authoritarian parenting, power distance, and bullying propensity
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 26 September 2013, At: 23:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of School & EducationalPsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usep20
Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and BullyingPropensityStelios N. Georgiou a , Panayiotis Stavrinides a & Kyriaki Fousiani aa Department of Psychology , University of Cyprus , Nicosia , Cyprus
To cite this article: Stelios N. Georgiou , Panayiotis Stavrinides & Kyriaki Fousiani (2013) Authoritarian Parenting,Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1:3, 199-206, DOI:10.1080/21683603.2013.806234
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.806234
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and BullyingPropensity
Stelios N. Georgiou, Panayiotis Stavrinides, and Kyriaki FousianiDepartment of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
This study aimed at examining the existing relation among parenting, cultural value
orientation, and bullying propensity at school. The participants (N ¼ 231) were early
adolescents randomly selected from 11 different schools in urban and rural areas of Cyprus.
The results showed that a statistically significant relation exists between parental
authoritarianism and child bullying propensity. In contrast, no such relation was found
between bullying and the authoritative parenting style. An argument that has been proposed
by prior research is that bullying incidents in collectivistic types of cultures can be attributed
to the authoritarian parenting style that is widely used and valued in such cultures. However,
authoritarian parenting was found to be positively correlated with the vertical dimension of
both collectivistic and individualistic value orientation. Further, the results of this study show
that children with vertical cultural value orientation are more likely to engage in bullying only
when they come from families that use authoritarian parental styles. These findings are
discussed in terms of the significance of power distance in the prediction of bullying behavior.
Keywords: Authoritarian parenting, bullying, collectivism, cultural values, individualism
Bullying at school is the systematic and intentional injury or
discomfort inflicted on the victim by one or more other
students and has become a worldwide concern since its
introduction by Olweus (1993). Several studies have shown
that children involved in bullying suffer from short and long-
term consequences such as internalizing and externalizing
difficulties (Headley, 2004; Roland, 2002; Seals & Young,
2003). Therefore, identifying the parameters of this disturbing
phenomenon has become a priority for both researchers and
practitioners. An aggressive act can be called bullying when it
involves real or perceived imbalance of power (Rigby, 2002),
with themore powerful individual or group abusing thosewho
are less powerful (Farrington, 1993).Bullying can be physical,
verbal, psychological, or social (Clarke &Kiselica, 1997) and
results in repeated victimization.
Certain parenting practices have been associated with
bullying. Parental style (Baumrind, 1991) is a construct that
has two major dimensions: demandingness (i.e., monitoring
and controlling behavior and setting limits and expectations
for the child) and responsiveness (i.e., responding to child’s
needs, being supportive and available, and maintaining a
warm relationship and communication). High scores on
both dimensions characterize the authoritative style and low
scores on both characterize the neglectful style. The other
two combinations (high responsiveness–low demanding-
ness and high demandingness–low responsiveness) charac-
terize the permissive and authoritarian styles respectively.
A number of studies that have examined the relation
between parenting style and child aggressive behavior
reported that the authoritarian style best predicts bullying
behavior (Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Kaufmann et al.,
2000). Furthermore, children who bully their peers are more
likely to come from families where parents use authoritarian
and punitive child-rearing practices (Espelage, Bosworth, &
Simon, 2000; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001; P. K. Smith &
Myron-Wilson, 1998). In contrast, children experiencing
authoritative parental practices are less likely to engage in
bullying behavior (Rican, Klicperova, & Koucka, 1993;
Rigby, 1993).
Submitted November 13, 2012; accepted May 14, 2013.
Correspondence should be addressed to Stelios N. Georgiou,
Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, CY
1678, Nicosia, Cyprus. E-mail: [email protected]
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1, 199–206, 2013
Copyright q International School Psychology Association
ISSN 2168-3603 print/ISSN 2168-3611 online
DOI: 10.1080/21683603.2013.806234
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
PARENTING AND CULTURAL VALUEORIENTATION
Parents endorse culturally prescribed values and adjust their
parenting strategies to promote socially desirable behavior
in their children (X. Chen & French, 2008; Super &
Harkness, 2002). Consequently, the cultural values that
exist in a family may act as either a risk or a protective
factor for children’s involvement in anti-social activities
such as bullying (Triandis, 2000).
Collectivism and individualism are the most commonly
researched cultural value orientations (Hofstede, 2001;
Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995). Collectivists
identify with their ingroups such as families and peers and
they perceive their identities as resulting from group
membership. Conversely, individualists are more indepen-
dent from the ingroups; they give priority to their personal
goals and are characterized by an increased level of
competitiveness (Triandis, 2001).
