Cyberbullying Impact on Mental Health: A Statistical Analysis

This assignment delves into the psychological impacts of cyberbullying, focusing on self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and coping strategies. It employs statistical methods such as Pearson correlation and independent t-tests to analyze data from single vs repeated cyberbullying incidents. The findings suggest significant differences in depression levels between groups but no difference in emotional coping.

PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Hypothesis...................................................................................................................................2
Research question........................................................................................................................2
Method and results...........................................................................................................................2
Partcipants....................................................................................................................................2
Materials......................................................................................................................................2
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................3
Discussion........................................................................................................................................8
Psychological factors and never and single category..................................................................8
Psychological factors and never and repeated category..............................................................9
Psychological factors and singal and repeated category..............................................................9
Coorelation analysis...................................................................................................................10
Depression and emotional coping..............................................................................................10
Limitation of study and future research.....................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
Cyber bulling is the one of new term that is buzzing in psycology domain. In past couple
of years communication through use of online medium of communication increse. People share
their personal and emotional feelings on social media and also treathen each other. Cyberbulling
reflect situation under which one use abusing language and threat others due to which relevant
entity feel tension and depresion. In past time period many researches were carried out and in
them relationship is identified between cyberbulling and anxiety and depression level that
individuals face Campbell, M. and et.al., (2012). In many researches significent association is
obtained between cybervictimization and depression that is observed among adolescents. More
cybervictimization observed among sample units there was high level of depression among
individuals. 93% respondents in research stated that cybervictimization have negative impact on
them in terms of sadness, hopelessness and feeling of powerless (What is cyberbullying, 2017.).
In a research conducted on Swiss and Ausralian students it was identified that cybervictimization
define variance in depression symptoms among adults. If traditional mode of victimization is not
taken in to account then in that case also there was high depression level among students due to
cyberbulling. Thus, on the basis of past researches it can be said that whatever threat that people
receive on social media from people to large extent affect anxiety, depression and self esteem
level among them. More on online platform one observe negative conditions probability of
increase in anxiety level increased.
Stress and anxiety that individual face may be related to emotions and more focus on
problem. Some times individuals whatever threat they receive on social platform become more
focused on emotions. They start thinking that why some one behave in abusing manner with
them. Such kind of wrong emotions have negative impact on human brain. More an individual
focus on emotions anxiety level will increase Machmutow, K. and et.al., (2012). On social media
when one consistently receive negative message its emotions hear to large extent and this
negatively affect it. On other hand, there are many sort of resarchers who think that emotion
problem based coping create a lot of solutions for an individuals. This is because when one
receive threat from individuals many times it start focusing on problem Kowalski, R. M. and
et.al., (2014). Due to this reason one take too much tension and feel stress as well as depression
but also identify solution of problem. Thus, it can be said that emotion based coping and problem
1 | P a g e

based coping have positive impact on the stress and anxiety level of individuals. Hence,
cyberbulling have significent impact on human psycology.
Aim of study: The research study aims at identifying significent impact that cyeberbulling have
on the physiological health and enotion focused based coping styles as well as problem focused
coping styles.
Data visualization
Chart is clearly reflecting that number of respondents in repeated category are much higher than
single and never category. Number of people observe harassment through prank call is relatively
high.
2 | P a g e

It can be seen from chart that in case of insult on instant messaging there is no large difference
across never and single category but in case of repeated category number is quite high. It can be
said that there are large number of respondents that observe harassment through messaging.
Chart given above is clearly reflecting that in case of harassment that takes place through videos
that contain violent scene there is not large difference in case of people that never face such kind
of harassment and single as well as repeated category. Number of respondents are equally
distributed across these groups.
3 | P a g e

Descriptive statistics
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimu
m
Maximu
m
Mean Std.
Deviation
1. Nasty text messages 224 1 3 1.40 .551
2. Phone photos/videos
of violent scene 224 1 2 1.05 .226
3. Phone photos/videos
of intimate scene 224 1 3 1.11 .356
4. Silent/prank phone
call 224 1 3 1.51 .649
5. Nasty or rude email. 224 1 3 1.17 .435
6. Insults on websites 224 1 3 1.34 .592
7. Insults on instant
messaging 224 1 3 1.25 .527
8. Insults in chatrooms 224 1 3 1.11 .351
9. Insults on blogs 224 1 3 1.12 .411
10. Unpleasent
photos/videos posted on
websites.
224 1 3 1.17 .449
Please specify your
gender 223 1 2 1.24 .429
Please specify your age
in years 223 17 39 21.02 4.574
SELFEST 224 1.00 4.00 2.9742 .65619
DEPRESS 224 1.00 5.00 2.2059 .89791
ANXIETY 224 .92 5.00 1.9211 .91461
PCOPE 224 1.06 3.94 2.2910 .54891
ECOPE 224 1.00 3.13 1.7771 .45603
VICTLEV 224 1.00 3.00 1.8304 .71359
Valid N (listwise) 223
Hypothesis
Cyberbulling and psycological health outcome
H0: No big gap exist between CB and mental condition.
H1: Big gap exist between CB and mental condition.
4 | P a g e

