International Journal of School & Educational Psychology

ISSN: 2168-3603 (Print) 2168-3611 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usep20

Parenting styles and bullying at school: The

mediating role of locus of control

Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou & Panayiotis Stavrinides

To cite this article: Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou & Panayiotis Stavrinides (2016):
Parenting styles and bullying at school: The mediating role of locus of control, International
Journal of School & Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

Published online: 20 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usep20

Download by: [George Mason University] Date: 27 September 2016, At: 04:37
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237

ARTICLE

Parenting styles and bullying at school: The mediating role of locus of control
Stelios N. Georgiou, Myria Ioannou, and Panayiotis Stavrinides
Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study examined the mediating role of children’s locus of control in the relation between locus of control; parenting
parenting styles and bully – victim experiences at school. Participants were 447 students aged 10 styles; bullying experiences;
and 11 years old from 13 different elementary, urban, and rural schools in Cyprus. Analyses using mediation
structural equation modeling showed that parenting styles predict the development of these
experiences differently. Specifically, authoritarian parenting is positively associated to bully – victim
experiences at school, while authoritative parenting is negatively associated to the same variables.
Furthermore, the findings indicated mediation effects, with locus of control being a full mediator in
the relationship between authoritative parenting style and bully – victim experiences and a partial
mediator in the relationship between authoritarian parenting style and bully – victim experiences at
school. Nonrecursive reciprocal models confirmed the theoretically driven direction of the effect
from parenting styles to bullying and victimization through the mechanism of locus of control.
Multigroup analyses of invariance showed that gender moderated the mediation models for the
authoritative and the authoritarian parenting styles.

Introduction Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). Previous research

has highlighted that the risk for engagement in bullying
Bullying, defined as the systematic physical, verbal, or
psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to increases during the transition to middle school, a time of
cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim (Flouri & increased developmental vulnerability and experience of
Buchanan, 2003), is becoming a global concern because social stressors (Farmer et al., 2015; Pellegrini & Van
of its disturbing consequences, which affect a significant Ryzin, 2011), with more than half of sixth graders of
minority of children and adolescents (Rigby, 2013). It can primary schools reporting involvement in bullying
be direct, such as physical and verbal violence, or indirect, (Nansel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2007). Building on
such as social exclusion. Typically, it takes place when a developmental contextual approach, individual and peer
there is an imbalance of power between those involved factors come together to affect patterns of school behavior
(Baldry & Farrington, 2000), and leads to repeated during the last grades of elementary school, where early
negative actions against those with less ability to defend adolescents’ social roles and peer relationships are getting
themselves. reorganized before the transition to middle school
Several studies have documented the relation of (Juvonen, 2007; Salmivalli, 2010). During their matu-
bullying and victimization experiences to negative child ration in early adolescence, children develop new
outcomes, such as emotional and behavioral disorders, characteristics and interests and are expected to develop
including PTSD, conduct problems, and hyperactivity new friendships, whereas at the same time the develop-
(Khamis, 2015; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & ment of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems
Haymel, 2010). The involvement in bullying has adverse is more evident during the transition to middle school, and
effects in the developmental trajectories of children and their bullying involvement in fifth and sixth grades seems
adolescents, being related to anxiety and depression to be predictive of these problems (Farmer et al., 2015).
symptoms, low self-esteem, low social competence, and Bullying has been related to individual, parental,
difficulties that affect their academic pathways, such as societal, and academic factors, including self-efficacy,
avoidance of school and high dropout rates, and impaired locus of control, parenting style and parental involve-
academic performance (Cardoos & Hinshaw, 2011; ment, school climate, academic adjustment, teacher

CONTACT Stelios N. Georgiou [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, CY 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/usep.