In addition to the macrolevel of analysis, individualism
and collectivism have been examined at a microlevel of
analysis as well (i.e., within-culture analysis). Depending on
the access they have to either individualistic or collectivistic
structures, people can be either idiocentric (self-centered) or
allocentric (other-centered; P. B. Smith & Bond, 1999;
Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985). Idiocentrism and
allocentrism correspond at the personality level to individu-
alism and collectivism; therefore, idiocentrics are more
independent from their ingroups, emphasizing competition,
uniqueness, and self-reliance, whereas allocentrics are
characterized by interdependence and sociability and give
emphasis on their relationships with members of the ingroup
(X. Chen, Wasti, & Triandis, 2007). In all cultures there are
both idiocentrics and allocentrics. In collectivistic cultures,
however, people have more access to collectivistic cognitive
structures and are, therefore, more allocentric; whereas in
individualistic cultures, people have more availability of
individualistic structures and are, thus, more idiocentric
(Triandis et al., 2001).
Another important dimension of cultural value orien-
tation is power distance, which refers to the way in which
power is distributed among individuals. Low perceived
power distance involves a horizontal way of self-construal,
which considers the self as equal to others. High power
distance, on the other hand, involves a vertical way of self-
construal that differentiates the self according to certain
characteristics, such as social status, age, or gender (C. C.
Chen, Meindl, & Hunt, 1997; Han & Shin, 2000; Singelis
et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Although the
horizontal dimension idealizes values such as equality, trust,
cooperation and reciprocity, the vertical dimension favors
authority ranking, asymmetry among people, obedience and
ingroup fidelity (Fiske, 1992).
Four cultural value orientations can emerge by the
combination of the aforementioned cultural dimensions.
Vertical collectivism fosters ingroup cohesion, submission
to the directives of authority and subordination to ingroup
norms. Horizontal collectivism involves viewing oneself as
similar to others and emphasizing cooperation and
interdependence. Vertical individualism involves wanting
to become distinguished and acquire status through direct
competition with others, and it embraces self-assertion to
achieve one’s personal aims, often at the expense of valuing
the existence of others. Horizontal individualism empha-
sizes uniqueness and distinction from groups and perception
of the others as equal.
Research shows that parents with individualistic cultural
values emphasize their child’s ability to build a “sense of
self” that enables them to be in control of their lives.
In collectivistic cultures, however, where interdependence
between parents and children is fostered, emphasis is placed
on obedience, reliability, proper behavior and social
obligation of children (Wang & Leichtman, 2000). Thus,
collectivistic societies endorse and promote authoritarian
parenting strategies, whereas individualistic societies favor
authoritative parenting (Grusec, Rudy, & Martini, 1997;
Keshavarz & Baharudin, 2009). It is interesting to note that
authoritarian parenting and strong parental control is
considered to be normal in collectivistic cultures, and it is
seen as an indication of care and concern by parents (Chao,
1994, 2001; Kagitc�ibasi, 1996), whereas the same parental
style is doomed as inappropriate and potentially harmful in
individualistic cultures.
CULTURAL VALUES AND BULLYING BEHAVIOR
Cultural values regulate the degree of appropriateness and
social acceptance of interpersonal behavior (Bond, 2004).
There is some vagueness in the literature regarding the
connection between cultural value orientation and peer
aggression. Some studies suggest that aggressive acts, such
as bullying, are more common in individualistic cultures,
rather than in collectivistic cultures (Bergeron & Schneider,
2005; Le & Stockdale, 2005). In line with this, adolescents
in predominantly collectivistic cultures were found to be
less aggressive toward their peer than their Western
counterparts (e.g., Crystal et al., 1994; Farver, Wang &
Leichtman, 2000). In contrast, some other studies contradict
these findings claiming that bullying is more prevalent
among collectivistic, rather than individualistically oriented
cultures. Nesdale and Naito (2005) compared a group of
students from Japan (a typical collectivistic country) and a
group from individualistic Australia, and found that
bullying propensity was higher among collectivists than
individualists. On the same line, Hussein (2009) reported
that students from Egypt and Saudi Arabia indicated a
higher level of bullying behavior than American students.
