1 23
Child Psychiatry & HumanDevelopment ISSN 0009-398X Child Psychiatry Hum DevDOI 10.1007/s10578-014-0484-0
Is Cyberbullying Related to Trait or StateAnger?
Antonia Lonigro, Barry H. Schneider,Fiorenzo Laghi, Roberto Baiocco,Susanna Pallini & Thomas Brunner
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Is Cyberbullying Related to Trait or State Anger?
Antonia Lonigro • Barry H. Schneider •
Fiorenzo Laghi • Roberto Baiocco • Susanna Pallini •
Thomas Brunner
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Anger is a powerful emotion shared by victims
and bullies in both physical and electronic forms of bul-
lying. However, little is known about the specific roles of
trait anger and state anger in involvement in bullying
episodes. The purpose of this study was to verify which
component of anger, trait or state, is more strongly related
to physical and cyberbullying and victimization. Students
between the ages 11–19 (N = 716, 392 female, 324 male)
completed the state trait anger expression inventory-2 child
and adolescent and a measure of victimization and bully-
ing. Results for cyberbullying suggested a major vulnera-
bility among bullies and victims to experience anger as a
personality trait as well some links between state anger,
cyberbullying and cybervictimization. Moreover, the out-
ward, explosive expression of anger appears to be common
among cyber and physical bullies. Implications for inter-
vention programs are discussed.
Keywords Bullying � Cyberbullying � Trait-anger �State-anger � Adolescence
Introduction
The rapid increase in the use of information and commu-
nication technologies has propelled bullying into the cyber
world, thus fostering the emergence of cyberbullying [1].
Virtually unheard of 10 years ago, cyberbullying is per-
petuated through the Internet, mobile phone and other
electronic devices that allow, in an overt or covert way, the
sending of hurtful emails, messages, images, videos and
calls in order to damage someone [2]. Although a different
medium is used, physical bullying, verbal aggression,
relational harassment, and cyberbullying all share the key
elements of bullying: the intentional harm to a victim, the
repetition of harmful behavior and the power imbalance
between bully and victim [3]. As with other forms of
bullying, in cyberbullying there are individuals who are
both cyberbullies and cybervictims. In addition, bullying
behavior often occurs in places characterized by a lack of
supervision and involves classroom-based relationships [4].
Cyberbullying seems to parallel relational bullying because
individuals who engage in such kinds of bullying aim at
attacking others’ reputations and friendships through
rumors, gossip and exclusion [5].
The considerable overlap between traditional non-elec-
tronic forms of bullying and cyberbullying suggests that
the essential properties of bullying may be more significant
than the device with which it is carried out [6, 7]. On the
other hand, the use of electronic devices adds complex
A. Lonigro
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology,
University of Rome Sapienza, Rome, Italy
B. H. Schneider
Department of Social Development and Mental Health,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
F. Laghi (&) � R. Baiocco
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology,
University of Rome Sapienza, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome,
Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Pallini
Department of Educational Science, University of Rome III,
Rome, Italy
T. Brunner
Center for Character Strength Investment (CSI), Tuscon, AZ,
USA
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
DOI 10.1007/s10578-014-0484-0
Author's personal copy
properties to cyberbullying that may lead to more detri-
mental outcomes than those caused by physical or verbal
bullying [8]. Whereas physical bullying occurs within a
small, stable setting in which the characters involved—
bully, victim, defender, follower and bystander—are the
same, cyberbullying can easily expand online almost
without boundaries. Cyberbullying may be perpetuated
24 h a day, reaching a broader audience and achieving a
greater power of efficacy than face-to-face interaction. In
addition, communication in the cyber world allows indi-
viduals to maintain anonymity, which easily leads to the
perpetuators’ disinhibition and de-individuation [9]. The
difficulty to identifying the perpetuator may engender
anxiety, anger, fear and a sense of vulnerability in the
victim [10, 11].
Differential Emotional Theory and Cyberbullying
Knowledge about the consequences of cyberbullying [12–
14] strongly contrasts with the limited scientific knowledge
about the affective and cognitive processes that may
underlie it [15]. Researchers agree that emotion display and
regulation represent key elements needed to understand
bullying in its different forms [16]. Much of the research
linking emotional processes to aggression has been based
on a functional approach which draws on differential
emotion theory [17]. Accordingly, emotions are primary
forces in organizing human thought and action, forces that
give richness and meaning to individual lives and rela-
tionships [18, 19]. Failure in emotion regulation entails a
personal inability to inhibit overwhelming affect and a high
overall level of emotion that may lead to maladaptive
behavior. Within this theoretical framework, anger is
considered a basic emotion with unique functions. A
product of human evolution, anger serves to assert domi-
nance over other people, to communicate and to influence
others’ behavior and to deal with frustration [20]. Conse-
quently, emotion processes aim at maintaining a balance
between anger-related behaviors and adaptive social goals.
Conversely, failure to regulate anger may disturb this
balance and lead to less adaptive behaviors, such as
aggressive acts, retaliation and revenge [21]. Studies
focusing mainly on physical bullying show that the
inability to manage anger is one of the main characteristics
associated with bullying behavior among children and
adolescents, whether as bullies, victims or bully–victims
[22–24].
Most research on the emotional and cognitive processes
associated with bullying has not encompassed cyberbully-
ing. The notable exception is the recent cross-national
European study by Ortega et al. [16], who found that
adolescent victims of different forms of bullying, including
physical bullying and cyberbullying, experience similar
emotional reactions, including anger in a substantial
number of cases.
