.Societies,5(1), 109–135.

Wachs,S.,Wolf,K.D.,&Pan,C.C.(2012).Cybergrooming:Riskfactors,coping strategiesandassociationswithcyberbullying.Psicothema,24,628–633. Webster,S.,Davidson,J.,Bifulco,A.,Gottschalk,P.,Caretti,V.,Pham,T.,.&Craparo,

G. (2012). Europeanonline grooming project: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.europeanonlinegroomingproject.com/media/2076/european-online-grooming-project-final-report.pdf.

Whittle,H.C.,Hamilton-Giachritsis,C.E.,&Beech,A.R.(2014).“UnderHisSpell”: Victims’PerspectivesofBeingGroomedOnline.SocialSciences,3,404–426. Whittle,H.,Hamilton-Giachritsis,C.,Beech,A.,&Collings,G.(2013a).Areviewof

onlinegrooming:Characteristicsandconcerns.Aggressionandviolentbehavior, 18,62–70.

Whittle,H.,Hamilton-Giachritsis,C.,Beech,A.,&Collings,G.(2013b).Areviewof youngpeople’svulnerabilitiestoonlinegrooming.Aggressionandviolent behav-ior,18,135–146.

(10)

Wild,L.G.,Flisher,A.J.,Bhana,A.,&Lombard,C.(2004).Associationsamong adoles-centriskbehavioursandself-esteeminsixdomains.Journalofchildpsychology andpsychiatry,45,1454–1467.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2002). Close online relation-ships in a national sample of adolescents. Adolescence (San Diego), 37, 441–456.

Wolak,J.,Finkelhor,D.,&Mitchell,K.(2004).Internet-initiatedsexcrimesagainst minors:Implicationsforpreventionbasedonfindingsfromanationalstudy. JournalofAdolescentHealth,35,424-e11.

Yahner,J.,Dank,M.,Zweig,J.M.,&Lachman,P.(2014).Theco-occurrenceofphysical andcyberdatingviolenceandbullyingamongteens.Journalofinterpersonal violence(publishedonline),http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540324

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Chinese fluid power : hoofdzakelijk voor nationaal gebruik Citation for published version (APA):..

The story of smuggling across the sensitive and evolving Anglo-Dutch border in Southeast Asia is complex, and avail- able information is fragmentary at best.. Grand economic and

The electronic absorption spectra of TBBPA and TBBPA  are shown in Fig. The calculated maximum absorption wavelengths of TBBPA and TBBPA  were 266 and 308 nm, respectively.

sample and stratified by year of interview. Regional share indicates a region’s share of whole sample and exposure indicates how many years that region has been exposed to

Tegen de verwachtingen in is geen significant effect gevonden voor celebrity –en expert endorsement op zowel attitude als intentie ten opzichte van het eten van fruit. Zowel Naomi

gemaakt worden of de ondersteuning die leraren aangeven voor het verlaten van het onderwijs, verschillen ten opzichte van de mate waarin zij de onderwijsorganisatie

The MIM capacitors are modeled by 3 planar dielectric lay- ers with material parameter values as given in TABLE I with the relative permittivity ε r , the relative magnetic

GI Mediating or Control Variables [ 9 ] Journal of Business Ethics Performance Corporate competitive advantage [ 10 ] Organization and Environmental Performance/drivers