These findings are explained by means of the stronger need
of collectivists to belong and be accepted by the
200 GEORGIOU, STAVRINIDES, FOUSIANI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
ingroup. Therefore, members of the ingroup behave in a
way that fosters the conformity to group norms, and the bias
in favor of the ingroup versus the outgroup. In other words,
collectivists’ fear of being excluded from the ingroup makes
them conform to the ingroup’s rules even if these rules are
not socially acceptable and promote antisocial behaviors
toward the outgroups (Triandis, 2001).
THIS STUDY
The purpose of this study was to examine the existing
relation among parenting, cultural value orientation, and
bullying propensity at school. The main assumption was
that particular parenting styles lead to particular child
cultural values and this in turn leads to child bullying or
victimization behavior. The cultural values were measured
at an individual, rather than a broader societal, level;
therefore, the line of hypothesized effects was from
parenting to values and then to behavior (as in Schiefer,
Mollering, Daniel, Benish-Weisman, & Boehnke, 2010),
rather than from cultural values to parenting to child
behavior, as many prior studies have operated (Bornstein &
Cheah, 2006; Harwood, Scholmerich, Ventura-Cook,
Schulze, & Wilson, 1996; Rosenthal & Bornholt, 1988).
Based on the literature outlined earlier, the following
research hypotheses were put forward. Although there is
sufficient evidence supporting the existence of relations
among the variables under examination, these hypotheses
were stated in null form to be tested statistically:
H1: There will be no significant correlation between
authoritarian parenting and bullying propensity.
H2: There will be no significant correlation between
the individualistic value orientation and bullying
propensity.
H3: There will be no significant relation among
authoritarian parenting, cultural value orientation,
and bullying propensity.
METHOD
Participants
The participants of this study were 231 early adolescents
with a mean age of 13.01 years (SD ¼ 1.14). All of them
were students, attending the first to third grade of high
school during the 2010 through 2011 academic year. Boys
and girls were about equally represented in the sample,
which consisted of 108 boys (46.8%) and 123 girls (53.2%).
The participants were randomly selected from eleven
different schools in urban and rural areas of Cyprus. It is
important to note that contemporary Cyprus is developing
into a western type of society, being a member of the
European Union and of the Euro zone, but some elements of
its collectivist past remain, especially in rural areas
(Charalambous, 2006). These elements include relying on
a closely knit network of relatives (called the ingroups) for
support when in need and bias against members of the
outgroup, who are generally treated with suspicion and
antagonism (Georgiou, 2005). As Papadopoulos, Leavey,
and Vincent (2002) reported, modern Greek Cypriots “retain
their collectivist culture and, as a result, tend to seek help
only from close friends and family members” (p. 431).
Instruments
The participating children completed three instruments:
the Revised Bullying and Victimization Questionnaire
(BVQ–R), the Cultural Value Scale (CVS), and the Parental
Authority Questionnaire (PAQ). The BVQ–R (Olweus,
1996) consists of 20 statements that measure children’s
bullying and victimization experiences (10 items for each
subscale). Answers are given on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (absolutely true). In earlier
studies conducted in the same cultural context (Georgiou,
2008; Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008; Stavrinides, Georgiou,
& Theofanous, 2010), the instrument yielded two factors
representing the constructs of bullying and victimization,
and had sufficient psychometric properties (Cronbach
alphas between .70 and .80). Further, Kyriakides, Kaloyirou,
and Lindsay (2006) examined the BVQ–R using a sample
of 12-year-old Greek Cypriot students, and concluded that
their study “has provided support for the validity and
reliability of the [scale] using Rasch modelling” (p. 797).
The instrument measures direct forms of bullying such as
physical and verbal aggression, and indirect forms such as
relational bullying and social exclusion (Woods & Wolke,
2004). Items of the bullying subscale, which was the only
subscale used for this study, include statements such as,
“Other children complain that I hit them,” “I want other
children to do as I say,” and “Other children are afraid of
me.” The victimization subscale did not produce reliable
indexes in this dataset; therefore, it was excluded from
further analysis. In a recent study in Cyprus, the bullying
subscale of the BVQ–R yielded an alpha level of .75
(Stavrinides, Georgiou, Nikiforou, & Kiteri, 2011).
The CVS (Singelis et al., 1995) is a 32-item measure that
yields four subscales: (a) The horizontal individualism
subscale represents self-reliance, self-direction, autonomy,
or individual uniqueness (such as “One should live one’s life
independently of others”), (b) the horizontal collectivism
subscale emphasizes collective goals and cooperation (such
as “The wellbeing of others is important to me”), (c) the
vertical individualism subscale represents striving for power
and competition (such as “Competition is the law of
nature”), and (d) the vertical collectivism subscale
represents the sacrifice of individual goals for collective
solidarity and conformity to the group decision (such as
BULLYING PROPENSITY 201
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
“I usually sacrifice my interest for the benefit of my group”).
