Abstract: Parental Figures As Protective? Associations between Cyberbullying Victimization, Connectedness, and Online Monitoring (Society for Prevention Research 26th Annual Meeting)

247 Parental Figures As Protective? Associations between Cyberbullying Victimization, Connectedness, and Online Monitoring

Schedule:
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Columbia A/B (Hyatt Regency Washington, Washington, DC)
* noted as presenting author
Jennifer L. Doty, PhD, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN
Amy Gower, PhD, Research Associate, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN
Damir Utrzan, MA, Doctoral Student, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN
Renee E. Sieving, PhD, FAAN, FSAHM, Professor, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN
Shari Plowman, MPH, Senior Evaluator, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN
Barbara McMorris, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Introduction: Caring parent-child relationships and parental monitoring are negatively related to cyberbullying. Few studies examine parent-child connectedness and monitoring concurrently with respect to cyberbullying. To inform prevention efforts, we examined concurrent associations between cyberbullying victimization and these protective factors. We hypothesized that connectedness with a parental figure and both general and online monitoring would be negatively related to cyberbullying victimization. We explored gender as a moderator to understand differential effects of gender with respect to cyberbullying.

Method: Data were from the second wave of a longitudinal, middle school-based study. Sixth graders were recruited from three schools in a Midwest metropolitan area (N = 570). Participants identified as 48.7% female; 1.9% reported being American Indian, 13.7% Asian, 20.2% Black, 20.4% Latino, 22.7% White, and 21.1% multiracial; 65.7% received free/reduced-price lunch. Cyberbullying victimization was measured by asking, “During the last 30 days, how often have you been bullied online through social media, email, texting, websites, video games, photos/videos, or instant messaging?” Responses were coded as never/ever reporting victimization. Parental connectedness was measured by a 3-item scale; e.g. “In my home, there is a parent or some other adult who talks to me about my problems” (1=not at all true; 4=very true; α=.73). Two items measured general and online parental monitoring, respectively: “In my home, there is a parent or some other adult who asks me about what I do in my free time” and “…who asks me about things I do online” (1=not at all true; 4=very true). Controls included gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, and free/reduced-price lunch. Logistic regression models of cyberbullying victimization were estimated, using a clustering adjustment. Effect modification by gender was tested for relationships between parent connectedness, monitoring, and cyberbullying victimization.

Results: Students who felt connected to a parental figure were less likely to report cyberbullying victimization (OR=0.70, SE=0.12, p<.05), and the effect of parental online monitoring was marginally significant (OR=0.94, SE=0.03, p<.10). General monitoring was not significant. Gender moderated relationships between parental connectedness and cyberbullying victimization (OR=1.34, SE=0.05, p<.001) and between online monitoring and cyberbullying victimization (OR=1.24, SE=.11, p<.05). The protective effects of connectedness and online monitoring on victimization were stronger for girls than boys.

Conclusions: Prevention of cyberbullying victimization should focus on strengthening parent-child connectedness. Online monitoring and connectedness may be particularly important to prevent online peer victimization among girls.