Trait Versus State Anger
Previous studies have failed to differentiate between trait
and state anger although this distinction may be essential in
understanding the emotional processes that accompany
cyberbullying. According to Spielberger’s state–trait the-
ory of anger, the experience of anger may be a product of
an emotional predisposition, i.e. (e.g., being prone to react
with anger towards all negative events), which constitutes
trait anger, or a temporary effect of immediate conditions
or situations (e.g., reacting with anger in the presence of
specific events), which constitutes state anger [25]. Fur-
thermore, Spielberger distinguishes the experience of anger
from the expression of anger. Some individuals tend to
express their anger by engaging in aggressive behaviors
toward others whereas other individuals suppress their
feeling of anger or turn it toward the self. As postulated by
Spielberger and as tested by Deffenbacher et al. [26], trait
anger is a stronger predictor of aggressive behaviors than is
state anger. In their view, anger-out, the overt and often
explosive expression of anger, is related to overt aggres-
sion, whereas anger-in, the harboring of angry feelings
inside onself, and anger-control are associated with the
absence of aggressive behavior. Individuals with higher
trait anger experience anger more intensely and more fre-
quently than do individuals with lower trait anger, accruing
greater negative consequences from their anger. It may be
important to provide intervention in appropriate anger
management as early as possible to pupils who demonstrate
problematic levels of trait anger.
Aim of the Study
Scientific knowledge about mechanisms underpinning cy-
berbullying may suggest useful guidelines for psycholo-
gists in preventing and decreasing cyberbullying. In our
study, we focused on two virulent forms of bullying, cy-
berbullying and physical bullying. The latter involves the
use of aggressive acts by bullies against their victims.
These acts may seesaw from mild forms of aggression,
such as pushing, tripping and slapping, to more violent
forms, including hitting, kicking, scratching and using of
non-lethal weapons [6]. Cyberbullying refers bullying
behavior that occurs over electronic devices, such as
mobile phone, instant messenger contact, social network-
ing sites, email and personal web pages [27]. It may
sometimes combine the anonymity of the aggressor found
in conventional indirect aggression (i.e., indirect or non-
verbal aggression conducted without the use of electronic
media) with the targeted attack on victim found in
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
conventional direct aggression [28]. Going beyond the
device used, cyberbullying may involve verbal harassment
and it may be intiated and perpetuated with the deliberate
aim of raising the victim’s social exclusion or rejection by
peer group As with relational aggression conducted without
electronic devices, cyberbullying often involved, cyber-
bulling often involvesspreading nasty lies and gossip about
the victim [3].
Consistent with differential emotion theory and the
state–trait theory of anger, we hypothesized that bullies,
victims and bully–victims who are involved in both phys-
ical bullying and cyberbullying would show higher trait
anger than other participants. Furthermore, we predicted
that participants who are both bullies and victims would
score higher in trait anger than participants who are only
victims.
Method
Participants
Participants were 716 students, 324 males and 392 females,
ranging in age from 11 to 19 (Mage = 14.91; SD = 1.50).
In greater detail, 216 pupils ranged 11–14 years, whilst 495
students ranged 15–19 years. Only five students did not
report their age. Participants were recruited from public
middle and high schools located in Central Italy. The
consent rate was 97 %. The schools are located in urban
areas of middle–upper socio-economic level. Although
most participants answered all items of the following
instruments, the total sample size for several measures is
slightly lower because of absence from school during some
of the research sessions.
Measures
The State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 Child and
Adolescent [STAXI–2 C/A, 29] is a 35-item self-report
questionnaire. The 10-item State Anger Scale measures the
intensity of angry feelings at a particular time. It is divided
in two subscales: the State Anger Feelings (sample item: I
feel annoyed), which assesses the intensity of the angry
feelings currently experienced, and the State Anger
Expression, which measures the intensity of current feeling
related to verbal or physical expression of anger (sample
item: I feel like shouting out loud). The Trait Anger Scale
measures individual disposition to experience anger as a
personality characteristic. The Trait Anger Temperament,
which measures the disposition to experience anger with-
out a specific provocation (sample item: I get angry
quickly), and the Trait Anger Reaction, which assesses the
disposition to express anger in situations that involve
frustration or negative evaluation (sample item: I get mad
when I am punished unfairly) are the 2 subscales of the
Trait Anger Scale. Furthermore, the inventory consisted of
other 3 scales: Anger Expression-Out, which measures the
expression of anger toward other people or objects in the
environment engaging in verbal or physically aggressive
behaviors (sample item: I show my anger), Anger Expres-
sion-In, which measures the extent to which angry feelings
are held in or suppressed (sample item: I get mad inside,
but do not show it), and Anger-Control, which assesses the
ability to control the inward or outward expression of angry
feelings (sample item: I try to calm my angry feelings).
Participants respond using a 4-point scale, ranging from
1—Hardly ever—to 3—Often, with higher scores indicat-
ing greater inclination to experience, express or control
anger.
This instrument is highly regarded by researchers as
demonstrated by its translation into different languages
[30–32]. In several studies, the STAXI–2 subscales have
demonstrated construct validity and adequate internal
consistency, with Chronbach’s alfa ranging from .70 to .85
[33]. Sukhodolsky, Golub and Cromwell [34] found that
the total score of the 19 items of the Anger Rumination
Scale (ARS) correlate with the subscales of the STAXI in
the moderate range (ARS and Trait-Anger, r = .57; ARS
and Anger-In, r = .52; ARS and Anger-Out, r = .43; ARS
and Anger-Control, r = -.35, significant at the .001 level).