The scale includes four sets of eight items to represent each
cultural value orientation. The items are arranged in a
random order. Participants are asked to indicate the strength
of their agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total
score for the items of each subscale provides a score of
horizontal and vertical individualism, as well as horizontal
and vertical collectivism. The reported psychometric
properties of the CVS on an adolescent sample are
satisfactory (Le & Stockdale, 2005).
Finally, the self-report PAQ (Buri, 1991) is designed to
measure how children perceive their parents’ rearing
practices that constitute parenting style. Based on
Baumrind’s (1991) taxonomy, the instrument yields three
distinct factors representing authoritarian, authoritative, and
permissive style. The instrument consists of 30 statements
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), which measure authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive parental styles (10 items for
each scale). For the purpose of this study, only the
authoritarian and authoritative subscales were used. An
example item of the authoritarian subscale is the following:
“As I was growing up, my parents did not allow me to
question any decision they had made.” Accordingly, an
example of the authoritative subscale is the following: “As I
was growing up, I knew what my parents expected of me in
my family, but I also felt free to discuss those expectations
with them when I felt that they were unreasonable.” Earlier
studies have shown satisfactory psychometric properties of
the PAQ subscales, with Cronbach alphas ranging from .74
to .87 (e.g., Knight et al., 2000).
Procedures
The sampling procedure for this study was as follows:
Eleven public high schools were randomly selected (out of a
total of about 200). The only criterion used for the selection
was the school’s location (urban vs. rural). This criterion is
very important for this study because in Cyprus rural
residents and their families are more traditionally oriented
and hold more collectivistic values than their urban
counterparts (Georgiou, 2005). Because the demographic
representation of Cyprus is about 70% urban and 30% rural,
eight of the selected schools were located in urban areas and
three schools were located in small, rural communities.
In each selected school, all the students in Grades 1 through
3 were eligible for participating in the study. Using the
classroom rosters and a table of random numbers, a sample
of 267 students (about 20% of each school’s population)
was drawn. Student anonymity was protected by using only
the number of each student in the roster. Twenty-six
students turned in incomplete questionnaires; therefore,
they were excluded from the final sample, which consists of
231 students. Selected students who were absent from
school at the time of data collection (a total of 10 students)
were replaced through the same procedure.
A formal written consent was obtained by parents of the
participating adolescents. Also, each participating school
provided one teaching period for data collection. The
randomly selected students completed the three instruments
anonymously within the allocated teaching period. Further,
the order of appearance of the instruments was randomized
in an effort to avoid possible bias related to the order in
which each instrument would appear.
RESULTS
Using the raw data, we computed a composite variable for
each construct, which represents the total score for each case
on the items that compose each factor. Table 1 shows the
means and standard deviations for each construct. On the
CVS, the two horizontal dimensions (i.e., horizontal
individualism and horizontal collectivism) show higher
means than the two corresponding vertical dimensions.
Also, in line with earlier studies conducted in Cyprus
(Georgiou, 2008; Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008; Stavri-
nides et al., 2010), the mean scores for the bullying subscale
are close to 15.00.
Bivariate correlations between all scores were computed
to identify associations among cultural value orientation,
parenting style, and children’s bullying behavior (see
Table 1). It was found that the authoritarian parenting style
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients Among Cultural Value Orientation, Bullying, and Parenting Style
Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Horizontal Collectivism 32.24 4.72 .72 — .45* .11 2 .09 2 .21* .33* .05
2. Vertical Collectivism 24.24 6.08 .65 — .05 .18* 2 .05 .22* .31*
3. Horizontal Individualism 28.16 5.68 .69 — 35* .27* .11 .13
4. Vertical Individualism 20.20 5.76 .74 — .34* 2 .05 .31*
5. Bullying 15.00 7.00 .83 — 2 .08 .23*
6. Authoritative parenting 37.72 8.30 .76 — 2 .03
7. Authoritarian parenting 23.60 9.20 .79 —
*p , .01.
202 GEORGIOU, STAVRINIDES, FOUSIANI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
was positively correlated with bullying (r ¼ .30, p , .01),
whereas the authoritative parenting style was not. Similarly,
both dimensions of the individualistic value orientation
were positively correlated to bullying (r ¼ .27 and r ¼ .34,
respectively; ps , .01). In contrast, collectivistic value
orientation, at least the horizontal dimension, was
negatively related to bullying (r ¼ 2.21, p , .01).
The authoritarian parenting style was positively related to
the vertical dimension of both value orientations (r ¼ .31,
p , .01).
All the variables appearing in Table 1 are continuous.
To go beyond the examination of pairs of variables and to
examine the relation and the possible interaction of all three
variables (i.e., parenting, value orientation, and bullying),
we utilized a moderation analysis procedure. To this end, we
computed a dichotomous variable in which parenting style
was classified either as authoritarian or authoritative.
The rationale for using only these two parental styles is
that there is theory and sufficient prior empirical evidence
(Baldry&Farrington, 2000; Espelage et al., 2000;Kaufmann
et al., 2000; Shields&Cicchetti, 2001; P. K. Smith&Myron-
Wilson, 1998) on which to base the relevant hypotheses of
this study, whereas this is not true for the other two styles
(permissive and neglectful). To achieve this classification,
we estimated which children had a score above the mean on
the authoritarian scale and below the mean on the
authoritative. These children (N ¼ 98) were classified as
having authoritarian parents. Similarly, children who scored
above themean on the authoritative scale and below themean
on the authoritarian scale (N ¼ 120) were classified as
having authoritative parents. The use of a more strict cutoff
point than the mean (e.g., 1 SD above or below the mean)
would result in a very small number of cases in each group
and further analysis would not be possible.
The classification of the participants into the authoritar-
ian–authoritative dichotomy was performed to investigate
the interaction between parenting style and cultural value
orientation. Our main goal was to examine whether cultural
value orientation is moderated by parenting. The main
assumption behind this was that the effects of what is
already established in the literature as either adaptive or
maladaptive parental style (i.e., authoritative and author-
itarian style) could change the predictive nature of either of
the four cultural value orientations.
Moderation analysis was conducted through hierarchical
regression. In this study, parental style was treated as a
moderating variable, which, by definition, needs to be
categorical; therefore, in the regression analysis, we used
the authoritarian–authoritative dichotomy. Accordingly,
the four cultural value orientations were centered based on
established statistical computations of interaction variables
(Aiken & West, 1991). The moderation effects are
essentially the regression coefficients of the combined
dichotomous parental style variable with the centered
variables of the four cultural value orientations.
Following this, a hierarchical regression was computed
in which children’s gender and age were entered at the first
block, the dichotomous parenting style and the cultural
value orientations at the second block, and the four
interactions between parenting style and cultural value
orientations at the third block. In all the steps, the dependent
measure was bullying activity.
The results show that the variables entered at the first
block explained 5% of the variance of bullying ( p , .01),
with girls reporting less bullying experiences than boys
(b ¼ 2 .23, p , .01), and there were no significant effects
of age (b ¼ .08, p ¼ .19). Step 2 of the regression analysis
explained an additional 16% of the variance. Vertical and
horizontal individualism positively predicted bullying
(b ¼ .17, p ¼ .05 and b ¼ .24, p ¼ .01, respectively),
whereas horizontal collectivism negatively predicted bully-
ing (b ¼ 2 .19, p , .01). Vertical collectivism had no
significant effect on the dependent variable (b ¼ .06,
p ¼ .41).
Finally in the third step, none of the cultural value
orientations had any unique effect on bullying.However, two
significant interactions emerged: Parenting Style £ Vertical
Individualism negatively predicted bullying (b ¼ 2 .43, p,.01), and Parenting Style £ Vertical Collectivism also
negatively predicted bullying (b ¼ 2 .47, p, .01). This step
explained an additional 5% of the variance of bullying. Split-
file analysis for authoritarian and authoritative parents
separately showed that both vertical orientations (i.e.,
vertical individualism and vertical collectivism) positively
predicted bullying for authoritarian parents (b ¼ .25, p, .01
and b ¼ .20, p , .01, respectively), whereas the same
variables had no significant effect on the bullying behavior of
children with authoritative parents (see Table 2). This shows
that children with vertical cultural value orientation are more
likely to engage in bullying, but only when they come from
families with an authoritarian parenting style.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that a statistically significant
relation exists between parental authoritarianism and child
bullying propensity. This is in line with earlier research
(Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Kaufmann et al., 2000). In
contrast, no such relation was found between bullying and
the authoritative parenting style. Again, this verifies earlier
findings (Rican et al., 1993; Rigby, 1993). Thus, the null H1
can be rejected, based on these results. A possible
explanation of this may be that authoritarian parents use
harsh and punitive child rearing practices (Espelage et al.,
2000; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). Consequently, through
social learning, the children of authoritarian parents may
come to accept physical or psychological violence as an
appropriate method for dealing with interpersonal conflict.