CB a mental health (depressive symptoms) and a coping style (Emotional coping style)
H0: There is no significent mean difference among mental condition and coping style in respect
to cyberbulling.
H1: There is no significent mean difference among mental condition and coping style in respect
to cyberbulling.
Research question
Does emotional coping style increase the presentation of depressive symptoms in participants who
have experienced high levels of cyberbullying.
Method and results
Partcipants
Partcipants were taken from different collages as youngsters need to be taken as sample
unit in present research. In the present research study. There were 169 females and 54 males.
Proportion of female was 75.4% and same of male was 24.1%. Total there were 223 respondents
in sample. Mean age is 21.02 which means that majority of respondents are of age group of 21.
Standard deviation is 4.57 which means age is not deviating at fast rate.
Materials
Cyberbulling scale
In cyber bulling scale number of size of items is 10 and likert scale is used like never,
only once, two and three times etc.
COPE scale
In case of COPE scale five items are taken but no scale is taken in to account. Hence,
scoring is done in COPE scale. In COPE there are some of variables like self esteem, depression,
anxiety, problem coping and emotional coping as well as victim level. There are no classification
in case of these variables except variable victim level. In case of victim level variable there are
three categories like 1 stand for never, 2 stand for single and 3 stand for repeated factor.
Analysis
H0: There is no big gap between mental condition in respect to never and single category.
H0: There is big gap between mental condition in respect to never and single category.
Statistics
VICTLEV
N Valid 224
5 | P a g e

Missing 0
VICTLEV
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
NEVER 79 35.3 35.3 35.3
SINGLE 104 46.4 46.4 81.7
REPEATE
D 41 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 224 100.0 100.0
Group Statistics
VICTLE
V
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
SELFEST NEVER 79 3.0981 .57689 .06491
SINGLE 104 2.9720 .63028 .06180
ANXIET
Y
NEVER 79 1.8887 .95450 .10739
SINGLE 104 1.9122 .89715 .08797
DEPRESS NEVER 79 2.0876 .79453 .08939
SINGLE 104 2.1442 .86729 .08505
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
6 | P a g e

SELFEST
Equal
variance
s
assumed
1.702 .19
4
1.39
0 181 .166 .12605 .09072 -.0529
5
.3050
5
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
1.40
6
174.76
7 .161 .12605 .08962 -.0508
3
.3029
4
ANXIET
Y
Equal
variance
s
assumed
.555 .45
7 -.171 181 .864 -.02359 .13765 -.2951
9
.2480
1
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-.170 162.42
3 .865 -.02359 .13882 -.2977
2
.2505
4
DEPRESS
Equal
variance
s
assumed
.252 .61
6 -.453 181 .651 -.05662 .12487 -.3030
2
.1897
8
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-.459 174.71
0 .647 -.05662 .12338 -.3001
4
.1869
0
H0: No big gap exist among psychological components in respect to never and repeat category of
victim.
H1: Big gap exist among psychological components in respect to never and repeat category of
victim.
Group Statistics
VICTLEV N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
SELFEST
NEVER 79 3.0981 .57689 .06491
REPEATE
D 41 2.7409 .80156 .12518
ANXIET NEVER 79 1.8887 .95450 .10739
7 | P a g e

Y REPEATE
D 41 2.0061 .89702 .14009
DEPRESS
NEVER 79 2.0876 .79453 .08939
REPEATE
D 41 2.5902 1.06673 .16659
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
SELFEST
Equal
variance
s
assumed
6.005 .016 2.80
5 118 .006 .35725 .12735 .1050
5 .60944
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
2.53
4
62.09
6 .014 .35725 .14101 .0753
9 .63911
ANXIET
Y
Equal
variance
s
assumed
.317 .575 -.652 118 .515 -.11744 .18005 -.4739
9 .23910
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-.665 85.65
5 .508 -.11744 .17652 -.4683
7 .23348
DEPRESS Equal
variance
s
assumed
5.051 .026 -
2.91
4
118 .004 -.50263 .17248 -.8442
0
-.1610
7
8 | P a g e

Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-
2.65
9
63.64
4 .010 -.50263 .18906 -.8803
7
-.1249
0
H0: Big exist does not exist among psychological components in respect to single and repeat
category of victim.
H1: Big exist exist among psychological components in respect to single and repeat category of
victim.
Group Statistics
VICTLEV N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
SELFEST
SINGLE 104 2.9720 .63028 .06180
REPEATE
D 41 2.7409 .80156 .12518
ANXIET
Y
SINGLE 104 1.9122 .89715 .08797
REPEATE
D 41 2.0061 .89702 .14009
DEPRESS
SINGLE 104 2.1442 .86729 .08505
REPEATE
D 41 2.5902 1.06673 .16659
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
9 | P a g e

SELFEST
Equal
variance
s
assumed
2.809 .096 1.83
7 143 .068 .23120 .12586 -.0176
0 .47999
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
1.65
6
60.48
1 .103 .23120 .13961 -.0480
2 .51041
ANXIET
Y
Equal
variance
s
assumed
.000 .987 -.567 143 .571 -.09385 .16543 -.4208
6 .23316
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-.567 73.33
9 .572 -.09385 .16542 -.4235
2 .23581
DEPRESS
Equal
variance
s
assumed
3.230 .074
-
2.60
8
143 .010 -.44601 .17102 -.7840
7
-.1079
6
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-
2.38
5
61.93
1 .020 -.44601 .18705 -.8199
2
-.0721
0
Coorelation table
Correlations
SELFES
T
DEPRESS ANXIE
TY
PCOPE ECOPE
SELFEST
Pearson
Correlation 1 -.741** -.511** .271** -.434**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
N 224 224 224 224 224
DEPRESS
Pearson
Correlation -.741** 1 .724** -.104 .460**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .120 .000
N 224 224 224 224 224
10 | P a g e

ANXIET
Y
Pearson
Correlation -.511** .724** 1 .023 .401**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .728 .000
N 224 224 224 224 224
PCOPE
Pearson
Correlation .271** -.104 .023 1 .004
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .120 .728 .956
N 224 224 224 224 224
ECOPE
Pearson
Correlation -.434** .460** .401** .004 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .956
N 224 224 224 224 224
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
H0: Big gap does not originate among depression and ECOPE by considering different level of
victim variable.
H1: Big gap originate among depression and ECOPE by considering different level of victim
variable.
Group Statistics
VICTLEV N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
DEPRESS
SINGLE 104 2.1442 .86729 .08505
REPEATE
D 41 2.5902 1.06673 .16659
ECOPE
SINGLE 104 1.8017 .47813 .04688
REPEATE
D 41 1.8659 .44610 .06967
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
11 | P a g e

F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
DEPRES
S
Equal
variance
s
assumed
3.230 .074 -
2.608 143 .010 -.44601 .17102 -.7840
7
-.1079
6
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-
2.385
61.93
1 .020 -.44601 .18705 -.8199
2
-.0721
0
ECOPE
Equal
variance
s
assumed
.028 .868 -.741 143 .460 -.06417 .08656 -.2352
7 .10693
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
-.764 78.20
5 .447 -.06417 .08398 -.2313
5 .10301
Descriptive statistics interpretation
Mean value and standard deviation in case of silent prank call are (M=1.51, SD=0.649),
insult messaging (M=1.25, SD=0.527), phone and video of intimate scene (M=1.11, SD=3.56),
rude mail (M=1.17, SD=44.35), Photo and video violence scene (M=1.05, SD=2.26). It can be
said that most of respondents are reflecting that they does not face any sort of harassment from
online platform. As it can be seen that in case of all variables irrespective of silent or prank call
mean value of all variables is less the 1.50. Facts are clearly reflect that silent or prank call are
common medium of cyberbullying. Standard deviation is not as different across most of
variables as it lie in range of 0.400 to 0.600 most of times. However, in case of phone video of
violent scene, video of intimate scene insult in chartrooms value of standard deviation is very
low and on this basis it can be said that in case of these variables respondents give similar
answers most of times. This means that in case of phone video of violent scene, video of intimate
scene insult in chartrooms most of respondents state that they does not face harassment.
12 | P a g e