For its use in Italy, with the original authors’ authorization,
the questionnaire was translated into Italian and back
translated into English to verify the accuracy of the trans-
lation. In the present study, we obtained alpha coefficients
of .73 for the full scale STAXI, .83 for State Anger, .70 for
Trait Anger, and .73 for Anger Expression, as similar to
data reported in other studies [30–32] and by the authors of
the STAXI [29].
The Short Bullying Measure is a section of A Survey for
Students in grades 7–12 about Equity and Inclusive Edu-
cation, Bullying/Harassment [35] and encompasses direct
bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying. It includes
self-report items pertaining to both how often a pupil has
been bullied by others and is the instigator of bullying. The
responses are given on a Likert scale ranging from 0—
Never in the last 4 weeks—to 4—Two or more times a
week.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administrated in the classroom
during a regular class period and took approximately
45 min to complete. Research assistants distributed ques-
tionnaires explaining the procedure and answered students’
questions regarding the study and its purposes. The
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee at
the University of Rome Sapienza.
To create bullying groups, we firstly differentiated stu-
dents who have never been bullied from students who have
been bullied one or more times, physically or through
electronic devices. We did the same for the perpetuators of
physical or electronic bullying, identifying customary
bullies from no bullies. Then, we classified the participants
according to whether they were bullies and/or victims in
terms of physical bullying, cyberbulling or both. We used a
cut-off of 2 of the items of the Short Bullying Measure [35]
as a criterion for identifying a participant as either a bully
or victims. In the Results section that follows, we first
report on differences among bullies, victims and bully–
victims within each of the two modalities of bullying
considered, i.e., physical bullying and cyberbullying. We
then report the results obtained by using the data pertaining
to both modalities simultaneously.
Results
Physical Bullying and Anger
We used the physical bullying data to divide the partici-
pants into four groups: (a) neither victim nor bully,
(b) victim only, (c) bully only, and (d) bully–victim. Males
and females were equally distributed among physical bul-
lying groups, v2(3) = 7.37; p = .06. Conversely, age dif-
ferences were found, v2(3) = 187.03; p \ .000.
Preadolescents fell in the bully–victim group more fre-
quently than did adolescents (115 vs. 37). Conversely, the
number of adolescents was higher in the neither-victim-
nor-bully group than preadolescents (340 vs. 85). For this
reason, age was considered as a covariate in the multiple
analysis of covariance. MANCOVA revealed significant
differences in the anger scores between groups, k = .93,
F(3,701) = 2.52, p \ .001, gp2 = .03. The age-blocks
effect was significant, k = .97, F(1,703) = 2.74, p \ .01,
gp2 = .03. Adjusted means for age are reported in Table 1.
Results from follow-up univariate tests (ANCOVA) and
post-hoc Bonferroni tests, (p \ .001) showed differences
on the dimensions of State-Anger Expression F(3,
701) = 4.52, p \ .01, gp2 = .02; State-Anger Total,
F(3,701) = 3.90, p \ .01, gp2 = .02; Trait-Anger Temper-
ament, F(3, 701) = 8.28, p \ .001, gp2 = .03; Trait-Anger
Total, F(3, 701) = 6.35, p \ .001, gp2 = .03; Anger
Expression-Out, F(3, 701) = 5.58, p \ .001, gp2 = .02; and
Anger-Control, F(3, 701) = 4.25, p \ .01, gp2 = .02. In
particular, the pairwise comparisons revealed that physical
bullies scored higher on State-Anger Total and Trait-Anger
Temperament and lower on Anger-Control than students
who were neither victims nor bullies. Additionally,
physical bullies showed higher scores on Anger Expres-
sion-Out than students who were victims of physical bul-
lying and students who were not involved in bullying
episode. With respect to the Trait-Anger Total dimension,
physical bullies and bully–victims scored higher than stu-
dents who were neither bullies nor victims. Finally, bully–
victims showed higher level of State-Anger Expression
than students who did not engage in episodes of physical
bullying.
Cyberbullying and Anger
We used a similar procedure to delineate groups according
to cyberbullying and victimization. Again, these groups did
not differ in terms of gender composition, v2(3) = 2.63;
p = .45, whilst age differences were found, v2(3) =
213.91; p \ .000. Preadolescents were more likely be in
the cyber bully–victim group than were adolescents (111
vs. 23). Older students fell in the neither cyber bully nor
cyber victim group more frequently than did their younger
counterparts (375 vs. 85). Hence, age was considered as a
covariate in a MANCOVA analysis. The multiple analysis
of covariance yielded significant differences on anger
scores among groups, k = .92, F(3, 701) = 2.73, p \ .000,
gp2 = .03. The age-blocks effect was significant, k = .97,
F(1, 703) = 3.51, p \ .01, gp2 = .04. Thus, means were
adjusted for age, as detailed in Table 2.
