International Journal of Cyber Society and Education

Pages 59-80, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2015

doi: 10.7903/ijcse.1382

CYBERBULLYING IN JAPAN: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Reinis Udris
Osaka University
Suita-shi, Yamadaoka 1-2, 565-0871, Osaka, Japan
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Cyberbullying is a growing problem among adolescents and adults alike. To date,

research concerning cyberbullying has focused on Europe and the Anglophone countries.
This study contributes to understanding of cyberbullying by adding the case of
adolescents in Japan. Participants were 899 high school students who completed a self-
report questionnaire on technology use habits, cyberbullying and cybervictimization
experiences. Logistic regression analyses were used to measure the relationship between
cyberbullying, cybervictimization and several independent variables, including gender,
age and technology use. Results showed that 22% of the participants had experienced
cybervictimization, while 7.8% admitted to cyberbullying others. Most cyberbullying
cases involved classmates and the victims knew the identities of their tormentors.
Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that cybervictimization is the biggest
significant predictor of cyberbullying and vice versa. Having more online friends was
significantly associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization.

Keywords: Cyberbullying, Adolescents, Technology Use, Japan

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with the advances in technology and the affordability of the Internet,
cyberbullying has become more prevalent in the lives of children and adults alike. It is
usually defined as harmful behavior that is intentional and repetitive, and involves the use
of information and communications technologies (Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland, &
Westby, 2014). However, the idea that repetition is a necessary factor in cyberbullying
has come under fire as the Internet enables instant distribution of large amounts of data to
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 60

large populations of society (Dooley, Pyżalski, & Cross, 2009; Law, Shapka, Hymel,
Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008).
Research shows that on average 20%–40% of children have suffered from
cyberbullying in their lives. Cybervictimization has been associated with anxiety
(Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012), academic problems (Beran & Li, 2007),
depression (Baker & Tanrıkulu, 2010; J. Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011), decreased self-
esteem (Tynes, Rose, & Williams, 2010), suicidal thoughts (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010)
and even suicide attempts (Messias, Kindrick, & Castro, 2014). These negative outcomes
have parallels throughout literature on traditional bullying, which has been associated
with negative self-image (Lunde, Frisén, & Hwang, 2007), lower academic performance
(Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza, 2010), depression and suicidal ideation (Klomek et al.,
2008) and lower self-esteem (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999).
Furthermore, those who experienced traditional bullying are more likely to commit
crimes in later life (Olweus, 2011). While some similarities exist between traditional
bullying and cyberbullying, there are three significant differences. First, although not
always perfectly, the adept technology user can conceal his or her identity and remain
almost completely anonymous. Second, the Internet never sleeps and its affordability
makes it very difficult to avoid cyberbullying. Third, the online world is like a large stage
where anyone can become a spectator. Even a single image or a video can spread very
quickly, increasing the negative effect for the victim (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, pp. 20-
25).
To explain or predict cyberbullying, researchers have employed self-reports, in
which “having fun” and entertainment have been cited as the most common reasons for
participation in cyberbullying (Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010;
Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Others have applied the
theory of planned behavior (Heirman & Walrave, 2012), the routine activities theory
(Navarro & Jasinski, 2012), and online disinhibition (Udris, 2014) as possible predictors
of cyberbullying. Internet addiction (Chang et al., 2014), school violence and alcohol and
drug use have also been associated with cyberbullying (Pelfrey & Weber, 2013).

Cyberbullying in Japan
Research on cyberbullying in Japan is still in its infancy. Most of the small body of
research has dealt only with frequencies and basic questions. A study of 2,599 elementary
school children in the Kyoto area revealed that 12.5% (14.5% for females; 11.3% for
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 61

males) had experienced cybervictimization, while 10.6% (12.8% for females; 8.4% for
males) admitted to cyberbullying others. The difference in cyberbullying and
cybervictimization frequencies between genders was statistically significant (Hara, 2011).
A survey at nine junior high schools in Japan by Terado, Nagaura, and Tominaga (2010)
found that of 5,357 students surveyed (51% male, 47.4% female, 1.6% unknown) 8.66%
were engaged in cyberbullying others. Interestingly, female perpetrators outnumbered
males by 10.9% to 6.4% in this sample. The researchers argued that cyberbullying is less
direct and physical than traditional bullying and thus more females might engage in it
compared to males. The study also revealed a large overlap of traditional bullying and
cyberbullying: 81.24% of cyberbullies were also traditional bullies (Terado et al., 2010).
Japan’s Ministry of Education conducts its own surveys and their last report showed that
4.7% of students in 2013 in the primary and secondary education system “got teased,
harassed or slandered through mobile phones, computers or other technological devices”
(Ministry of Education, 2014).
Barlett et al. (2013) surveyed college-aged students in Japan and the U.S. to test two
opposing hypotheses. The first one was the idea that independent self-construals lead to
more cyberbullying, which the researchers expected to have a greater effect on the U.S.
sample due to cultural differences between the countries. The second hypothesis was that
technology affordability, in which Japan is ahead of the U.S., would encourage more
cyberbullying and show greater effect in Japan. However, the researchers found more
cyberbullying in the U.S. sample, which favors the first hypothesis. Furthermore, they
concluded that cultural context does mediate cyberbullying in both countries, but the link
was much stronger in the U.S. sample (Barlett et al., 2013).
Aoyama, Utsumi, and Hasegawa (2012) conducted two studies to explore
cyberbullying. The first study examined parental control, Internet use and relational
aggression as possible predictors of cyberbullying. There was no time frame when asking
about cyberbullying experiences, and the answers ranged from 1 (none) to 4 (frequently).
Among 487 junior high school students, the study found that 33% had experienced
cyberbullying, 8% of whom were bullies, 7% were victims and 18% were both bullies
and victims. There were no direct effects of the control practices and parental monitoring
in connection with cyberbullying, but both were indirect predictors through Internet use,
which in turn was significantly associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization
(Aoyama et al., 2012). The second study looked at cultural differences between Japan and
the United States. The authors argued that in the West bullying was more associated with
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 62

