CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.3. Findings and discussion
4.3.1. Quantitative findings
4.3. Findings and discussions
Table 5: Reports by perpetrators of cyberbullying
In the last 2 months
n (%)
Threatened by someone
n (%)
Rumours n (%)
Messages and pictures to embarrass
n (%)
Excluded from online game chat
n (%) Female Grade 8 12 (5.97) 11 (5.47) 11 (5.47) 11 (5.47) 16 (7.96)
Grade 9 14 (6.96) 7 (3.48) 16 (7.96) 11 (5.47) 18 (8.95)
Grade 10 9 (4.47) 10 (4.97) 10 (4.97) 8 (3.98) 14 (6.96)
Total 35 (17.41) 28 (13.93) 37 (18.41) 30 (14.93) 48 (23.88)
Male Grade 8 14 (5.57) 8 (3.19) 16 (6.37) 11 (4.42) 25 (9.96)
Grade 9 13 (5.17) 9 (3.59) 9 (3.59) 9 (3.59) 14 (5.58)
Grade 10 18 (7.22) 14 (5.57) 13 (9.96) 10 (4.02) 18 (7.23) Total 45 (18.07) 31 (12.35) 38 (15.14) 30 (12.05) 57 (22.89)
Table 5 presents the report of learners who perpetrated various forms of cyberbullying. It provides an insight into the total number of Grades 8-10, male (18.07) and female (17.41) learner perpetrators who cyberbullied their victims. The total number of perpetrators of cyberbullying among the male and female groups in Grade 8 was 16.05%, Grade 9 (20.93%) and in Grade 10 (16.98%). ‘Excluding classmates from online games and chats’
was the most common form of cyberbullying used by perpetrators among the grade 8-10 learners in both the males and females groups. There were no sex differences among perpetrators of cyberbullying. Further, perpetrators refused to provide additional information on how they cyberbullied their victims.
Table 6: Relationship between victims/non-victims and perpetrators/non-perpetrators of cyberbullying and socio-economic status and grade
Variables Victim
n% NonVictim
n% Perpetrator
n%
Non- perpetrator
n%
Fathers occupation
Professional 12 (19.0) 117 (31.3) 21 (26.3) 106 (30.4)
Semi-professional 17 (27.0) 147 (39.3) 26 (32.5) 135 (38.7)
Unskilled 3 (4.8) 15 (4.0) 3 (3.8) 14 (4.0)
Unemployed 2 (3.2) 8 (2.1) 2 (2.5) 8 (2.3)
Mother’s occupation
Professional 17 (27.0) 90 (24.1) 20 (25.0) 85 (24.4)
Semi-professional 10 (15.9) 101 (27.0) 16 (20.0) 94 (26.9)
Unskilled 5 (7.9) 23 (6.1) 5 (6.3) 21 (6.0)
Unemployed 31 (49.2) 157 (42.0) 39 (48.8) 146 (41.8)
Socio- economic Status
Wealthy 10 (15.9) 49 (13.1) 21 (14.9) 46 (13.2)
Upper Middle 9 (14.3) 90 (24.1) 36 (25.5) 82 (23.5)
Middle 17 (27.0) 132 (35.3) 46 (32.6) 127 (36.4)
Working 11 (17.5) 64 (17.1) 18 (12.8) 54 (15.5)
Welfare 9 (14.3) 18 (4.8) 10 (7.1) 18 (5.2)
Grade
8 22 (34.9) 135 (36.1) 26 (32.5) 129 (37.0)
9 20 (31.7) 104 (27.8) 27 (33.8) 96 (27.5)
10 21 (33.3) 135 (36.1) 27 (33.8) 124 (35.5)
Table 6 shows the occupation ranking of paternal and maternal caregivers of victims, non- victims, perpetrators and non-perpetrators. Also included are the ranking of their socio- economic status. Caregivers of perpetrators and victims were less professionally qualified than non-victims and non-perpetrators. Concerning the socio-economic status of the family, learners from wealthy and poorer families receiving social welfare were equally prone to becoming victims of cyberbullying. In terms of perpetrators of cyberbullying there are indications that a greater number of them are from families with a higher socio- economic status.