Univariate tests (ANCOVA) and post-hoc comparisons
(Bonferroni tests; p \ .001) revealed that students
belonging to the cyber bully only group and cyber bully
–victim group scored higher than students who were nei-
ther cyber victims nor bullies on State-Anger Expression;
F(3, 701) = 8.16, p \ .000, gp2 = .03, and Anger Expres-
sion-Out; F(3, 701) = 5.16, p \ .01, gp2 = .01. Addition-
ally, students who did not engage in cyberbullying
episodes, neither as bullies nor as victims, obtained lower
scores on Trait-Anger Total than other groups, whose mean
scores were the same; F(3, 701) = 9.22, p \ .000,
gp2 = .04. With respect to State-Anger total, cyberbullies
had higher mean scores than students who were not
involved in electronic bullying; F(3, 701) = 5.31, p \ .01,
gp2 = .03. Finally, students who were cyber bullies as well
as students who victims of cyber bullies scored higher on
Trait–Anger Temperament than students who did not take
part in cyberbullying episodes: F(3, 701) = 8.88, p \ .000,
gp2 = .04.
Anger in Relation to Single or Multiple Modalities
of Bullying
Combining the data pertaining to physical bullying and
cyberbullying, we identified 4 groups of adolescents:
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
(a) neither physical nor cyberbullies; (b) cyberbullies only;
(c) physical bullies only; and (d) cyber and physical bully.
Once more, males and females were about equally dis-
tributed among these groups, v2(3) = 4.36; p = .22. Chi-
squared analysis revealedage differences between groups,
v2(3) = 216.00; p \ .000. Older students fell more fre-
quently in the neither-physical-nor- cyberbully group than
did younger students (358 vs. 86), who, conversely,
appeared more likely be into the both-cyber-and-physical-
bully group (113 vs. 24).
The multiple analysis of covariance was run considering
age as a covariate. Findings from MANCOVA indicated
significant differences among groups on the state- and trait-
anger dimensions; k = .91, F(3, 701) = 3.05, p \ .000,
gp2 = .03; and significant age differences; k = .96, F(1,
703) = 3.68, p \ .01, gp2 = .04. Table 3 shows the means
adjusted for age. Findings from univariate tests
(ANCOVA) and pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni tests)
revealed that students belonging to the cyberbully only and
physical bully only scored higher on Trait–Anger
Table 1 Summary of anger-
expression and anger-control
data for physical bullying
Significant differences (p \ .05)
are indicated by different
subscripts
Anger scale Neither victim nor bully
(N = 425)
Victim only
(N = 63)
Bully only
(N = 64)
Bully–victim
(N = 152)
State-anger
feelings
6.74 (2.15) 7.11 (2.35) 7.50 (2.46) 6.76 (1.97)
State-anger
Expression
5.92 (1.74)a 6.35 (2.28)ab 6.35 (2.40) ab 6.55 (1.94)b
State-anger
Total
12.67 (3.25)a 13.74 (4.16)ab 14.03 (4.25)b 13.31 (3.36)ab
Trait-anger
Temperament
7.93 (1.74)a 8.27 (1.90)ab 9.07 (2.20)b 8.46 (1.97)ab
Trait-anger
Reaction
10.20 (2.22) 10.58 (2.19) 10.62 (2.57) 10.78 (2.31)
Trait-anger
Total
18.12 (3.15)a 18.84 (3.17)ab 19.70 (3.45)b 19.24 (3.39)b
Anger
Expression-out
8.04 (2.13)a 7.99 (1.95)a 9.21 (2.46)b 8.38 (2.41)ab
Anger
Expression-in
9.25 (2.51) 9.71 (2.70) 8.97 (2.50) 9.12 (2.30)
Anger-control 11.09 (2.60)a 11.64 (2.71)ab 10.09 (2.64)b 11.28 (2.54)ab
Table 2 Summary of anger and
anger-control data for
cyberbullying
Significant differences (p \ .05)
are indicated by different
subscripts
Anger scale Neither victim nor bully
(N = 460)
Victim only
(N = 63)
Bully only
(N = 48)
Bully–victim
(N = 134)
State-anger
Feelings
6.74 (2.06) 7.30 (2.52) 7.37 (2.45)b 6.80 (2.24)
State-anger
Expression
5.90 (1.67)a 6.29 (2.12)ab 6.98 (2.88)b 6.65 (2.02)b
State-anger
Total
12.63 (3.16)a 13.59 (3.94)ab 14.35 (4.49)b 13.45 (3.72)ab
Trait-anger
Temperament
7.92 (1.75)a 8.84 (1.98)b 8.95 (2.21)b 8.45 (2.05)ab
Trait-anger
Reaction
10.19 (2.23) 10.93 (2.07) 10.95 (2.62) 10.74 (2.37)
Trait-anger
Total
18.11 (3.14)a 19.77 (3.31)b 19.90 (3.92)b 19.19 (3.77)b
Anger
Expression-out
7.98 (2.10)a 8.35 (2.33)ab 8.88 (2.35)b 8.77 (2.54)b
Anger
Expression-in
9.34 (2.40) 9.56 (3.28) 8.93 (2.40) 8.80 (2.37)
Anger-control 11.26 (2.56) 10.79 (2.77) 10.34 (2.86) 10.91 (2.65)
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
Temperament; F(3, 701) = 7.77, p \ .000, gp2 = .03; and
on Anger Expression–Out; F(3, 701) = 10.80, p \ .000,
gp2 = .04; than students who were not involved at all in
either cyber and physical bullying. Cyber bullies obtained
higher mean s than students belonged to the group of stu-
dents who were neither physical nor cyber bullies on State-
Anger Total; F(3, 701) = 4.16, p \ .01, gp2 = .02. Stu-
dents who did not take part in bullying episodes of either
kind had scores lower than students who used only physical
or both modalities to bully on Trait-Anger Total;
F(3,701) = 4.16, p \ .01, gp2 = .02.