physical behaviors such as punching or hitting, while ijime, the equivalent word for
bullying in Japan, had a more nuanced and psychological dimension to it. Participants
were 142 students from Japan and 133 from the United States. The study asked the
students about cyberbullying experience only for the past six months and the coded
answers were 0 – no experience; 1 – 1 to 4 times; and 2 – 5 or more times. Results
showed that students in the United States were more involved in cyberbullying than their
Japanese counterparts; American students’ parents monitored their online behavior more
and they were more likely to seek help from parents in case of cybervictimization. The
hypothesis that cyberbullying is more indirect and thus the Japanese students would be
more involved in cyberbullying was not supported. Although the sample size of the study
is rather small and thus limiting the interpretation and generalization of the results, it
showed that Japanese students are less involved in cyberbullying and they consult their
parents less than their counterparts in the United States (Aoyama et al., 2012).

Purpose of the Study

Cyberbullying studies in Japan have been disparate and scarce, leaving many
questions unanswered. Some studies explore only basic frequencies, and a few have tried
to use more advanced statistical methods, like regression analyses, to predict
cyberbullying aggression. The purpose of this study is to contribute to filling this
knowledge gap.
1) It was hypothesized that technology use measured by the time spent online, the
importance of the Internet in daily life, deviant behavior (using phone in class), larger
online presence compared to real world (more online friends) and parental supervision
(keeping secrets about used websites) will be significant predictors of cyberbullying.
2) Based on previous studies, it was hypothesized that being a cybervictim will
significantly predict cyberbullying behavior (Bauman, 2009).
3) Lastly, this study aims to bring a clearer picture of why and how cyberbullying occurs
by asking the students who are directly involved in it

METHODS

Participants
A total of 941 questionnaires were distributed in six schools in Osaka, Japan. Forty-
two were excluded from the analysis due to being incomplete (95.5% completion rate).
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 63

Participants were 899 senior high school students – 383 males (42.6%), 511 females
(56.8%) and 5 not specified (0.6%) aged between 15 and 19 years old (M=16.30,
SD=.931). The sample was comprised of students in the first through third year in senior
high school: 44.0%, 36.3% and 19.7% respectively. The six schools that agreed to
participate in the survey were not randomly chosen, but they did represent different
academic levels according to their national exam scores. Two of the schools could be
categorized as elite, one was above average, one just around average and two were below
average. The survey for this study was conducted September through November 2012.

Measures
To date, studies on cyberbullying have varied greatly in their measures and time
frames, leading to disparate results (Tokunaga, 2010; Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014).
Previous studies have been conducted without any specific time frame (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Li, 2010), simply referring to the past couple of
months (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Mishna et al., 2010), one year (Görzig & Ó lafsson,
2013; Jang, Song, & Kim, 2014; Messias et al., 2014) or a combination of a certain time
frames and frequencies (Brown, Demaray, & Secord, 2014; Wensley & Campbell, 2012).
This study asked the respondents about cyberbullying activities since they started
elementary school, with a follow up question inquiring about the past six months. The
two time frames can then be investigated and compared separately leading to more in-
depth analysis of the issue. The overall time frame should be interpreted with caution as a
student who was cyberbullied in the past might hold completely different normative
beliefs, and his/her technology use habits can change. The items for cyberbullying and
cybervictimization included various online behaviors and use of technology (e.g.,
upload/publish a picture or video of a friend online without permission). Multiple
response questions were used to measure cyberbullying and cybervictimization
experiences. Each response item for cyberbullying or cybervictimization was a
dichotomous variable. These items were then collapsed into a single dichotomous
variable. Thus, having at least one positive response was coded as having an overall
cyberbullying or cybervictimization experience. Those respondents who were coded as 1
= experience for the overall time frame had to answer an additional question asking if
they have had this experience in the past six months. With this method, cyberbullying and
cybervictimization experiences overall and during the past six months were coded as four
separate dichotomous variables: 0 = no experience and 1 = experience being a cyberbully
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 64

or a cybervictim. Furthermore, those who reported cyberbullying or cybervictimization

occurrences in the overall or both (overall and past six months) time frames were asked
to fill out follow-up questions. For cyberbullying, these included the possible reasons for
their actions, who their targets were, and a question concerning the frequency of their
actions. The first two questions allowed multiple answers. Cybervictims were asked how
they felt after being targeted; who, if anyone, they told about it; who they thought had
cyberbullied them; how many cyberbullies there were; how sure they were of the
cyberbullies’ identities; and how many times cyberbullying had happened. The first three
questions allowed multiple responses.
The items concerning technology use were measured as follows. Students were
asked if they use their cellular phones in class and the possible answers were coded as 1 –
‘Don’t use at school’, 2 – ‘Don’t use during class, but use during recess’, 3 – ‘Use rarely’,
4 – ‘Use sometimes’, and 5 – ‘Use often’. Daily Internet use was measured in five
categories: 1 – ‘Less than 1 hour’, 2 – ‘1–2 hours’, 3 – ‘2–3 hours’, 4 – ‘3–4 hours’, and
5 – ‘More than 5 hours’. Next, students were asked if they use any websites that they
keep secret from their parents or guardians. The answers were coded as a dichotomous
variable with 0 – ‘No’ and 1 – ‘Yes’. The last two items, “Is Internet important to you in
your daily life?” and “Do you have more online friends than the ones you meet in real
life?”, had Likert scale answers ranging from 1 – ‘Strongly disagree’, 2 – ‘Disagree’ to
3 – ‘Agree’ and 4 – ‘Strongly agree’. All the regression models included gender (coded as
male = 1, female = 2) and age as covariates.

Procedure
The survey questionnaires were distributed in the classroom either by the teacher in
charge of the class or by the researcher. Before completing the questionnaires, students
were briefed about the purpose of the study and informed of their right to not participate
in the survey or to not answer any questions they would feel uncomfortable with. Time
allowance for filling out the questionnaires was 15–20 minutes. Together with the
questionnaires, each student also received an envelope. After the completion of the
questionnaire, each student was asked to enclose his or her questionnaire in the envelope
and hand it back to the researcher or the teacher in charge of the class. These procedures
and the questionnaire contents were approved by the appropriate institutional ethics
committee.
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 65

Data analyses
Analyses were done using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0. Logistic regression was chosen
as the method most fit to analyze the dichotomous dependent variables expressing
cyberbullying and cybervictimization experience (Menard, 2002). The significance level
was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Frequencies
Of all the students in this study, 98.4% owned at least one cellular phone. Among
those, 64.1% used a smartphone. When it comes to using the Internet, 85% acknowledged
going online on their phones, while 76.9% also used their PCs at home. Of all the
students, 22% (17.8% of males, 25.2% of females) admitted having been victimized, and
7.8% (8.1% of males, 7.6% of females) acknowledged cyberbullying others. When asked
about the past six months, the number was slightly smaller – 6.7% (8.4% of males, 5.5%
of females) for cybervictimization and 2.7% (3.4% of males, 2.2% of females) for
cyberbullying.

Table 1 Prevalence of Cyberbullying by Type

Cybervictimi Cybervictimiz
Cyberbullying Cyberbullying
Item zation ation (6
(overall, %) (6 months, %)
(overall, %) months, %)
Upload/publish a picture or
video online without 2.3 1.1 6.1 3.1
permission
Spread messages containing
insults or bad rumors among 2.7 1.1 10.0 2.2
classmates or acquaintances
Slander someone online 3.4 1.3 7.1 2.0
Send insulting or abusive
0.8 0.2 3.4 1.3
messages/e-mails
Send sexual messages/e-mails 0.9 0.6 3.8 2.1
Tamper with someone’s profile
0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3
or create a fake online profile
Abuse or slander someone on
0.8 0.5 2.1 0.1
phone
Note: The answers were multiple response and do not add up to an exact 100%. N=899.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 66

The most frequent response selected for cyberbullying was “Slander someone online”
(3.4%), while for cybervictimization the most commonly selected item (10%) was
“Spreading messages containing insults or bad rumors among classmates or
acquaintances” (see Table 1).
Self-reported daily Internet use was measured in five categories and yielded the
following results: 47.7% reported less than one hour, 17.5% reported one to two hours,
12.8% reported two to three hours, 8.5% reported three to four hours, and 13.5% reported
more than four hours. A comparison between genders showed that females were heavier
users than males. There were more than twice as many female users (11%) than males
(5.1%) in the three to four hour category. Females outnumbered males in the last “>4
hours” category, 15.8% to 10.4%.

Correlations
Cyberbullying and cybervictimization were significantly correlated with all the
items except the covariates age and gender (see Table 2). All the items were tested for
multicollinearity and were appropriate for regression analyses.

Cyberbullying
The most common self-reported reason for cyberbullying was “just having fun,”
with 45% of aggressors admitting to it (the questionnaire permitted multiple answers).
This was followed by 38.6% of those who did it because they hated the victim, 14.3%
who said they were bullied by the other person, 10% who joined because their friend did
it, 1.4% who said they did it because their friends told them to do it and 14.3% who cited
“other reasons.” Finally, 15.7% said they did not know why they did it. Respondents
could choose more than one answer, which means that a single case can appear in various
categories of reasons for perpetration. Students were also asked to identify their victims.
Fifty-seven percent of cyberbullies admitted targeting classmates. Furthermore, 40.0%
revealed that they have cyberbullied students from other classrooms within the school,
15.7% had targeted someone from outside school, only 4.3% for someone they know
online, and 14.3% for “other.” As for the frequency of cyberbullying events, 25.7% of the
cyberbullies said they have targeted others only once, 35.7% did it two or three times,
14.3% – four to nine times, but an alarmingly large proportion of 24.3% said they
cyberbullied someone ten or more times.
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 67

Table 2 Correlations of Gender, Age and Technology Use Items with Cyberbullying
and Cybervictimization
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Gender – -.06 .03 .14*** .11** -.17*** .02 .09** -.06 -.01 -.04
2. Age – .10** .00 .07* .11** .04 .05 -.01 .02 -.01
3. Phone use in class – .23*** .13*** .04 .05 .14*** .10** .25*** .20***
4. Internet use – .39*** .14*** .23*** .17*** .10** .13*** .10**
5. Internet importance – .16*** .17*** .15*** .09** .14*** .13***
6. Secretive website use – .16*** .14*** .08* .19*** .18***
7. Online friends – .21*** .15*** .15*** .13***
8. Cybervictimization – .51*** .33*** .16***
9. Cybervictimization (6 months) – .20*** .22***
10. Cyberbullying – .58***
11. Cyberbullying (6 months) –
Two-tailed Pearson’s Correlations. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.

Cybervictimization
Most of the cyberbullying victims felt angry (38.9%), while 24.7% were sad and
14.6% said they felt afraid. Furthermore, 21.7% couldn’t classify their feelings and 6.6%
had a different reaction. Finally, more than a quarter of the victims (28.3%) said they did
not care. Almost half of the victims (49%) told their friends of what has happened,
followed by 29.8% who told their parents and 6.6% talked someone else. Only 12.6%
told their teachers, while almost a third (31.8%) didn’t tell anybody. Twenty-seven
percent of the victims said they have been cyberbullied only once, 34.2% two or three
times, 19.7% four to nine times, and 18.7% more than ten times.
Only 14.8% of the students said they didn’t know who had cyberbullied them. More
than half (55.1%) of the victims claimed it was their classmates, followed by 40.3% for
someone from the same school, 6.6% for someone from outside the school and 4.6% for
someone they knew online and 7.7% for other. A separate question asking how sure the
victims were of the perpetrator’s identity shattered the ubiquitous anonymity of the
cyberspace. A mere 10.8% of the victims said they had no idea and 4.6% were unsure,
while 16.9% were pretty sure and 67.7% were confident about the identities or number of
their tormentors. When asked how many perpetrators there were, 17.0% said they didn’t
know. On the other hand, 23.7% said there was one perpetrator, 34.0% reported two to
three, 19.1% said four to nine and 6.2% said there were more than ten. These findings
suggest that while the Internet conceals the identity of some cyberbullies, most of the
time victims already know who they are.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 68

Technology use
Logistic regression analyses were used to examine technology use among
adolescents and their experience with cyberbullying and cybervictimization (see Table 3).
All four models produced statistically significant results. Most of the variables in Model
1 and Model 2 predicting cyberbullying overall and in the six-month time frame were
significant. The only exceptions were the covariates and Internet use. Model 1 (-2 Log
likelihood=314.913, Nagelkerke R2=.332, Chi-square=8.988) explained 33% of the
variation in cyberbullying.

Table 3 Multiple Regression Models Predicting Cyberbullying and

Cybervictimization
Cyberbullying Cybervictimization
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
(overall) (6 months) (overall) (6 months)
b OR b OR b OR b OR
Gender -.36 .70 -.79 .46 .52 1.68* -.47 .62
Age -.18 .83 -.58 .56† .13 1.14 -.11 .90
Phone use in class .71 2.04*** .95 2.58*** .09 1.10 .17 1.18
Internet use -.05 .95 -.13 .88 .12 1.13† .12 1.12
Internet importance .52 1.68† 1.66 5.25** .14 1.15 .60 1.06
Secretive website use .91 2.48** 1.77 5.88** .41 1.50† .18 1.19
Online friends .35 1.42* .62 1.85* .41 1.50** .45 1.57**
Cybervictimization 1.96 7.13***
Cybervictimization
2.02 7.57***
(6 months)
Cyberbullying 1.92 6.79***
Cyberbullying (6 months) 1.82 6.18***
Cox and Snell R2 .14 .09 .13 .05
2
Nagelkerke R .33 .41 .19 .12
†p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001; N=789.

By far the strongest predictor was cybervictimization. Those students who had been
cyberbullied were more than seven times more likely to cyberbully others (OR = 7.13, CI
= 3.83–13.26, p < .001). The second strongest predictor was secretive website use (OR =
2.48, CI = 1.33–4.65, p < .01). The other significant predictors in Model 1 included
phone use in class (OR = 2.04, CI = 1.59–2.62, p < .001) and the number of online
friends (OR = 1.42, CI = 1.01–1.98, p = .041). The importance of the Internet was just
outside the established 95% confidence interval for significance (OR = 1.68, CI = .97–
2.90, p = .064). Model 2 (-2 Log likelihood = 119.782, Nagelkerke R2 = .411, Chi-square
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 69

= 3.972) explained 41% of the variation in cyberbullying. Here, cybervictimization was

also the most important predictor (OR = 7.57, CI = 2.45–23.43, p < .001). All of the items
measuring technology habits with the exception of Internet use were significant in the
model. Those students who thought the Internet was an important part of their lives (OR
= 5.25, CI = 1.50–18.32, p = .009) and those who used certain websites in secret from
their parents or guardians (OR = 5.88, CI = 1.99–17.39, p = .001) were more than five
times more likely to cyberbully others. The remaining significant predictors in Model 2
were phone use in class (OR = 2.58, CI = 1.67–3.97, p < .001) and the number of online
friends (OR = 1.85, CI = 1.05–3.25, p = .033). Model 3 (-2 Log likelihood = 727.115,
Nagelkerke R2 = .192, Chi-square = 11.860) and Model 4 (-2 Log likelihood = 351.328,
Nagelkerke R2 = .119, Chi-square = 2.876) were used to examine cybervictimization as
the dependent variable. In both models, cyberbullying experience (OR = 6.79, CI = 3.67–
12.55, p < .001 and OR = 6.18, CI = 2.15–17.77, p < .001) was the most prominent
predictor. The only other item significant in both models was the number of online
friends (OR = 1.50, CI = 1.17–1.92, p = .001 and OR = 1.57, CI = 1.12–2.18, p = .009).
In Model 3, gender was significant, indicating that females are 1.6 times more likely to
experience cybervictimization (OR = 1.68, CI = 1.13–2.51, p = .01).

DISCUSSION
Based on this study and existing research, cybervictimization rates in Japan
averaged 5–33%, which is substantially lower than those reported around the world. A
review of studies dealing with cyberbullying by Tokunaga (2010) showed that
cybervictimization rates were 20%–40% on average. However, most of the reviewed
studies employed European or North American samples, and none included Japanese
samples. This discrepancy could be attributed to the differences in definitions and
measurement of cyberbullying, as well as the time frames used. Additionally, the results
can be influenced by social desirability and recall/reporter bias of the students.
Furthermore, previous research has shown only a modest or even a poor correlation
between self-reported bullying behavior and peer nominations (Cornell & Brockenbrough,
2004; Lee & Cornell, 2009). However, Aoyama et al. (2012) argue that the collectivist
culture that prizes conformity discourages students from sharing their problems and
seeking help, which in turn can increase social desirability for the Japanese respondents.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 70

The most frequently cited cyberbullying item in this study was “Spreading messages
containing insults or bad rumors among classmates or acquaintances,” which was
reported by 10% of the students. A study of youths in the United States by Mitchell,
Finkelhor, Jones, and Wolak (2012) showed that 7.1% had received sexual images and
5.7% said they received explicitly nude images. In this study, the number stood slightly
low at 3.8%, but research has shown that these messages can have a negative impact on
the students as well as those around them (Comartin, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2013).
Self-reported answers from the cyberbullies in this study showed that close to half of
them (45%) did it “just to have fun,” corroborating previously conducted studies in the
United States and Canada (Mishna et al., 2010; Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014; Raskauskas
& Stoltz, 2007). This indicates that children don’t see their actions as anything more
serious than a game, although in some cases the consequences can be very dire. As for the
relationships with the victims, 40% of cyberbullies admitted targeting their classmates.
No other study in Japan dealing with cyberbullying has examined this, but research on
traditional bullying shows that most cases involve classmates (Akiba, 2004; Shariff, 2008,
p. 51). In this study, just over a quarter of cyberbullies reported bullying others only once,
while 24.3% admitted to doing it more than ten times. The argument about repetitiveness
as a necessary factor to define an action as cyberbullying has not yet been settled. It has
been considered as a prerequisite factor in traditional bullying (Olweus, 2010). However,
some scholars argue that repetitiveness is not needed when it comes to cyberbullying as
uploading only one image online can start a chain of actions when Internet users share it
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p. 18; Peter K. Smith, 2012). Thus, only one action can lead to
a near infinite circulation of harmful messages or pictures.
Previous research reveals the negative effects and emotional outcomes cyberbullying
can have on an individual. This study directly inquired about the emotions felt by the
students who were cyberbullied, many of whom (38.9%) said they felt “angry.” At the
same time, 28.3% reported that they didn’t care, showing that they could ignore or shrug
off the taunts directed at them. The question is does a situation where the “victim”
apparently doesn’t suffer any emotional abuse count as cyberbullying? Inquiring about
cyberbullying without a clear definition or follow up questions can lead to disparity in
cybervictimization rates.
While almost half of the victims consulted with their friends (49%), almost a third
(31.8%) said they didn’t tell anybody of what happened. Slonje and Smith (2008)
reported that exactly half of the Swedish students they studied didn’t consult with anyone.
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 71