The social learning theory suggests that children learn how
BULLYING PROPENSITY 203
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
to resolve disputes, how to manage their emotions and how
to interact with others by observing the daily behavior of
their family members. Children of authoritarian parents tend
to perceive their family as insensitive to their own pain and
therefore, they themselves show little empathy to less
powerful individuals (Rican, 1995; Stavrinides et al., 2010).
In other words, a victim in the family may turn into a bully
outside of it.
Contrary to some earlier reports (Hussein, 2009; Nesdale
& Naito, 2005), it was found that individualistic values are
positively correlated to bullying. This is in line with the
majority of existing prior research claiming that certain
individualistic values such as competitiveness and low
concern for the feelings of others may lead to aggressive
acts such as bullying (Bergeron & Schneider, 2005; Crystal
et al., 1994; Farver et al., 1997; Le & Stockdale, 2005).
Hence, the null H2 can be rejected based on these results.
Perhaps the most important contribution of this study to
the relevant literature is the examination of the exiting
interaction between parenting, cultural value orientation and
bullying. An argument that has been proposed by prior
research is that bullying incidents in collectivistic types of
cultures can be attributed to the authoritarian parenting style
that is widely used and valued in such cultures (Hussein,
2009). However, these data show that authoritarian
parenting is positively correlated with the vertical dimen-
sion of both collectivistic and individualistic value
orientation. It seems that the crucial distinction in this
discussion is not between individualism and collectivism,
but between vertical and horizontal dimensions of these
value orientations. Elements of vertical individualism such
as competitiveness (Triandis & Suh, 2002) and authoritar-
ianism (Kemmelmeier et al., 2003), as well as those of
vertical collectivism, such as authority ranking, obedience,
and ingroup fidelity (Fiske, 1992) may be the ones
prompting individuals to perpetrate peer aggression acts.
In other words, high power distance (i.e., vertical
orientation), which differentiates the self according to
social status, age, or gender (C. C. Chen et al., 1997;
Singelis et al., 1995), and not the close connection to the
ingroup, is what promotes bullying behavior. This finding is
in line with earlier studies (X. Chen et al., 2007; P. B. Smith
& Bond, 1999; Triandis et al., 1985).
In addition to correlational analysis, this study has
performed moderation analysis as well. This exercise
revealed that children who hold vertical values are more
likely to bully their peers only if their parents use
authoritarian practices at home. A possible explanation of
this may be that parents who are demanding and rigid but
not responsive or supportive (i.e., the authoritarian parents),
and who are also competitive and have low or no respect for
egalitarian values tend to transmit vertical cultural values to
their children. These children are raised in an environment
where power imbalance is likely to bring about aggressive
behavior toward other schoolmates. Another possible
explanation is that, as Ttofi and Farrington (2008)
suggested, authoritarian parents are more likely to use
disintegrative discipline strategies with their children.
Parents can use either reintegrative shaming (i.e., rejecting
the wrongdoing while approving the wrongdoer) or
disintegrative shaming (i.e., shaming offered in a stigmatiz-
ing or rejecting way). By doing the latter, authoritarian
parents promote vertical values in the family, and this sets in
motion a chain of events including shame displacement, less
bonding with parents, and a mental framework that values
perceived power imbalance, inequality, and competition as
useful interpersonal strategies. This type of socialization
may eventually lead to child aggression toward peers, one
aspect of which is increased bullying propensity. To
conclude, this study has found that high power distance as a
parental cultural value orientation is associated with child
bullying propensity at school. This association is moderated
by authoritarian parenting practices. Based on these
findings, null H3 is rejected.
A word of caution is due here. This study has examined
regression relations between variables and, therefore, no
causation can be implied between them. These correlational
results describe predictions that can be made with some
degree of confidence, rather than causal effects between
variables. Another limitation of this study is that it focused
on bullying and excluded victimization, for the reasons
explained in the instruments section. Similarly, it focused on
two parental styles (authoritarian and authoritative),
excluding the other two (permissive and neglectful).