Single and Multiple Modes of Victimization
Following the same procedure adopted for bullies, we then
divided adolescents in four groups: (a) neither physical nor
cyber victim; (b) cyber victim only, (c) physical victim
only, and (d) cyber and physical victim. Chi square test
revealed age differences among victim groups,
v2(3) = 203.23; p \ .000. Preadolescents were more likely
be in the cyber and physical group than were adolescents
(107 vs. 23), who were more frequently categorized into
the neither physical nor cyber victim group (341 vs. 78).
Conversely, gender differences among the victims group
were not found, v2(3) = 4.27; p = .93. MANCOVA was
performed, inserting age as a covariate. Significant multi-
variate differences emerged; k = .94, F(3, 700) = 2.12,
p \ .01, gp2 = .02. Significant effects of age were aslo
found;, k = .98, F(1, 701) = 2.35, p \ .05, gp2 = .02.
There means were adjusted for age and inserted in Table 4.
Univariate tests and post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni
tests showed that students who were victims of cyber
bullying (but not in combination with physical bullying)
scored higher than students who were not involved in
bullying episodes of either modality as victims on State-
Anger feeling; F(3, 701) = 2.74, p \ .05, gp2 = .01;State-
Anger Expression; F(3, 701) = 5.75, p \ .01, gp2 = .02;
State-Anger Total; F(3, 701) = 4.83, p \ .01, gp2 = .02;
Trait-Anger Temperament; F(3, 701) = 5.37, p \ .01,
gp2 = .02; Trait-Anger Total; F(3, 701) = 6.48, p \ .000,
gp2 = .03 .
Discussion
Cyberbullying is one of the most untoward by-products of
the new technologies. Hence, it is useful to understand the
mechanisms underlying cyberbullying in order to inform
prevention and intervention. Past research has highlighted
that anger feeling is common among bullies and victims,
and it appears to accrue the sense of revenge and aggres-
sion behavior which, in turns, are responsible of mainte-
nance of bullying. However, little is known about the
specific roles of state and trait anger in different forms of
bullying [22–24, 36, 37]. In this study, we aimed at
investigating the role of anger—trait and state—in
engagement in physical and cyberbullying.
In the most general sense, the findings confirm that
anger is very much part of the phenomena of bullying and
victimization. This belies any impression that bullies are
Table 3 Anger and anger-
control data for physical bullies,
cyberbullies and bullies using
both modalities
Significant differences (p \ .05)
are indicated by different
subscripts
Anger scale Neither physical nor
cyberbully (N = 444)
Cyberbully
only (N = 44)
Physical bully
only (N = 79)
Cyber and physical
bully (N = 137)
State-anger
Feelings
6.76 (2.06) 7.46 (2.52) 7.08 (2.20) 6.80 (2.24)
State-anger
Expression
5.91 (1.67)a 6.77 (2.12)b 6.05 (1.80)ab 6.78 (2.15)b
State-anger
Total
12.67 (3.17)a 14.23 (3.94)b 13.13 (3.44)ab 13.58 (3.72)ab
Trait-anger
Temperament
7.92 (1.75)a 8.87 (1.98)b 8.70 (2.22)b 8.47 (2.05)ab
Trait-anger
Reaction
10.21 (2.23) 10.60 (2.07) 10.57 (2.62) 10.87 (2.38)
Trait–Anger
Total
18.12 (3.14)a 19.47 (3.31)ab 19.27 (3.92)b 19.34 (3.76)b
Anger
Expression-
out
7.88 (2.08)a 9.30 (2.33)b 8.95 (2.36)b 8.52 (2.54)ab
Anger
Expression-in
9.42 (2.40) 8.63 (2.28) 9.00 (2.40) 8.97 (2.37)
Anger-control 11.27 (2.56) 10.73 (2.77) 10.93 (2.86) 10.73 (2.65)
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
simply cold, calculating and devoid of feeling, as discussed
in a heated exchange between Sutton, Smith and Swet-
tenham [38] and Crick and Dodge [38]. Bullies may indeed
be calculating and devoid of empathy but do not appear at
all to be devoid of the emotion of anger [39].
Anger and Physical Bullying
Our hypothesis linking trait anger to bullying specifically
was confirmed most clearly in the results pertaining to
physical bullying. Adolescents who bully others physically
appear to have a greater personal disposition (trait) than
their age-mates to experience anger in general. Further-
more, physical bullies seem prone to the outward expres-
sion of angry feelings and a weaker ability to control anger
than other participants.
Our findings confirm past research on physical bullying,
according to which anger towards others and aggression are
the strongest markers of adolescents who are physical
bullies or both bullies and victims [16, 21, 24]. In our
study, both of them showed the greater disposition towards
anger and display it than victims and students who were not
involved in bullying episode.
Furthermore, in our study physical bully–victims are
more common among preadolescents than adolescents.
Past research have demonstrated that physical aggression
decreases with age while relational aggression increases.
As preadolescents’ social understanding improves, they are
more able to use indirect forms of aggression [40].
With respect to victims of physical bullying, a clear
anger profile were not found. It appears that anger is not a
strong marker, suggesting that it may be more difficult to
identify physical victim from other participants, whose
anger profiles are defined more accurately. Hence, school
psychologists are careful to other markers that are reported
in the literature, such as isolation from peer group, avoid-
ance of social interaction and other internalizing symptoms
[39].