Table 7: Mode to transmit Cyberbullying to victims
Male Female
email n (%)
IM n (%)
chat n (%)
SN n (%)
email n (%)
IM n (%)
chat n (%)
SN n (%) Grade 8 5 (5.4) 6 (6.6) 4 (4.4) 2 (2.2) 1 (1.4) 9 (12.7) 4 (5.6) 1 (1.4) Grade 9 1(1.6) 5 (7.9) 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 2 (3.0) 4 (6.1) 5 (7.6) 1 (1.5) Grade 10 1 (1.1) 7 (7.4) 9 (9.5) 1 (1.1) 2 (3.1) 6 (9.4) 7 (10.9) 0 (0.0) Total 7 (2.8) 18 (0.4) 14 (5.6) 4 (1.6) 5 (2.5) 19 (9.5) 16 (8.0) 2 (1.0) IM = instant messaging SN = social network
Table 7 indicated that amongst the male group chatrooms were most frequently used to cyberbully and the least used method was instant messaging. Among the female learners the most frequently used method of cyberbullying was instant messaging and the least was social networking.
Table 8: Persons who inflicts cyberbullying
Friend n (%)
Fellow Student n (%)
Internet acquaintance
n (%)
Someone else n (%)
Female Grade 8 12 (16.9) 8 (11.3) 2 (2.8) 3 (4.2)
Grade 9 5 (7.6) 11 (16.7) 2(3.0) 6 (9.1)
Grade 10 11(17.2) 9 (14.1) 4(6.3) 4 (6.3)
Total 28 (13.9) 28 (13.9) 8 (4.0) 13(6.5)
Male Grade 8 10 (11.0) 7 (7.7) 4 (4.4) 5 (5.5)
Grade 9 8 (12.7) 5 (7.9) 3(4.8) 15 (23.8)
Grade 10 14(14.7) 11 (11.6) 4(4.2) 7(7.4)
Total 32 (12.9) 23 (9.2) 11(4.4) 27(10.8)
I.Acquaintance = internet acquaintance
According to Table 8 cyberbullying was generally inflicted by someone known to the victim i.e., a friend or fellow student. This was the case for both the male and female groups. Thirteen in the female group (6.5%) had been cyberbullied by a stranger, enemy, past friend, relative or the perpetrator was a random person. A high number of Grade 9 male learners (23.8%) reported being cyberbullied by an individual whom they described as ‘someone else’. ‘Internet acquaintance’ was the lowest reported for both male and females.
Table 9: Disclosure of cyberbullying by victims
Male Female
Friends n (%)
Parents n (%)
Teacher n (%)
None n (%)
Friends n (%)
Parents n (%)
Teacher n (%)
None n (%) Grade 8 13 (13.5) 7 (7.6) 1 (1.1) 6 (6.5) 16 (22.5) 12 (16.9) 2 (2.8) 8 (11.3) Grade 9 4 (6.3) 11 (17.5) 1 (1.6) 9 (14.3) 14 (21.2) 15 (22.7) 1 (1.5) 6 (9.1) Grade 10 9 (9.4) 12 (12.5) 1 (1.0) 13 (13.5) 15 (23.4) 13 (20.3) 3 (4.7) 5 (7.8) Total 27 (10.7) 30 (12.0) 3 (1.2) 28 (11.2) 45 (22.4) 40 (20.0) 6 (3.0) 19 (9.5)
The learners (both the males and female) preferred to disclose that they were victims of cyberbullying to their friends. Parents were the next preferred choice. Teachers and school personnel were the least chosen group to whom learners disclosed that they were cyberbullied. A substantial number of learners (37.01%) did not disclose to anybody that they were cyberbullied. The tendency not to disclose was higher amongst males (11.20%) than females (9.50%). See Table 9.
