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
daUniversityofPotsdam,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 ChildabuseSexualonlinesolicitation
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/).
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
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.
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
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.
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; LR2=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.
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.
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
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.
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