More controversial is the research on gender differences
in display of anger. Overall, boys appear more likely to be
physically aggressive than females at all ages [41, 42]. A
great part of studies has confirmed that boys are more
involved in physical bullying episodes than girls, who
engage easier in relational bullying than their counterparts.
In our study, gender differences were not found, confirming
other studies, according to which when reactive and pro-
active aggression subtypes are both investigated, girls tend
to catch up to boys by age 12. Additionally, males and
females are at equal risk for aggressive acts in highly
emotionally arousing context [43].
Anger and Cyberbullying
The expected differences between trait and state anger did
not emerge very clearly in the case of cyberbullying and
cybervictimization, both of which were somewhat related
to both state and trait anger but only according to some of
the scales. Perhaps the greater implication of state anger for
cyberbullying than for physical bullying is the result of
Table 4 Anger and anger-
control data for victims of
cyberbullying, of physical
bullying and of both bullying
modalities
Significant differences (p \ .05)
are indicated by different
subscripts
Anger scale Neither physical nor cyber
victim (N = 419)
Cyber victim
only (N = 68)
Physical victim
only (N = 86)
Cyber and physical
victim (N = 130)
State-anger
feelings
6.77 (2.15)a 7.53 (2.63)b 6.96 (2.05)ab 6.65 (2.13)ab
State-anger
expression
5.93 (1.75)a 6.81 (2.45)b 6.50 (2.38)ab 6.33 (1.75)ab
State-anger
Total
12.70 (3.33)a 14.34 (4.25)b 13.46 (3.88)ab 12.98 (3.42)ab
Trait-anger
Temperament
7.98 (1.83)a 8.91 (1.92)b 8.26 (1.77)ab 8.38 (2.06)ab
Trait-anger
Reaction
10.17 (2.30) 10.88 (2.10) 10.73 (2.17) 10.75 (2.37)
Trait-anger
Total
18.15 (3.28)a 19.80 (3.26)b 18.98 (3.06)ab 19.13 (3.78)ab
Anger
Expression-
out
8.08 (2.16) 8.67 (2.43) 8.02 (2.01) 8.59 (2.50)
Anger
Expression-in
9.25 (2.37) 9.31 (3.08) 9.53 (2.40) 8.93 (2.47)
Anger-
control
11.10 (2.61) 10.43 (2.71) 11.55 (2.57) 11.15 (2.66)
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
some of the inherent properties of electronic communica-
tion. Instant messenger contact, social networking sites,
email and other electronic devices may be available
immediately in an angry moment. In addition, the ano-
nymity guaranteed by cyber-communication may propel
the individual towards greater expression of angry, perhaps
aggravated by the belief that the virtual environment helps
avoid any social or legal consequences of one’s behavior
[44]. As described by Prensky [45], this generation of
children and adolescents may be labeled ‘‘digital natives’’
compared to their parents and teachers that may be called
‘‘digital immigrants’’. There are, however, certain inherent
properties of the virtual world that may cause the distinc-
tion between state and trait anger. The distinction between
state and trait anger may be important for physical bullying
because the bullies, victims and their peers can recognize
trait anger as an enduring negative characteristic of a
person they know. Although cyberbullies and cybervictims
probably know each other somewhat and may well have
met face to face, it is not clear that they or their peers know
each other to differentiate between state and trait anger. In
that case, there is no reason to suspect different conse-
quences of state and trait anger.
Similar to physical bullying, cyberbullying is more
common among younger students than their older coun-
terparts, confirming data found by Ortega and colleagues
[16]. Additionally, girls and boys are equally involved in
cyberbullying. Early access to electronic device by young
people may be a possible risk factor for cyberbullying that
it needs to be further investigated.
Limitations
Some limitations of the study need to be taken into
account. First of all, the use of self-report measures
involves positive and negative aspects. Questionnaires are
fast to administer and allow to participants to overcome the
embarrassment that may occur during an interview. On the
other side, students may prompt some respondents to
answer in socially desirable ways, influencing their score to
anger and bullying scales. The possibility to use multiple
informants or to guarantee anonymity may be a reliable
method to overcome the problems linked to questionnaires.
However, in our study, the high number of participants
allows us to minimize these problems. It is important to
bear in mind, however, that alternatives to self-report
instruments of cyberbullying and cybervictimization are
few. When measuring physical bullying, it may be possible
to obtain information from school peers and teachers.
However, the boundaries of the social group involved in
cyberbullying are impossible to trace and often extend
beyond a single school or community, making it very
difficult to obtain information from informed third parties.
Secondly, our scope was limited to bullies and victims,
ignoring other participants in bullying episodes, such as
bystanders and defenders. In particular, bystanders rarely
play a completely neutral role in bullying. They watch
bullying happen or hear about it without intervene because
they fair getting hurt or becoming another victim, or they
think that what it is happening is not their problem.
However, such behavior allow to maintain bullying [46].
Thus, the understanding of how bystanders manage their
thoughts and emotions, anger too, while a bullying episode
occurs may be useful to help them to intervene to stop
bully.
Although there are certainly third parties who are
bystanders in cyberbullying episodes and there may be
others who defend the victim or encourage the bully, the
inherent vague boundaries of the cyberbullying situation
make it very difficult to determine who these individuals
are and to obtain information from or about them.