Additional research is needed to explore these important
variables. Finally, in future research it is necessary to
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Bullying from Parenting
Style and Cultural Value Orientation
Dependent Measures
of Bullying
Variable b
Confidence
Interval
(95%)
Step 1
Gender 2 .23** 2 .45, .13
Agea .08 2 .02, .12
Step 2
Parenting style 2 .10 2 .30, .04
Vertical individualism .17* .10, .45
Vertical collectivism .06 .04, .60
Horizontal individualism .24** 2 .02, .55
Horizontal collectivismb 2 .19** 2 .45, .31
Step 3
Parenting Style £ Vertical individualism 2 .43** 2 .49, .01
Parenting Style £ Vertical Collectivism 2 .47** 2 .50, .02
Parenting Style £ Horizontal Individualism 2 .15 2 .34, .15
Parenting Style £ Horizontal Collectivismc 2 .13 2 .41, .23
aR 2 ¼ .05. bDR 2 ¼ .16. cDR 2 ¼ .05.
*p , .05. **p , .01.
204 GEORGIOU, STAVRINIDES, FOUSIANI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
examine the perspective of parents and not only that of
students.
Regardless of these limitations, this study contributes to
the relevant literature by adding the family’s cultural value
orientation variable as a possible parameter of bullying at
school and by examining this factor together with parental
style. The results of this study have shown that parenting
acts as a moderator between values and bullying behavior.
If the parent can be classified as authoritarian, rather than
authoritative, then the existence of vertical values can
predict bullying propensity on the part of the child or
adolescent. Hence, although no cause-and-effect relations
were established, the results suggest that children of
authoritarian parents who also hold vertical values of either
individualistic or collectivistic nature may be at risk of
developing bullying behavior toward others.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Stelios N. Georgiou, EdD, is a Professor of EducationalPsychology at the University of Cyprus. His research interestsinclude the examination of interpersonal factors affecting childdevelopment, home–school relations, parameters of aggressivebehavior and bullying at school, and various applications ofsystems theory in psychology and education. He has authored fourbooks and five book chapters. More than 40 of his articles arepublished in international professional journals.
Panayiotis Stavrinides, PhD, is a Lecturer of DevelopmentalPsychology at the University of Cyprus. His research interestsinclude child development, parenting, psycho-pathology, andtransactional models of developmental influence.
Kyriaki Fousiani, PhD, is a Post Doctoral fellow of the Departmentof Psychology at the University of Cyprus. Her research interestsare focused on social aspects of human development.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal
characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 10, 17–31.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In
J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of
adolescence (pp. 746–758). New York, NY: Garland.
Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B. (2005). Explaining cross-national
differences in peer directed aggression: A quantitative study. Aggressive
Behavior, 31, 116–137.
Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression—From context to coercion.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62–78.
Bornstein, M. H., & Cheah, C. S. L. (2006). The place of “culture and
parenting” in an ecological contextual perspective on developmental
science. In K. H. Rubin & O. B. Chung (Eds.), Parental beliefs,
parenting, and child development in cross-cultural perspective.
(pp. 3–33). London, England: Psychology Press.
Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57, 110–119.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting
style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion
training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting
style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child
Development, 72, 1832–1843.
Charalambous, N. (2006). Cyprus. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry, & F. J. R. van
de Vijver (Eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological
study (pp. 303–310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1997). Testing the effects
of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward
allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
28, 44–70.
Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in
cultural context. In S. T. Fiske, A. E. Kazdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.),
Annual reviewof psychology (Vol. 59, pp. 591–616).PaloAlto,CA:Annual
Reviews.
Chen, X., Wasti, S. A., & Triandis, H. C. (2007). When does group norm or
group predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating
effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 31, 259–276.
Clarke, E. A., & Kiselica, M. S. (1997). A systemic counselling approach to
the problem of bullying. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling,
31, 310–325.
Crystal, D. S., Chen, C., Fuligni, A. J., Stevenson, H. W., Hsu, C. C., Ko,
H. J., . . . Kimura, S. (1994). Psychological maladjustment and academic
achievement: A cross-cultural study of Japanese, Chinese, and American
high school students. Child Development, 65, 738–753.
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. (2000). Examining the social
environment of middle school students who bully. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 78, 326–333.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In
M. Tonny & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 17, pp. 381–458).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Farver, J., Welles-Nystrom, B., Frosch, D. L., Wimbarti, S., & Hoppe-Graf,
S. (1997). Toy stories: Aggression in children’s narratives in the U.S.,
Sweden, Germany, and Indonesia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
28, 393–420.
Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a
unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.