Only 12.6% of the students in this study consulted teachers, which may indicate a lack of
trust between children and their teachers.
Contrary to the belief that cyberbullying is shrouded in complete anonymity, more
than half (55.1%) reported that the perpetrator was a classmate, while only 14.8% said
that they had no idea who had done it. A number of factors could influence the anonymity
of the action itself, but this result does show that in many cases, traditional and
cyberbullying cases overlap, which in turn would make it quite easy for the victim to
figure out who did it. A number of studies have reported most of the cybervictims also
experience traditional bullying (e.g., Olweus, 2012; Raskauskas, 2009; Ybarra, Diener-
West, & Leaf, 2007). Furthermore, 67.7% of the cybervictims answered that they are
confident of the bullies’ identity, corroborating findings by Juvonen and Gross (2008) in
the United Sates. A question pertaining to the number of perpetrators revealed that 17%
of the students had no idea, while 23.7% claimed there was only one. That leaves 59.7%
of cases where there was a group of aggressors (of which 6.2% included at least ten).
Previous studies have shown that the majority of traditional bullying cases in Japan
involved a group of perpetrators (Akiba, 2004; Smorti, Menesini, & Smith, 2003), and
this study reveals that the same pattern applies to cyberbullying as well.
The multivariate regression analyses showed that most of the technology use items
predicting cyberbullying were significant predictors, explaining 33% (Model 1) and 41%
(Model 2) of the variation in the overall time period and for the past six months. The
strongest predictor of cyberbullying was cybervictimization, with victims being more
than seven times more likely to engage in cyberbullying. This shows that bullying is
closely related victimization. Research on traditional bullying in Japan has shown that
53.7% and up to 27.4% of aggressors in elementary and high school level had been
victimized within the past 12 months prior to the survey (Morita, Soeda, Soeda, & Taki,
1999). Furthermore, cyberbullying experience was the most significant predictor in
Models 3 and 4 where cybervictimization was the dependent variable. Students with
cyberbullying experience were up to six times more likely to experience victimization.
These findings are in line with Bauman (2009) who employed a rural sample in United
States, but they have to be interpreted with caution as it is impossible to tell which action
has occurred first in a cross-sectional study. A longitudinal study is needed to investigate
these findings further to see how being a victim can turn one into a bully and vice-versa.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 72

In Model 1 and Model 2, students who reported using websites in secret from their
parents were up to 5.9 times more likely to cyberbully others. The websites visited may
indicate risky online behavior, which could lead to more victimization, but the item was
not significant in either of the regression models with cybervictimization as the
dependent variable. Lower parental control or a propensity for deviant behavior in
general could explain this disparity. This view is supported by Kowalski, Giumetti,
Schroeder, and Lattanner (2014) who reviewed a large number of studies and found that
lack of parental monitoring of children’s online activities and weaker social bonds
between the parents and children were more common among the perpetrators of Internet
harassment. Jing Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009) also reported parental support being
negatively associated with cyberbullying among adolescents in United States.
Internet importance was just outside the established significance level in Model 1 (p
= .064), but in Model 2 those students who scored higher on this item were more than
five times (p = .009) more likely to cyberbully others. Questions measuring attitudes and
normative beliefs were measured in the present time, while the cyberbullying experience
could be in the past when those beliefs were different. Thus, the shorter time frame yields
more reliable results and is less biased. Increased importance of the Internet and the
inability to function daily without it could be linked to addiction, which has already been
associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization, among other issues (Chang et al.,
2014). Future research is needed to determine how one’s attitude towards the Internet in
general shapes usage habits and why would it lead to cyberbullying.
The next item measured phone use in class. Those students who reported doing so
more often were up to 2.5 times more like to cyberbully others. Using one’s cellular
phone in class usually implies a clear breach of the established rules of the school (none
of the schools in this study permitted phone use during class). Breaking rules in real life
can easily be extended to online where there is more anonymity and a smaller chance of
repercussions. This corroborates the findings of Ybarra and Mitchell (2007), who found
that in the United States rule breaking was a significant predictor of Internet harassment
perpetration.
Lastly, having more online friends compared to real life was the only item
significant in all four regression models. Those students who had more online friends
were up to 1.8 times more likely to cyberbully others, while at the same time they were
up to 1.5 times more likely to be victimized. Concurrently, Internet use, which was
strictly measured as the time on average each student spends online, was not significant
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 73

in any of the regression models. Thus, it is the quality of the time and the social
interactions or relationships one has online that are more important when it comes to
cyberbullying and cybervictimization. The link between Internet use and cyberbullying is
not settled. Some studies find it significant (Juvonen & Gross, 2008), while others do not
(P. K. Smith et al., 2008).
The results presented in this study give researchers and educators a glimpse of what
factors contribute to cyberbullying and what exactly goes on in the minds of adolescents
who have experienced cyberbullying, either as perpetrators or victims. It is clear that
most cases involve classmates or others from the same school. Victims know the
identities of their tormentors personally, and the cyberbullying occurs within a group. It
could mean that while traditional bullying and cyberbullying overlap most of the time,
cyberbullying in Japan is perhaps more closely related to traditional bullying, because
Japanese society values conformity and elevates groups over individuals. Future research
should examine these subtle combinations of factors and determine how much local
culture mediates patterns of cyberbullying, i.e., the number of perpetrators, victim’s
knowledge of perpetrators and the overlap between traditional and cyberbullying.

LIMITATIONS
Some limitations of the current study must be taken into account. First, this study is
cross-sectional and the results should be interpreted as such. Second, the sample is not
random as only the schools that agreed to participate were included. Third, this study had
a particular focus on Japan; therefore, future research should determine if these results
can be generalized to other countries and age populations. Fourth, this study employed
self-report questionnaires, which can lead to socially desirable responses and reporting
bias.

CONCLUSIONS
Research to date has mostly focused on the United States, Europe and a few other
select countries. This study extends our knowledge on cyberbullying by examining high
school students in Japan. It shows how certain technology use habits are significantly
associated with cyberbullying and points to possible cultural characteristics that might
mediate this connection. Furthermore, it reveals that it is the quality or the way we
interact online and not the time spent online that is significant when it comes to
cyberbullying and cybervictimization. Interestingly, this study shows that considering the
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 74

Internet an indispensable necessity in daily life is associated with higher cyberbullying

perpetration. Misuse of technology or the simple act of breaking school rules and using a
phone in class had a clear association with cyberbullying.
Finally, the findings of the current study have important implications for policy
change and future research. First, while the Internet does offer a certain level of
anonymity, this study shows that most cybervictims knew their bullies. Results also
indicate that cyberbullying happens mostly between classmates, which explains how
victims might know their tormentors. Bullying and cyberbullying are closely related, and
so prevention programs should include both dimensions – the offline and the online.
Second, parents as well as teachers should be encouraged to discuss the possible pros and
cons of the Internet to build trust so fewer children engage in risky online behavior and
consequent cyberbullying. Increased trust would help children confide in adults when
problems arise. Third, our social lives have become more and more intertwined with
cyberspace, blurring the boundary of reality (Hand, 2010). Students who have a very
active social life in cyberspace should be encouraged to follow the same rules that apply
in the real world. Just because you sometimes do not see the face of your online friend or
do not shake their hands does not mean freedom from the basic norms of courtesy.

REFERENCES
Akiba, M. (2004). Nature and correlates of Ijime - Bullying in Japanese middle school.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41(3), 216-236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.002.
Aoyama, I., Utsumi, S., & Hasegawa, M. (2012). Cyberbullying in Japan. In Q. Li, D.
Cross and P.K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from
international perspectives (pp. 183-201). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Baker, Ö .E., & Tanrıkulu, İ. (2010). Psychological consequences of cyber bullying
experiences among Turkish secondary school children. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2771-2776.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.413.
Barlett, C.P., Gentile, D.A., Anderson, C.A., Suzuki, K., Sakamoto, A., Yamaoka, A., &
Katsura, R. (2013). Cross-cultural differences in cyberbullying behavior: A short-
term longitudinal study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 300-313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113504622.
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 75

Bauman, S. (2009). Cyberbullying in a rural intermediate school: An exploratory study.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(6), 803-833.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431609350927.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying.
Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.
Brown, C.F., Demaray, M.K., & Secord, S.M. (2014). Cyber victimization in middle
school and relations to social emotional outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior,
35, 12-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.014.
Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’ perceptions of
traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation.
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3-4), 389-401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704316.
Chang, F.C., Chiu, C.H., Miao, N.F., Chen, P.H., Lee, C.M., Chiang, J.T., & Pan, Y.C.
(2014). The relationship between parental mediation and Internet addiction among
adolescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depression. Comprehensive
psychiatry, 57, 21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.11.013.
Comartin, E., Kernsmith, R., & Kernsmith, P. (2013). “Sexting” and sex offender
registration: Do age, gender, and sexual orientation matter? Deviant Behavior, 34(1),
38-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2012.707534.
Cornell, D.G., & Brockenbrough, K. (2004). Identification of bullies and victims. Journal
of School Violence, 3(2-3), 63-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v03n02_05.
Dooley, J.J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus Face-to-Face
bullying. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182.
Görzig, A., & Ó lafsson, K. (2013). What makes a bully a cyberbully? unravelling the
characteristics of cyberbullies across twenty-five european countries. Journal of
Children and Media, 7(1), 9-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739756.
Hand, M. (2010). The rise and fall of cyberspace, or how cyberspace turned inside out. In
J.R. Hall, L. Grindstaff & M.C. Lo (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Sociology (pp.
357-367). New York: Routledge.
Hara, K. (2011). The realities of cyber bullying and factor analysis (i): The mobility of
scholastic achievement. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, 22, 133-152.
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying:
An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24(4), 614-620.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 76