Discussion
Aim of study: The research study aims at identifying significent impact that cyeberbulling have
on the physiological health and enotion focused based coping styles as well as problem focused
coping styles.
Psychological factors and never and single category
Independent sample t test is applied on data set in order to identify relationship between
never and single category in respect to variable self esteem. In case of self esteem in respect to
victim that observe Cyberbulling in never and single category significent mean difference is not
identified, mean and standard deviation is (M=3.09,SD=0.57) for never and (M=2.97,SD=0.63)
for single category and p= 0.166>0.05. For Self esteem level CI[-0.05,0.305]. There is no
significent mean difference between dependent and independent variable and due to this reason
null hypothesis accepted.
In case of anxiety mean and standard deviation is (M=1.88,SD=0.95) for never and
(M=1.91,SD=0.89)for single group CI [-0.29,0.24] followed by p=0.181>0.05 which means no
significent mean difference exist between both variables and null hypothesis accepted.
In case of depression variable also similar results are obtained as (M=2.08SD=0.79) is
mean and standard deviation for never group (M=2.14SD=0.86) and same for single group
folowed by p= 0.651>0.05 and it can be said that large gap does not exist among average value
of both samples. Confidence interval for independent variable is CI[-0.303,0.189]. Null
hypothesis accepted.
No gap exist among self esteem, anxiety and depression between people who never
observe cyberbullying or observe same single time.
Psychological factors and never and repeated category
Independent sample t test is applied on data set in order to identify relationship between
psychological factors and never and repeated category.Significent mean difference is not
identifiid between variable (M=3.09, SD=0.57) in case of never class (M=2.74, SD=0.80) in case
of repeated class, CI[0.105,0.609] and p= 0.006<0.05. It can be said that alternative hypothesis
accepted because there is no significent mean difference between variables.
Significent mean difference is observed in case of anxiety and repeat as well as never
category. (M=2, SD=0.89) for repeated class and (M=1.88, SD=0.95) for never category, CI[-
13 | P a g e

0.473,0.239] p= 0.004<0.05. It can be said that average difference among never and repeated
groups in respect to depress category.
There is difference in level of self esteem, anxiety and depression between people who
observe cyberbullying repeatedly. However, results are same in case people never observe
cyeberbulling.
Psychological factors and singal and repeated category
Independent sample t test is used to explore relationship between Psychological factors
and singal and repeated category. (M=2.97, SD=0.63) in case of self esteem single category
(M=3.09, SD=0.57) in case of repeated category CI[-0.017,0.479] P= 0.06>0.05. It can be said
that there is no significent mean difference across groups. In case anxiety level alpha value is
(M= 1.91, SD=0.89) for single class (M=2.00, SD=0.89) for repeated class CI[-0.420,0.233] and
p= 0.571>0.05. It can be assumed that big gap betwee single and repeated class does not exist. In
case of variable depression there is significent mean difference among variables and values for
independent variables are (M=2.14, SD=0.86) in case of single factor and (M=2.59, SD=1.06) in
case of repeated factor CI[-0.78,-1.07] P=0.010<0.05 Hence, null hypothesis accepted.
Coorelation analysis (Effect size)
Effect size can be meausred by using Pearson coorelation. More is the coorelation among
variables there is possibility that there will be mean difference among them. Results reflect that
self esteem, depression and anxiety have low coorelation with physical coping 0.271,-0.104 and
0.023. On other hand, these three variables have moderate positive and negative coorelation with
emotional coping which is -0.434, 0.460 and 0.401. Facts reflect that self esteem only have
negative relationship with emotional coping which means that self esteem level if will increase
emotional coping will decline. It can be seen that self esteem have negative coorelation with
anxiety (-0.741) and (-0.511) in case of anxiety factor. It can be said that effect size is less across
these variables.
Depression and emotional coping
Independent t test is applied to test relationship between dependent and independent
variables. There is significent mean difference between dependent and independent variables
(M=2.14, SD=0.86) in case of single and (M=2.59, SD=1.06) in case of repeated CI[-0.78,-0.107]
P=0.010<0.05. It can be said that depression level is different across single and repeated class.
This means that depression level is different in case of those who observe cyberbulling single
14 | P a g e

time then those who face same multiple times. Thus, alternative hypothesis accepted. In case of
emotional coping there is no significent mean difference between variables. (M=1.80, SD=0.47)
for single class and (M=1.86, SD=0.44) in case of repeated class CI[-0.23,1.06] P= 0.460>0.05.
Null hypothesis accepted and there is no significent mean difference among both variables.
Limitation of study and future research
Main limitation of study is that there is need to add one more variable in psycological
variables which is behaviour. Under this two categories must be made angry and calm. In future
research this variable must be considered because it will help in analyzing behaviour of an
individual that occur when same observe online harrassment.
15 | P a g e

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Campbell, M. and et.al., (2012). Victims' perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the
psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 17.
389-401.
Kowalski, R. M. and et.al., (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-
analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin. 140(4). 1073-1137.
Machmutow, K. and et.al., (2012). Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: Can specific
coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties. 17. 403-420.
Online
What is cyberbullying, 2017. [Online]. Available through :<
https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html>. [Accessed on 14th
September 2017].
16 | P a g e