Georgiou, S. (2005). Growing and learning in the Greek Cypriot family
context. Advances in Psychology, 35, 121–141.
Georgiou, S. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of
mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109–125.
Georgiou, S., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims, and bully-victims:
Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles. School Psychology
International, 29, 574–589.
Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognitions and
child outcomes: An overview and implications for children’s
internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.),
Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of
contemporary theory (pp. 259–282). New York, NY: Wiley.
Han, G., & Shin, S. (2000). A cultural profile of Korean society. Korean
Social Science Journal, 27, 69–96.
Harwood, R. L., Scholmerich, A., Ventura-Cook, E., Schulze, P. A., &
Wilson, S. P. (1996). Culture and class influences on Anglo and Puerto
Rican mothers’ beliefs regarding long-term socialization goals and child
behavior. Child Development, 67, 2446–2461.
Headley, S. (2004).Bullying andviolence.Youth Studies inAustralia, 23(2), 60.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hussein, M. H. (2009). The peer interaction in primary school
questionnaire: Testing for measurement equivalence and latent mean
BULLYING PROPENSITY 205
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013
differences in bullying between gender in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the
USA. Social Psychology of Education, 13, 57–76.
Kagitc�ibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures:
A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R. C., Salsedo, O., Gobioff, G. R.,
& Gadd, R. (2000). The relationship between parenting style and
children’s adjustment: The parents’ perspective. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 9, 231–245.
Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C.,
Hirshberg, M. S., . . . Noels, K. A. (2003). Individualism, collectivism
and authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34, 304–322.
Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2009). Parenting style in collectivist
culture of Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 66.
Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., Capozzi, L., Eason, H. A., Bernando,
M. F., & Ferus, K. S. (2000). Relationship of connected and separate
knowing to parental style and birth order. Sex Roles, 43, 229–240.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the
revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measure-
ment model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.
Le, T. N., & Stockdale, G. (2005). Individualism, collectivism, and
delinquency in Asian American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 681–691.
Nesdale, D., & Naito, M. (2005). Individualism–collectivism and the
attitudes to school bullying of Japanese and Australian students. Journal
of Cross Cultural Psychology, 36, 537–556.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school.Prospects, 26, 331–359.
Papadopoulos, C., Leavey, G., & Vincent, C. (2002). Factors influencing
stigma: A comparison of Greek-Cypriot and English attitudes towards
mental illness in North London. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 37, 430–434.
Rican, P. (1995). Family values may be responsible for bullying. Studia
Psychologica, 37, 31–36.
Rican, P., Klicperova, M., & Koucka, T. (1993). Families of bullies and
their victims: A children’s view. Studia Psychologica, 35, 261–266.
Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s perceptions of their families and
parents as a function of peer relations. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
154, 501–513.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspective on bullying. London, England: Jessica
Kingsley.
Roland, E. (2002). Aggression, depression and bullying others. Aggressive
Behaviour, 28, 198–206.
Rosenthal, D., & Bornholt, L. (1988). Expectations about development in
Greek- and Anglo-Australian families. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 19, 19–34.
Schiefer, D., Mollering, A., Daniel, E., Benish-Weisman, M., & Boehnke,
K. (2010). Cultural values and outgroup negativity: A cross-cultural
analysis of early and late adolescents. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 635–651.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and
relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem and depression.
Adolescence, 38, 735–747.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion
dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle
childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–363.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995).
Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism:
A theoretical andMeasurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29,
240–275.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social psychology across cultures.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, P. K., & Myron-Wilson, R. (1998). Parenting and school bullying.
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 405–417.
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., Nikiforou, M., & Kiteri, E. (2011).
Longitudinal investigation of the relationship between bullying and
psychosocial adjustment. European Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 8, 730–743.
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying and
empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychol-
ogy, 30, 793–802.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for
development. Human Development, 45, 270–274.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of
Psychology, 35, 145–152.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism–collectivism and personality.
Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.
Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, S. A., Probst,
T., . . . Schmitz, P. (2001). Culture and deception in business
negotiations: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 1, 73–90.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurements of
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric
vs. idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation.
Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 395–415.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. A. (2002). Cultural influences on personality.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Reintegrative shaming theory,
moral emotions and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.
Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories:
A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child
Development, 71, 1329–1346.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among
primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School
Psychology, 42, 135–155.
206 GEORGIOU, STAVRINIDES, FOUSIANI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dal
hous
ie U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 2
6 Se
ptem
ber
2013