authoritarian parenting, power distance, and bullying propensity

9
This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University] On: 26 September 2013, At: 23:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa 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 & Educational Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usep20 Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity Stelios N. Georgiou a , Panayiotis Stavrinides a & Kyriaki Fousiani a a 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”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: kyriaki

Post on 11-Dec-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 2: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 3: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 4: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 5: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

“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

Page 6: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 7: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 8: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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

Page 9: Authoritarian Parenting, Power Distance, and Bullying Propensity

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