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of
Suicide Research, 14(3), 206-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence
cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of General Strain Theory.
Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 85-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.007.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?--Bullying experiences
in cyberspace. Journal of School health, 78(9), 496-505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2010). Bullying experiences and compromised
academic performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 31(1), 152-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431610379415.
Klomek, A.B., Sourander, A., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., Moilanen, I.,
Gould, M.S. (2008). Childhood bullying as a risk for later depression and suicidal
ideation among Finnish males. Journal of affective disorders, 109(1), 47-55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2007.12.226.
Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in
the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073-1137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.
Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school
students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22-S30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017.
Law, D.M., Shapka, J.D., Hymel, S., Olson, B.F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing
face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying
and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 226-232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004.
Lee, T., & Cornell, D. (2009). Concurrent validity of the olweus bully/victim
questionnaire. Journal of School Violence, 9(1), 56-73.
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 77

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220903185613.
Li, Q. (2010). Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students' behaviors and beliefs
about this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(4),
372-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771003788979.
Lunde, C., Frisén, A., & Hwang, C.P. (2007). Ten-year-old girls’ and boys’ body
composition and peer victimization experiences: Prospective associations with body
satisfaction. Body Image, 4(1), 11-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.10.002.
Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Messias, E., Kindrick, K., & Castro, J. (2014). School bullying, cyberbullying, or both:
correlates of teen suicidality in the 2011 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
Comprehensive psychiatry, 55(5), 1063-1068.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.02.005.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences & Technology. (2014). Jidou seito no
mondai koudou nado seito shidou ue no shomondai ni kansuru chousa. Retrieved
October 18, 2013, from
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/10/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/16/1351
936_01_1.pdf.
Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying
behaviors among middle and high school students. The American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 362-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-
0025.2010.01040.x.
Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L.M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and
characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1730.
Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In R. Catalano, J. Junger-Tas,
Y. Morita, D. Olweus, and P. Slee (Eds.), The Nature of School Bullying (pp.309-
323). London and New York: Routledge.
Navarro, J.N., & Jasinski, J.L. (2012). Going cyber: Using routine activities theory to
predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 32(1), 81-94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2012.628560.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S.R.
Jimerson, S. Swearer and D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 78

international perspective (pp.9-33). New York: Routledge.

Olweus, D. (2011). Bullying at school and later criminality: findings from three Swedish
community samples of males. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21(2), 151-
156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.806.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520-538.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.682358.
Pelfrey, W.V., & Weber, N.L. (2013). Keyboard gangsters: Analysis of incidence and
correlates of cyberbullying in a large urban student population. Deviant Behavior,
34(1), 68-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2012.707541.
Rafferty, R., & Vander Ven, T. (2014). “I Hate Everything about You”: A qualitative
examination of cyberbullying and on-line aggression in a college sample. Deviant
Behavior, 35(5), 364-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.849171.
Raskauskas, J. (2009). Text-Bullying: Associations with traditional bullying and
depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 9(1),
74-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220903185605.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental psychology, 43(3), 564-575.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1999). Self-
Evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as
predictors of adolescents' participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1268-1278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299258008.
Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and
the home. London: Routledge.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian journal of psychology, 49(2), 147-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x.
Smith, P.K. (2012). Cyberbullying: Challenges and opportunities for a research program -
A response to Olweus. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 553-
558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.689821.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of child
 International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 79

psychology and psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-

7610.2007.01846.x.
Smorti, A., Menesini, E., & Smith, P.K. (2003). Parents' definitions of children's bullying
in a five-country comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(4), 417-432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022103034004003.
Terado, T., Nagaura, H., & Tominaga, Y. (2010). A factual investigation about use of
information device and experiences cyberbullying in junior high-school students.
The Journal of Human Development and Clinical Psychology, 16, 89-106.
Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis
of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
277-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Tynes, B.M., Rose, C.A., & Williams, D.R. (2010). The development and validation of
the online victimization scale for adolescents. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(2), article 1.
Udris, R. (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and
validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 41,
253-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative
research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11(4),
499-503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.
Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Martell, B.N., Holland, K.M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic
review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 423-434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R.J., & Nansel, T.R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health,
45(4), 368-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Wang, J., Nansel, T.R., & Iannotti, R.J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying:
differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415-
417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012.
Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young
university students' involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 649-654.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0132.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education 80

Ybarra, M.L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet
harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42-S50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of Internet harassment
instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2),
189-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.005.