Table 10: Support for victims of cyberbullying
Not at all n (%)
Somewhat no n (%)
Somewhat yes n (%)
Very Much Yes n (%)
Female Grade 8 13 (18.3) 6 (8.5) 8 (11.3) 21 (29.6)
Grade 9 14 (21.2) 0 (0.0) 10 (15.2) 18 (27.3)
Grade 10 27(42.2) 1 (1.6) 5 (7.8) 13 (20.3)
Total 54 (26.9) 7 (3.5) 23 (11.4) 52 (25.9)
Male Grade 8 14 (15.4) 3 (3.3) 8 (8.8) 8 (8.8)
Grade 9 13 (20.6) 0 (0.0) 6 (9.5) 10 (15.9)
Grade 10 20 (21.1) 3 (3.2) 8 (8.4) 16 (16.8)
Total 47 (18.9) 6 (2.4) 22 (8.8) 34 (13.7)
Table 10 shows that more females endorsed support (37.3%) when they were cyberbullied compared to those who did not (30.4%) whereas among the male group 22.5% received support and 21.3% did not receive support.
Table 11: Help received for victims of cyberbullying
Not at all n (%)
Somewhat no n (%)
Somewhat yes n (%)
Very Much Yes n (%)
Female Grade 8 12 (16.9) 3 (4.2) 16 (22.5) 17 (23.9)
Grade 9 8 (12.1) 2 (3.0) 13(19.7) 17 (25.8)
Grade 10 14(21.9) 4 (6.3) 11(17.2) 20 (31.3)
Total 34 (16.9) 9 (4.8) 40 (19.9) 54 (26.9)
Male Grade 8 14 (5.97) 3 (5.47) 8 (5.47) 8 (5.47)
Grade 9 13 (6.96) 0 (3.48) 6 (7.96) 10 (5.47)
Grade 10 20 (4.47) 3 (4.97) 8 (4.97) 16 (3.98)
Total 47 (18.9) 6 (2.4) 22 (8.8) 34 (13.7)
Table 11 shows that among the female group, 46.8% indicated that they received help when they were cyberbullied and 43% did not receive any help whereas among the male group 22.5% indicated that they received help and 21.3% did not. The results in Table 4 and Table 10 suggested that in spite of the high report of cyberbullying among the learners many participants do not receive or seek support and/or help.
Table 12: Life Satisfaction between victims and perpetrators of bullying and cyberbullying
Items for Life Satisfaction Bully Victim Bully Perpetrator
Cyberbully Victim
Cyberbully Perpetrator
χ2 Sig. χ2 Sig. χ2 Sig. χ2 Sig.
1. In most cases my life is close to
ideal 1.870 .392 2.404 .301 1.433 .488 .590 .745
2. The conditions of my life are
excellent 1.393 .498 1.949 .377 .337 .845 .703 .704
3. I am satisfied with my life 2.559 .278 3.693 .158 4.328 .115 1.877 .391 4. So far, I got the important
things I want in life 11.269 .004* .731 .694 2.798 .247 1.521 .467 5. If I could live my life over I
would change almost nothing 2.883 .237 6.213 .045* 1.930 .381 1.010 .604
Total score 10 .095 10 .363 10 .138 10 .297
* p<0.05 df=2
In Table 12 the Pearson’s Chi-Squared Test was used to compare the categorical data of victims and perpetrators of direct bullying and the victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying on the Diener’s Life Satisfaction scale. The results showed that there was no overall significant difference in the responses of victims or perpetrators in both the bullying and cyberbullying groups. However there was significance on Item 4 “So far I got the important things in life” (χ2= 11.269, .004: p< 0.05) for victims of bullying. This indicated that although they were victims of bullying they felt that they had “got the important things in life”. There was also a significant difference on Item 5, “If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing” (χ2= 6.213, 0.45: p< 0.05) for perpetrators of bullying, indicating that perpetrators did not see the need to change anything in their lives.
