Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Adolescents’ Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Cyberbullying: an Exploratory Study Using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and Self-Report Measures

  • Anita Munnelly
  • Lynn Farrell
  • Martin O’Connor
  • Louise McHugh
Original Article

Abstract

The current study reports the findings of an experiment in which adolescents’ explicit and implicit attitudes toward cyberbullying were explored. Participants first completed an explicit measure of their attitudes toward cyberbullying, followed by an implicit measure in the form of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Results revealed that participants displayed a combination of anti- and pro-cyberbullying attitudes. There was no statistically significant correlation between participants’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward cyberbullying. The current findings may have important implications for our understanding of adolescents’ attitudes toward cyberbullying and the development of relevant educational programs.

Keywords

Cyberbullying Adolescents Implicit attitudes IRAP 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by an Irish Research Council grant awarded to Anita Munnelly.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Stewart, I., & Boles, S. (2010). A sketch of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the relational elaboration and coherence (REC) model. The Psychological Record, 60, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2010). The implicit relational assessment procedure: Exploring the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 57–79.Google Scholar
  3. Bast, D. F., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). Developing an individualized implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a potential measure of self-forgiveness related to negative and positive behavior. The Psychological Record, 65, 717–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Scheitauer, H., Smith, P. K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V., & Del Rey, R. (2012a). European cyberbullying intervention project questionnaire (ECIPQ). Unpublished manuscript, Bologna: University of Bologna.Google Scholar
  5. Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Scheitauer, H., Smith, P. K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V., & Del Rey, R. (2012b). European bullying intervention project questionnaire (EBIPQ). Unpublished manuscript, Bologna: University of Bologna.Google Scholar
  6. Cullen, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the malleability of ageist attitudes. The Psychological Record, 59, 591–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drake, C. E., Kramer, S., Habib, R., Schuler, K., Blankenship, L., & Locke, J. (2015). Honest politics: Evaluating candidate perceptions for the 2012 U.S. election with the implicit relational assessment procedure. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrell, L., Cochrane, A., & McHugh, L. (2015). Exploring attitudes towards gender and science: The advantages of an IRAP approach versus the IAT. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4, 121–128.Google Scholar
  9. Farrell, L., & McHugh, L. (2017). Examining gender-STEM bias among STEM and non-STEM students using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6, 80–90.Google Scholar
  10. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.Google Scholar
  12. Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20, 143–156.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Academic Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  14. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89–112.Google Scholar
  15. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008a). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 1–29.Google Scholar
  16. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008b). Personal information of adolescents on the internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 125–146.Google Scholar
  17. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 206–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Retrieved from https://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identification-Prevention-Response.pdf.
  19. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). A functional approach to the study of implicit cognition: The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the relational elaboration and coherence (REC) model. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory (pp. 97–125). Windermere: Context Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hussey, I., Mhaoileoin, D. N., Barnes-Holmes, D., Ohtsuki, T., Kishita, N., Hughes, S., & Murphy, C. (2016). The IRAP is nonrelative but not acontextual: Changes to the contrast category influence men’s dehumanization of women. The Psychological Record, 66, 291–299.Google Scholar
  22. Hussey, I., Thompson, M., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2015). Interpreting and inverting with less cursing: A guide to interpreting IRAP data. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4, 157–162.Google Scholar
  23. Kirwan, G., & Power, A. (2013). Cybercrime: The psychology of online offenders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kowalski, R., Limber, S., Scheck, A., Redfearn, M., Allen, J., & Calloway, A. M. (2005). Electronic bullying among school-aged children and youth. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22–S30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13–S20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, Q. (2007a). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 435–454.Google Scholar
  28. Li, Q. (2007b). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers and Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791.Google Scholar
  29. McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Adekuoroye, F. (2016). The effects of a voice hearing simulation on implicit fear of voices. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKenna, I., Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., De Schryver, M., Yoder, R., & O’Shea, D. (2016). Obesity, food restriction, and implicit attitudes to healthy and unhealthy foods: Lessons learned from the implicit relational assessment procedure. Appetite, 100, 41–54.Google Scholar
  31. Nicholson, E., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2012). Developing an implicit measure of disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity: examining the role of implicit disgust propensity and sensitivity in obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, 922–930.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Sloan (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-sectional perspective (pp. 7–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Parling, T., Cernvall, M., Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Ghaderi, A. (2012). Using the implicit relational assessment procedure to compare implicit pro-thin/anti-fat attitudes of patients with anorexia nervosa and non-clinical controls. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 20, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80, 616–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perugini, M., & Prestwich, A. (2007). The gatekeeper: Individual differences are key in the chain from perception to behavior. European Journal of Personality, 21, 303–317.Google Scholar
  36. Remue, J., De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., Vanderhasselt, M. A., & De Raedt, R. (2013). Self-esteem revisited: Performance on the implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self- versus ideal self-related cognitions in dysphoria. Cognition and Emotion, 27, 1441–1449.Google Scholar
  37. Roddy, S., Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Anti-fat, pro-slim, or both? Using two reaction-time based measures to assess implicit attitudes to the slim and overweight. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 416–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Scanlon, G., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2014). Using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to assess implicit gender bias and self-esteem in typically-developing children and children with ADHD and with dyslexia. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.Google Scholar
  40. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisen, A. (2012). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, P. K., Madhavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact on secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.Google Scholar
  42. Timko, C. A., England, E. L., Herbert, J. D., & Forman, E. M. (2010). The implicit relational assessment procedure as a measure of self-esteem. The Psychological Record, 60, 679–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Timmins, L., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Cullen, C. (2016). Measuring implicit sexual response biases to nude male and female pictures in androphilic and gynephilic men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 829–841.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Vahey, N., Boles, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Measuring adolescents’ smoking-related social identity preferences with the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) for the first time: A starting point that explains later IRAP evolutions. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 453–474.Google Scholar
  45. Vahey, N. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). A first test of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of self-esteem: Irish prisoner groups and university students. The Psychological Record, 59, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Goethem, A. A., Scholte, R. H., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Explicit- and implicit bullying attitudes in relation to bullying behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 829–842.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 499–503.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, K., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14–S21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, J. K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.Google Scholar
  51. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of internet harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 189–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita Munnelly
    • 1
  • Lynn Farrell
    • 1
  • Martin O’Connor
    • 1
  • Louise McHugh
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations