Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire: Structure and Primary Psychometric Characteristics
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-1-113-122
Abstract
The problem of online aggression has attracted increasing attention over the past decade. Various studies revealed a need for tools that would identify the causes of aggressive behavior in cyberspace. The article presents the results of the adaptation of the English-language Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire (CATQ) by K. C. Runions on 421 Russian-speaking teenagers aged 10–15 years (St. Petersburg). The method features four types of online aggression. K. C. Runions describes the cyber-aggression in teenagers through their motivational goals and the ability to behavioral self-control. The procedures of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the four-factor model of the original questionnaire. All factors were balanced by the number of statements. The final version of the questionnaire included 23 statements. The structure of the questionnaire was represented by the following factors: impulsive-aversive cyber-aggression, controlled-aversive cyberaggression, controlled-appetitive cyber-aggression, and impulsive-appetitive cyber-aggression. The questionnaire showed good indicators of discriminativeness and reliability; it can serve as a reliable psychological diagnosis tool for studying the phenomenon of cyber-aggression in scientific and practical purposes. Understanding the motivations behind cyber-aggressive behavior can help to develop new preventive measures based on individual differences in the disadaptive factors of online aggression.
About the Author
S. S. Antipina
Herzen State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana S. Antipina
St. Petersburg
References
1. Soldatova G. U., Chigarkova S. V., Dreneva A. A., Iliukhina S. N. We are responsible for the digital world: Preventing destructive behavior of adolescents and youth on the Internet. Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr, 2019, 176. (In Russ.)
2. Bochaver A. A., Kholmov K. D. Cyberbullying: Harassment in the space of modern technologies. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2014, 11(3): 177–191. (In Russ.)
3. Heirman W., Walrave M. Assessing concerns and issues about the mediation of technology in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2008, 2(2). Available at: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4214/3256 (accessed 4 Aug 2020).
4. Kowalski R. M., Giumetti G. W., Schroeder A. N., Lattanner M. R. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and metaanalysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 2014, 140(4): 1073–1137. DOI: 10.1037/a0035618
5. Panumaporn J., Hongsanguansri S., Atsariyasing W., Kiatrungrit K. Bystanders’ behaviours and associated factors in cyberbullying. General Psychiatry, 2020, 33(3). DOI: 10.1136/gpsych-2019-100187
6. Grigg D. W. Cyber-aggression: definition and concept of cyberbullying. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 2010, 20(2): 143–156. DOI: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143
7. Bauman S., Underwood M. K., Card N. Definitions: Another perspective and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology, eds. Bauman S., Cross D., Walker J. N. Y.: Routledge, 2013, 41–46. DOI: 10.4324/9780203084601
8. Menesini E., Nocentini A., Palladino B. E., Frisén A., Berne S., Ortega-Ruiz R., Calmaestra J., Scheithauer H., SchultzeKrumbholz A., Luik P., Naruskov K., Blaya C., Berthaud J., Smith P. K. Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2012, 15(9): 455–463. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
9. Schoffstall C. L., Cohen R. Cyber aggression: The relation between online offenders and offline social competence. Social Development, 2011, 20(3): 587–604. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00609.x
10. Ybarra M. L., Mitchell K. J. Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 2004, 27(3): 319–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007
11. Cherenkov D. A. Deviant behavior in social networks: causes, forms, investigation. Nauka-Rastudent.ru, 2015, (7). Available at: http://nauka-rastudent.ru/19/2843/ (accessed 15 Jan 2021). (In Russ.)
12. Sharov A. A. Specificity of deviant activity of young people in the Internet environment. Uchenye zapiski. Elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal Kurskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2019, (3): 255–261. (In Russ.)
13. Dooley J. J., Pyżalski J., Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 2009, 217(4): 182–188. DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
14. Runions K. C. Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression: Rage, revenge, reward and recreation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013, 42(5): 751–771. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-013-9936-2
15. Vaillancourt T., Hymel S., McDougall P. Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 2003, 19(2): 157–176. DOI: 10.1300/J008v19n02_10
16. Raskauskas J., Stoltz A. D. Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 2007, 43(3): 564–575. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564
17. Compton L., Campbell M., Mergler A. Teacher, parent and student perceptions of the motives of cyberbullies. Social Psychology of Education, 2014, 17(3): 383–400. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-014-9254-x
18. Baturin N. A., Melnikova N. N. Technology of test development: part III. Vestnik Iuzhno-Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Psikhologiia, 2010, (4): 4–18. (In Russ.)
19. Byrne B. M. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, 2nd ed. (Multivariate applications series). N. Y.: Taylor & Francis Group, 2010, 396.
20. Nasledov A. D. IBM SPSS 20 and AMOS: professional statistical data analysis. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2013, 416. (In Russ.)
21. Runions K. C., Bak M., Shaw T. Disentangling functions of online aggression: The cyber-aggression typology questionnaire (CATQ). Aggressive behavior, 2017, 43(1): 74–84. DOI: 10.1002/ab.21663
22. Shmelev A. G. Practical testology. Testing in education, applied psychology, and personnel management. Moscow: Maska, 2013, 688. (In Russ.)
23. Steinberg L., Albert D., Cauffman E., Banich E., Graham S., Woolard J. Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 2008, 44(6): 1764–1778. DOI: 10.1037/a0012955
Review
For citations:
Antipina S.S. Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire: Structure and Primary Psychometric Characteristics. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2021;23(1):113-122. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-1-113-122
Views:
2102
Email this article 