Conclusion
These results indicate that both physical and cyber bullying
occur more frequently among preadolescents than among
adolescents, especially with regard to bully–victims. Less
advanced social understanding abilities and increasingly
early access to electronic devices by younger people sug-
gest that prevention programs need to begin very early at
school. In addition, we found no significant differences
been involvement by girls and boys in both physical and
cyber bullying, as bullies and as victims. This issue indi-
cates a gender homologation of behaviors. Past research
has demonstrated that males engage more frequently in
aggressive acts than females, who conversely are more
prone towards relational and other forms of indirect bul-
lying [41, 42]. However, other studies [43] have high-
lighted that gender differences tend to decrease with age.
Our study pointed out a partial overlap between physical
bullying and cyberbullying in anger- management that
leads to some hope that promising programs, such as the
KiVa program in Finland [47, 48], may have positive effect
on the reduction and the preventing of bullying in the cyber
world although they were not developed primarily with
cyberbullying in mind. School approaches aimed at
reducing feelings of revenge and anger, and improving
emotional regulation and prosocial behavior may be help-
ful to reduce bullying episodes in both traditional and cyber
forms [15, 49, 50]. Anger-management programs for chil-
dren and adolescents may be quite effective [22], constitute
a time-efficient mode of brief intervention by school psy-
chologists. On the other hand, the different roles of trait
and state anger in the engagement in at least physical
bullying found in our study suggests that intervention and
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
prevention programs have to consider such difference.
Victims of cyber bullying have a clear anger profile that
may help educators and school psychologists to identify
them. The victims of cyberbullies are characterized a dif-
ficulty to feeling and express anger in everyday situations
that may be a potentially important component of inter-
ventions even if physical victims do not appear to have a
distinguishing profile in this respect expression.
Albeit much recent research has been devoted to bul-
lying and research on cyberbullying is increasing, the
mechanisms underpinning physical and cyber bullying
remain unclear and constitute a challenge for future
exploration.
Summary
In our study, we focused on two virulent forms of bullying,
cyberbullying and physical bullying. The results of our
research indicate that both physical and cyber bullying
occur more frequently among preadolescents than among
adolescents, especially with regard to bully–victims. Our
hypothesis linking trait anger to bullying specifically was
confirmed most clearly in the results pertaining to physical
bullying. Adolescents who bully others physically appear
to have a greater personal disposition (trait) than their age-
mates to experience anger in general. With respect to
victims of physical bullying, a clear anger profile were not
found. It appears that anger is not a strong marker, sug-
gesting that it may be more difficult to identify physical
victim from other participants, whose anger profiles are
defined more accurately. The expected differences between
trait and state anger did not emerge very clearly in the case
of cyberbullying and cybervictimization, both of which
were somewhat related to both state and trait anger but only
according to some of the scales. Results for cyberbullying
suggested a major vulnerability among bullies and victims
to experience anger as a personality trait as well some links
between state anger, cyberbullying and cybervictimization.
References
1. Mishna F (2012) Bullying: a guide to research, intervention, and
prevention. Oxford University Press, New York
2. Hinduja S, Patchin JW (2012) Cyberbullying: neither an epi-
demic nor a rarity. Eur J Dev Psychol 9:539–543
3. Tokunaga RS (2010) Following you home from school: a critical
review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization.
Comput Hum Behav 26:277–287
4. Kowalski RM, Morgan CA, Limber SP (2012) Traditional bul-
lying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. Sch Psychol
Intern 33:505–519
5. Jackson M, Cassidy W, Brown K (2009) Out of the mouth of
babes: students’ voice their opinions on cyber-bullying. Long
Island Educ Rev 8:24–30
6. Dooley JJ, Pyzalski J, Cross D (2009) Cyberbullying versus face-
to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. J Psych
217:182–188
7. Laftman SB, Modin B, Ostberg V (2012) Cyberbullying and
subjective health: a large-scale study of students in Stockholm,
Sweden. Child Youth Serv Rev 35:112–119
8. Campbell MA, Slee PT, Spears B, Butler D, Kift S (2013) Do
cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm
they cause to others and to their own mental health. Sch Psychol
Int 34:613–629
9. Campbell MA, Cross D, Spears B, Slee P (2010) Cyberbullying-
legal implications for schools. Occasional paper 118. Melbourne:
Centre for Strategic Education
10. Cassidy W, Faucher C, Jackson M (2013) Cyberbullying among
youth: a comprehensive review of current international research
and its implications and application to policy and practice. Sch
Psychol Int 34:575–612
11. Mishna F, Khoury-Kassabri M, Gadalla T, Daciuk J (2012) Risk
factors for involvement in cyber bullying: victims, bullies, and
bully–victims. Child Youth Serv Rev 34:63–70
12. Agatston P, Kowalski R, Limber S (2012) Youth views on cy-
berbullying. In: Patchin JW, Hinduja S (eds) Cyberbullying
prevention and response: expert perspectives. Routledge, New
York, pp 57–71
13. Marczak M, Coyne I (2010) Cyberbullying at school: good
practice and legal aspects in the United Kingdom. Aust J Guid
Couns 20:182–193
14. Patchin JW, Hinduja S (2012) Cyberbullying: an update and
synthesis of the research. In: Patchin JW, Hinduja S (eds) Cy-
berbullying prevention and response: expert perspectives.
Routledge, New York, pp 13–35
15. Topcu C, Erdur-Baker O (2012) Affective and cognitive empathy
as mediators of gender differences in cyber and traditional bul-
lying. Sch Psychol Int 33:550–561
16. Ortega R, Elipe P, Mora-Merchan JA, Genta ML, Brighi A,
Guarini A, Tippett N (2012) The emotional impact of bullying
and cyberbullying on victims: a European cross-national study.
