This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Among a variety of dynamics that may have effects on internet-related behaviors, cultural orientation is particularly important. Previous studies suggest that individualism is a strong determinant of certain behaviors. In addition, findings suggest that vertical individualism may lead to the development of more tolerance for addiction and aggression on the internet.
This study aimed to investigate whether vertical individualism has significant positive effects on cyberbullying and internet addiction and whether horizontal individualism has significant negative effects on cyberbullying and internet addiction. A theoretical model was specified to test the relationships among vertical versus horizontal individualism, cyberbullying, and internet addiction.
A total of 665 college students were selected using a convenience sampling method and willingly participated in the study. Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 19 years (mean 17.94 years, SD 1.12 years). Of the group, 462 were women (462/665, 69.5%), and 203 were men (203/665, 30.5%). Study majors represented were mathematics (113/665, 17%), sciences (102/665, 15.3%), instructional technology (99/665, 14.9%), psychology (98/665, 14.7%), and others (253/665, 38.1%). Self-report instruments were used to measure vertical/horizontal individualism, cyberbullying, and internet addiction.
Results show a significant positive effect of vertical individualism (effect size 0.10) and significant negative effect of horizontal individualism (effect size –0.12) on cyberbullying. In addition, the direct effect of vertical individualism on internet addiction was significant (effect size 0.28), but the direct effect of horizontal individualism was not (effect size –0.05). Internet addiction had a significant direct effect on cyberbullying (effect size 0.39) as well as an intervening effect on the relationship between vertical individualism and cyberbullying. Results also indicate significant gender differences in cultural patterns and internet addiction.
The findings suggest that horizontal and vertical individualism have significant effects on internet addiction. The findings also suggest that vertical individualists are more vulnerable to internet addiction. Further, the findings indicate a significant relationship between internet addiction and cyberbullying.
Among a variety of dynamics that may have effects on internet-related behaviors, cultural orientation is particularly noteworthy [
Triandis [
Triandis [
Brady [
Based on the cognitive-behavioral model of Davis [
Cyberbullying and internet addiction have been relatively more frequent themes of recent research [
In general, individualists tend to behave autonomously and prioritize their personal preferences [
Horizontal individualism is described as “a model of independent self that fosters a propensity to value uniqueness and social equality,” whereas vertical individualism describes “an autonomous self that garners gratification through competition and personal achievement” [
Previous studies on substance dependence suggested a positive correlation between individualism and addictive behavior [
Social repercussions are among the most negative consequences of internet addition [
According to Hofstede [
Relationships between vertical-horizontal individualism, cyberbullying, and internet addiction.
A total of 665 freshmen from two state universities in the central part of Turkey who were selected using a convenience sampling method willingly participated in the study. The participants completed an anonymous online survey and received extra course credit for participation. Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 19 years (mean 17.94 years, SD 1.12 years). Of the group, 462 were women (462/665, 69.5%), and 203 were men (203/665, 30.5%). Students from mathematics (113/665, 17%), science (102/665, 15.3%), instructional technology (99/665, 14.9%), psychology (98/665, 14.7%), and other departments (253/665, 38.1%) were represented in the study.
We used a total of 67 items: 18 items for individualism (10 items for horizontal individualism and 8 items for vertical individualism), 23 items for cyberbullying, and 26 items for internet addiction. All instruments asked participants to rate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Singelis et al [
Evidence of the validity and reliability of the measures used in the study.