Table 13: Relationship between victims and non-victims of cyberbullying on Life Satisfaction
Items for life satisfaction Victims
Mean SD
Non-Victims
Mean SD F** Sig P value 1. In most cases my life is close to ideal 2.32 .668 2.42 .652 0.033 .855 2.The conditions of my life are excellent 2.46 .643 2.51 .613 0.395 .530
3. I am satisfied with my life 2.47 .695 2.63 .582 8.019 .005*
4. So far, I got the important thing I want in life 2.50 .647 2.63 .580 4.018 .046 1. If I could live my life over I would change almost
nothing 2.24 .734 2.11 .781 0.122 .727
Total 11.92 2.216 12.29 2.044 0.028 .868
* p<0.05 ** Levene’s Test
T-tests were used to compare life satisfaction between victims and non-victims of cyberbullying and Levene’s Test was used to establish the significance. Table 13 presents the results of the Life Satisfaction Scale for each group, those who were cyberbullied (victims) and those who were not cyberbullied (non-victims). The mean for Item 1, “In most cases my life is close to ideal”; Item 2, “The conditions of my life are excellent.”;
Item 4, “So far, I got the important thing I want in life” and Item 5, “ If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing”, were similar. However on Item 3, “I am satisfied with my life” the mean score for victims was 2.47 (SD .695) and for non-victims
the mean score was 2.63 (SD .582) these means were significantly different between the groups (F=8.019: sig .005: p< 0.05), indicating that non-victims endorsed that they were satisfied with life.
Table 14: Responses of victims & non-victims, perpetrators & non-perpetrators of cyberbullying on the Life Satisfaction Scale
Victims Non- Victims
Total Perpetrators Non- Perpetrators
Total Life Satisfaction Range
score n % n % n % n % n % n %
Dissatisfied (5-8) 6 9.84 14 3.90 20 4.78 4 5.13 17 5.08 21 5.10 Neutral (9-11) 16 26.23 103 28.69 119 28.33 20 25.64 98 29.34 118 28.64 Satisfied (12-15) 39 63.93 242 67.40 281 66.90 54 69.23 219 65.57 273 66.26
Total 61 14.52 359 85.48 420 100 78 18.93 334 81.06 412 100
Table 14 indicated the total scores of victims and non-victims and perpetrators and non- perpetrators of cyberbullying for the Life Satisfaction Scale (LSS). The scores on LSS is classified into three levels: ‘satisfied’ (12-15), ‘neutral’ (9-11) and ‘dissatisfied’ (5-8). Of the total number of participants 66.58% were ‘satisfied’, 28.49% were ‘neutral’ and
4.94% were ‘dissatisfied’.
A comparison of those who were victims of cyberbullying on the Life Satisfaction Scale showed that victims of cyberbullying (14.52%) scored lower than those who were not (85.48%). Of those who were victims of cyberbullying, 9.84% were dissatisfied and among those who were not cyberbullied 3.90% were dissatisfied. A comparison of perpetrators of cyberbullying and those who were not, was a 3.66% margin of difference in favour of those who were satisfied. A comparison of victims and perpetrators indicated that the victims of cyberbullying were the most dissatisfied group (9.83%) and they also had the lowest ‘satisfied’ group score. Perpetrators of cyberbullying had the highest group score for ‘satisfied’ (69.23%) and the lowest group score for ‘dissatisfied’ (3.13%).
An analysis of the data also indicated that the total scores for the male and female groups from Grade 8-10 were similar on the LSS. The responses and the total scores for the LSS were also similar in all four schools and there was no statistical difference in responses of participants from urban, semi-rural and rural schools.
4.3.2. Cyberbullying and Well-being