Aggress Behav 38:342–356
17. Izard CE (1971) The face of emotion. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
East Norwalk
18. Tomkins SS (1991) Affect imagery consciousness: Vol. III. The
negative affects: Anger and fear. Springer, New York
19. Campos JJ, Frankel CB, Camras L (2004) On the nature of
emotion regulation. Child Dev 75:377–394
20. Izard CE (1993) Four system for emotion activation: cognitive
and noncognitive processes. Psychol Rev 68:90–100
21. Champion KL, Clay DL (2007) Individual differences in
responses to provocation and frequent victimization by peers.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 37:205–220
22. Candelaria AM, Fedewa AL, Ahn S (2012) The effects of anger
management on children’s social and emotional outcomes: a
meta-analysis. Sch Psychol Int 33:596–614
23. Champion KM (2009) Victimization, anger, and gender: low
anger and passive responses work. Am J Ortop 79:71–82
24. Lovegrove PJ, Henry KL, Slater MD (2012) Examination of the
predictors of latent class typologies of bullying involvement
among middle school students. J Sch Violence 11:75–93
25. Spielberger CD, Reheiser EC, Sydeman SJ (1995) Measuring the
experience, expression and control of anger. Compr Pediatr Nurs
18:207–232
26. Deffenbacher JL, Oetting ER, Thwaites GA, Lynch RS, Baker
DA, Stark RS, Thacker S, Eiswerth-Cox L (1996) State-trait
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
anger theory and the utility of the Trait anger Scale. J Couns
Psychol 43:131–148
27. Cassidy W, Jackson M, Brown K (2009) Sticks and stones can
break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experi-
ences with cyber-bullying. Sch Psychol Int 30:383–402
28. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russel S, Tippett N
(2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school
pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 49:376–384
29. Brunner TM, Spielberger CD (1979) State-trait anger expression
inventory-2 child and adolescent (STAXI-2 C/A). PAR, Lutz
30. Besevegis E, Dalla M, Gari A, Karademas CE (2008) The
adaptation of state-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI-II) in
the Greek language. Psychology 15:171–188
31. Culhane SE, Morera OF (2010) Reliability and validity of the
Novaco Anger Scale and provocation inventory (NAS-PI) and
state-trait anger expression inventory-2 (STAXI-2) in Hispanic
and non-hispanic white student samples. Hisp J Behav Sci
32:586–606
32. Mendoza O, Pozo H, Bello C (2010) Validation of the Mexican
version of the State-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI-2).
Acta Colom Psicologia 13:107–117
33. Deschenes SS, Dugas MJ, Fracalanza K, Koerner N (2012) The
role of anger in generalized anxiety disorder. Cogn Behav Ther
41:261–271
34. Sukhodolsky DG, Golub A, Cromwell EN (2001) Development
and validation of the Anger Scale rumination. Pers Individ Differ
31:689–800
35. Ontario Ministry of Education (2009) Short bullying measure: a
survey for students in grades 7–12 about equity and inclusive
education, bullying/harassment. Qeen’s Printer for Ontario.
Document available at www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/climate.
html
36. Camodeca M, Goossens FA (2005) Aggression, social cognitions,
anger and sadness in bullies and victims. J Child Psychol Psy-
chiatr 46:186–197
37. Gansle K (2005) The effectiveness of school-based anger inter-
ventions and programs: a meta-analysis. J Sch Psychol
43:321–341
38. Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettwnham JS (1999) Bullying and theory
of mind: a critique of the ‘‘Social Skills Deficit’’ view of anti-
social behavior. Soc Dev 8:117–127
39. Garner PW, Hinton HT (2010) Emotional display rules and
emotion self-regulation: association with bullying and victim-
ization in community-based after school programs. J Community
Appl Soc 20:480–496
40. Nishina A, Juvonen J, Witkow M (2005) Sticks and stones may
break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: the psycho-
social, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment.
J Clin Child Adoles Psychol Psychiatr 34:37–48
41. Poulin F, Boivin M (2000) Reactive and proactive aggression:
evidence for two–factor model. Psychol Assess 12:115–122
42. Salmivalli C, Nieminen E (2002) Proactive and reactive aggres-
sion in bullies, victims, and bully–victims. Aggress Behav
28:30–44
43. Knight GP, Guthrie IK, Page MC, Fabes RA (2002) Emotional
arousal and gender differences in aggression: a meta-analysis.
Aggress Behav 28:366–393
44. Amichai-Hamburger Y (2013) Youth internet and wellbeing.
Comput Hum Behav 29:1–2
45. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon
9:1–6
46. Pozzoli T, Ang RP, Gini G (2012) Bystanders’ reactions to bul-
lying: a cross-cultural analysis of personal correlates among
Italian and Singaporean students. Soc Dev 21:86–703
47. Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2009) How to reduce school bullying.
Vict Off 4:321–326
48. Smith JD, Schneider BH, Smith PK, Ananiadou K (2004) The
effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: a synthesis
of evaluation research. Sch Psychol Rev 33:547–560
49. Sahin M (2012) An investigation into the efficiency of empathy
training program on preventing bullying in primary schools.
Child Youth Serv Rev 34:1325–1330
50. Laghi F, Pallini S, D’Alessio M, Baiocco R (2011) Development
and validation of the efficacious self-presentation Scale. J Gen
Psychol 172:209–219
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
123
Author's personal copy