Construct, Sample item | αa | Item-total correlationb | Factor loadingb | Communalityb | Total variance explaineda | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB1 | N/A | .67 | .69 | .48 | N/A |
|
CB2: I create accounts in websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, secretly using others’ names | N/A | .83 | .84 | .71 | N/A |
|
CB3 | N/A | .84 | .86 | .74 | N/A |
|
CB4 | N/A | .89 | .90 | .82 | N/A |
|
CB5 | N/A | .86 | .88 | .78 | N/A |
|
CB6 | N/A | .87 | .89 | .79 | N/A |
|
CB7 | N/A | .78 | .81 | .65 | N/A |
|
CB8 | N/A | .90 | .92 | .84 | N/A |
|
CB9 | N/A | .87 | .89 | .78 | N/A |
|
CB10 | N/A | .87 | .89 | .79 | N/A |
|
CB11 | N/A | .83 | .84 | .71 | N/A |
|
CB12 | N/A | .84 | .86 | .74 | N/A |
|
CB13 | N/A | .88 | .90 | .80 | N/A |
|
CB14 | N/A | .86 | .87 | .76 | N/A |
|
CB15 | N/A | .74 | .75 | .57 | N/A |
|
CB16 | N/A | .76 | .77 | .60 | N/A |
|
CB17 | N/A | .89 | .91 | .82 | N/A |
|
CB18 | N/A | .74 | .76 | .57 | N/A |
|
CB19 | N/A | .84 | .86 | .74 | N/A |
|
CB20 | N/A | .85 | .87 | .75 | N/A |
|
CB21 | N/A | .88 | .90 | .81 | N/A |
|
CB22 | N/A | .82 | .84 | .70 | N/A |
|
CB23 | N/A | .72 | .74 | .55 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .98 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 69.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU1: I can’t control myself when it comes to the internet | N/A | .78 | .78 | .61 | N/A |
|
CU2 | N/A | .79 | .75 | .54 | N/A |
|
CU3 | N/A | .77 | .82 | .67 | N/A |
|
CU4 | N/A | .80 | .40 | .49 | N/A |
|
CU5 | N/A | .78 | .79 | .62 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .82 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 58.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W1: If I don’t use the internet, I feel uncomfortable | N/A | .83 | .82 | .68 | N/A |
|
W2 | N/A | .84 | .80 | .63 | N/A |
|
W3 | N/A | .86 | .73 | .54 | N/A |
|
W4 | N/A | .83 | .81 | .66 | N/A |
|
W5 | N/A | .82 | .86 | .73 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .86 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 64.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T1: I spend more time on the internet than I expect | N/A | .85 | .83 | .69 | N/A |
|
T2 | N/A | .83 | .87 | .76 | N/A |
|
T3 | N/A | .82 | .89 | .78 | N/A |
|
T4 | N/A | .86 | .82 | .68 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .88 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 72.82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TM1: I use the internet during my sleeping time |
|
.85 | .82 | .67 | N/A |
|
TM2 | N/A | .84 | .83 | .70 | N/A |
|
TM3 | N/A | .84 | .85 | .71 | N/A |
|
TM4 | N/A | .87 | .75 | .57 | N/A |
|
TM5 | N/A | .84 | .84 | .71 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .88 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 67.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P1: I neglect my family because of the internet | N/A | .90 | .80 | .65 | N/A |
|
P2 | N/A | .90 | .80 | .64 | N/A |
|
P3 | N/A | .90 | .74 | .55 | N/A |
|
P4 | N/A | .89 | .85 | .72 | N/A |
|
P5 | N/A | .89 | .84 | .70 | N/A |
|
P6 | N/A | .89 | .85 | .73 | N/A |
|
P7 | N/A | .90 | .77 | .59 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .91 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 65.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HI1 | N/A | .79 | .75 | .57 | N/A |
|
HI2 | N/A | .79 | .52 | .40 | N/A |
|
HI3: I often do my own thing | N/A | .80 | .62 | .44 | N/A |
|
HI4 | N/A | .78 | .61 | .52 | N/A |
|
HI5: I like my privacy | N/A | .78 | .79 | .68 | N/A |
|
HI6 | N/A | .78 | .65 | .51 | N/A |
|
HI7 | N/A | .78 | .67 | .51 | N/A |
|
HI8 | N/A | .80 | .77 | .59 | N/A |
|
HI9 | N/A | .80 | .64 | .41 | N/A |
|
HI10 | N/A | .80 | .67 | .46 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .81 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 50.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VI1: Winning is everything | N/A | .80 | .84 | .79 | N/A |
|
VI2 | N/A | .81 | .90 | .83 | N/A |
|
VI3 | N/A | .81 | .46 | .42 | N/A |
|
VI4 | N/A | .80 | .81 | .70 | N/A |
|
VI5 | N/A | .81 | .87 | .81 | N/A |
|
VI6: When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused | N/A | .80 | .83 | .76 | N/A |
|
VI7 | N/A | .80 | .81 | .72 | N/A |
|
VI8 | N/A | .81 | .86 | .81 | N/A |
|
Total subscale | .82 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 72.98 |
aCalculated for the subscale only.
bCalculated for the subscale items only.
Internet addiction levels were measured using the Internet Addiction Scale [
Cyberbullying was measured using 23 items [
Almost all participants had a smartphone, and approximately two-thirds had a notebook. Further, 543 students (543/665, 81.7%) used technology more than 4 hours a day, and 433 students (433/665, 65.1%) used the internet more than 4 hours a day. Pearson correlation analyses showed a significant correlation between internet use and both vertical individualism (r=.11,
Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and principal component analysis.
Variable | 1. Cyberbullying | 2A. Internet addiction: compulsive use | 2B. Internet addiction: withdrawal | 2C. Internet addiction: tolerance | 2D. Internet addition: time management | 2E. Internet addiction: interpersonal health problems | 3. Horizontal individualism | 4. Vertical individualism | |
|
|||||||||
|
r |
|
.29 | .31 | .28 | .44 | .42 | –.01 | .17 |
|
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .710 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .29 | —a | .72 | .74 | .66 | .61 | .14 | .23 |
|
.000 | — | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .31 | .72 | — | .67 | .61 | .56 | .13 | .23 |
|
.000 | .000 | — | .000 | .000 | .000 | .001 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .28 | .74 | .67 | — | .71 | .65 | .12 | .25 |
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | — | .000 | .000 | .003 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .44 | .66 | .61 | .71 | — | .84 | .06 | .23 |
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | — | .000 | .149 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .42 | .61 | .56 | .65 | .84 | — | .05 | .24 |
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | — | .185 | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | –.01 | .14 | .13 | .12 | .06 | .05 | — | .40 |
|
.710 | .000 | .001 | .003 | .149 | .185 | — | .000 | |
|
|||||||||
|
r | .17 | .23 | .23 | .25 | .23 | .24 | .40 | — |
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | — | |
Mean | 26.71 | 10.37 | 9.68 | 8.22 | 7.77 | 10.81 | 40.01 | 25.47 | |
SD | 8.58 | 3.24 | 3.54 | 2.98 | 3.32 | 4.37 | 5.40 | 5.84 | |
Minimum- Maximum | 24-96 | 5-20 | 5-20 | 4-16 | 5-20 | 7-28 | 10-50 | 8-40 | |
Skewness (SE .10) | .12 | .62 | .84 | .55 | .50 | .48 | –.71 | –.09 | |
Kurtosis (SE .19) | 1.03 | .19 | .25 | –.22 | .96 | .03 | .97 | .20 | |
KMOb | .97 | .83 | .86 | .81 | .85 | .91 | .87 | .80 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
χ2 | 19,202 | 1108 | 1453 | 1371 | 1667 | 2872 | 1749 | 1907 |
|
df | 276 | 19 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 21 | 45 | 28 |
|
.000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 |
aNot applicable.
bKaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Prior to the analyses, data were checked for the adequacy of factor analysis [
Harman’s one-factor test was used to check common method bias [
It was theorized that internet addiction would serve as an intervening variable between vertical versus horizontal individualism and cyberbullying. Structural equation modeling was conducted via maximum likelihood to test the model. Results show that the structural model produced acceptable fit indices (
The direct effects of vertical individualism on cyberbullying (β=.10, critical ratio [CR]=2.31,
Model fit indices of the structural model.
Indices | Model | Acceptable values |
χ2 | 1429.18 | N/Aa |
<.001 | .05≤ |
|
χ2df | 1.84 | <3 [ |
GFIb | .91 | ≥.90 [ |
AGFIc | .89 | ≥.80 [ |
SRMRd | .06 | ≤.10 [ |
RMRe | .05 | <.05 [ |
RMSEAf | .04 | <.08 [ |
NFIg | .93 | ≥.90 [ |
TLIh | .96 | ≥.90 [ |
CFIi | .96 | ≥.90 [ |
IFIj | .96 | ≥.90 [ |
aA recommended threshold or acceptable value does not exist.
bGFI: goodness of fit index.
cAGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index.
dSRMR: standardized root mean square residual.
eRMR: root mean square residual.
fRMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.
gNFI: normed fit index.
hTLI: Tucker Lewis index.
iCFI: comparative fit index.
jIFI: incremental fit index.
A 4-step approach was used to test the mediation effect of internet addiction [
One-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to investigate gender differences between women (462/665) and men (203/665) on vertical versus horizontal individualism. Results showed a significant difference between women and men, where men (mean 26.45 points, SD 6.12 points) scored significantly higher than women (mean 25.04 points, SD 5.66 points) in vertical individualism (F2,662=6.42,
In this research, we investigated the relationships among vertical versus horizontal individualism, cyberbullying, and internet addiction via a theoretical model and provided valuable implications for mental health professionals and researchers. Arpaci et al [
We found a significant intervening effect of internet addiction in the association between vertical individualism and cyberbullying. These results support the important intervening role of internet addiction in the relationship between vertical individualism and cyberbullying. Thus, knowing the individual’s cultural orientation and level of internet addiction might be helpful in the prevention or treatment of their cyberbullying behaviors.
Self-reliance and uniqueness are some of the relatively more positive characteristics of horizontal individualists [
These results also indicate that vertical, but not horizontal, individualism is a significant predictor of internet addiction. Previous research indicates an association between individualism and addictive behaviors [
The findings of our research confirm the findings of Casas et al [
The findings show that vertical individualism has a significant effect on internet addiction. More interestingly, the findings suggest that vertical individualists are more vulnerable to internet addiction. Further, the findings indicate a significant relationship between internet addiction and cyberbullying. Therefore, prevention programs for cyberbullying should take cultural orientations into account.
Although vertical and horizontal individualism were perceived to be dichotomous rather than orthogonal, the correlation analysis results shown in
Although this study is highly original, it has several limitations. First, the sample used in the study was comprised of a restricted age group and thus homogenous; therefore, the theoretical model needs further confirmation across different age groups. Crosscultural studies should be conducted in different cultures to improve the external validity of the findings. Second, cultural orientations are not the only predictors of cyberbullying, nor is internet addiction the only mediator. However, based on the literature, this study used a single exogenous factor, vertical versus horizontal individualism, and a single mediator, internet addiction, in the structural model. Many other dispositional or situational factors and mediators would be equally worthwhile to explore in future studies. Further, there may be several equivalent models that can predict the impact of both cultural orientations or internet addiction on cyberbullying. This suggests that the proposed model is certainly supported, but not proven; therefore, further studies should replicate the research model.
In this study, vertical and horizontal individualism were studied as cultural orientations of the participants, and they were measured using an individual-level measurement within a monocultural sample. In the same vein, others studied and operationalized the same orientations at the individual level. For example, Bourgeois [
Finally, previous literature perceived vertical and horizontal individualism to be orthogonal [
adjusted goodness of fit index.
comparative fit index.
goodness of fit index.
incremental fit index.
normed fit index.
root mean square residual.
root mean square error of approximation.
standardized root mean square residual.
Tucker Lewis index.
None declared.