q 2016 International School Psychology Association

2 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

practices, and social stressors, among others (Atik & Georgiou et al., 2013; Koumoundourou, Tsaousis, &
Guneri, 2013). Parenting styles and practices have been Kounenou, 2010).
consistently identified by prior research as either risk or Several studies show that authoritarian parental style,
protective familial factors in relation to bullying and which is characterized by harsh and punitive child-rearing
victimization experiences at school (Georgiou & practices, predicts bullying behavior (Ahmed &
Stavrinides, 2013). More specifically, authoritative Braithwaite, 2004; Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Espelage,
parenting that promotes a warm and accepting Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Kaufmann et al., 2000).
relationship with the child is negatively associated with Children who have authoritarian parents tend to develop
bullying experiences (Spera, 2005). In contrast, several maladaptive, perfectionist self-representation (Soenens,
studies have consistently shown that children of Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez, & Goossens, 2005),
authoritarian parents tend to exhibit bullying behavior depression, depersonalization, and delinquency (Heaven,
(Kaufmann et al., 2000). However, it is not yet clear how Newbury, & Mak, 2004; Wolfradt, Hempel, & Miles,
parenting is related to bullying activities. The main 2003). Bullies report in general higher family conflict,
question that needs to be answered before this process parental control, and punishment (Georgiou, 2009) that
can be fully understood has to do with the existence or suggest links with authoritarian parenting styles, but may
not of mediating variables between these two constructs. also report low monitoring and inconsistent discipline
Following some earlier attempts (Andreou, 2000; practices (Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 1997), suggesting
Georgiou, Fousiani, Michaelides, & Stavrinides, 2013; links with permissive parenting styles as well. Other
Kokkinos & Panayiotou, 2007), the present study aims at studies further support that permissive parents tend to
examining the role of one such possible mediator in early have children with difficulties in curtailing their impulsive
adolescents before their transition to middle school: locus bullying behavior (Miller, Diiorio, & Dudley, 2002).
of control. The present study is important, as it uses On the other hand, victimization has been linked to
complex structural equation analyses in an effort to test permissive parenting styles and overprotection (Bowers,
the role of locus of control, an individual factor impacted Smith, & Binney, 1994). Victimized children tend to
by parenting behavior, through which bullying behavior have parents who express intense emotions, present an
might be affected. overprotective stance, or express consistent threats of
rejection and low encouragement of assertion (Brock,
Nickerson, O’Malley, & Chang, 2006; Rubin, Coplan, &
Parenting styles, bullying, and victimization
Bowker, 2009). Children who are exposed to parental
There is strong evidence connecting family factors, and overcontrol are more socially nonassertive, more anxious
specifically parenting style (Baumrind, 1991), to bullying and vulnerable, and thus become victimized; these
and victimization experiences (e.g., Stevens, Bourdeaud- characteristics enhance the maintenance of the cycle of
huij, & Oost, 2002). A recent meta-analysis showed that their hopelessness and helplessness and the analogous
bullies and victims tend to experience negative parenting parental overprotection and overcontrol (Wood, McLeod,
behavior, neglect, abuse, and maladaptive behavior. Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Investigating the above in
In contrast, parental supervision, involvement, and a Cypriot sample, Georgiou (2008a) showed that children
communication were found to be predictive of protective with permissive parents had the highest scores in
effects regarding the involvement in bullying and victimization, whereas having a mother characterized
victimization (Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Parent- by high demandingness was negatively related to
ing styles were described by Baumrind (1991) based on victimization.
two dimensions, demandingness and responsiveness.
Authoritarian parents score high on demandingness,
Locus of control and bullying experiences
expect strict obedience, achieve control over their
children through punishment, and score low in Locus of control refers to the distinction made by
responsiveness and warmth. The authoritative parenting individuals about what controls their lives, discriminat-
style characterizes parents who score high on both ing between factors internal to individuals such as their
dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness and abilities, decisions, or actions, and external forces such as
present a stable, consistent, and flexible parental luck, chance, powerful other people, or fate (Rotter,
behavior. Parents with a permissive style are found to 1996). In Weiner’s (1985) typology of attributions, locus
be high in responsiveness and warmth and low in is one of three dimensions, the other two being stability
demandingness, since they exercise low or no control over time and controllability. Locus of control orientation
over their children. Research on Greek and Cypriot reflects a continuum ranging from internal locus (i.e.,
populations agree with these three typologies (e.g., perception that behaviors and outcomes of one’s
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

behaviors are attributed to the influences of forces within parenting style that emphasizes overcontrol, and
one’s control) to external locus (i.e., perception that one’s permissive parenting style that emphasizes overprotec-
life is controlled by random forces outside his control; tion, contribute to the children’s perception that their
Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). behavior and the outcomes of their behavior are
Locus of control as a form of attribution has been determined by external factors; hence the external locus
considered a powerful construct to explain bullying and of control demonstrated in children exposed to
victimization. Andreou (2000) showed that adolescents authoritarian and permissive styles.
with high scores of peer victimization had also higher
scores in the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale
The present study
for children. Higher scores in that scale indicate external
locus, suggesting that victimized children tend to feel that The purpose of the current study was to examine in a
others control their life, behavior, and actions (Georgiou single design the existing relationship between parental
& Stavrinides, 2008). Wallace, Barry, Zeigler-Hill, and style, locus of control, and bullying and victimization
Green (2012), suggested that bullies tend to have an experiences at school. One particular aim of this study
internal locus of control and because of that, they was to test the role of locus of control orientation as a
continuously strive for more power and control over mediator in the relationship between parenting styles and
others. The thread or the possibility of losing control bullying experiences, since the literature has shown that
drives them to use aggression and to get involved in parenting styles are associated with locus of control
bullying behaviors (Karatzias, Power, & Swanson, 2002). and the orientation of control has been consistently
The findings regarding internal orientation of control of associated with bullying and victimization, adding on the
bullies are not clear, however. Georgiou (2009) reported systematic research linking parenting to bullying and
that children who participate in bullying episodes with victimization. Finally, the study explored the role of
the role of bullies tend to attribute their actions to gender, and tried to examine whether it could
external factors (i.e., the teacher, the parents, or the differentiate the mediation models, because of previous
victims). This finding is in line with previous research pointing to the different rates of bullying among
conceptualizations of bullies as individuals who blame boys and girls (e.g., Khamis, 2015), and the differential
others about their behavior and show inability to take impact of risk factors across gender (e.g., Yau et al., 2013).
responsibility for their own actions (Craig & Pepler, 2003; Child’s gender has been considered to have influential
Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2008). Tony (2010) has found moderation effects in previous investigations between
that external locus of control in the Nowicki-Strickland bullying and parenting, and also between parenting and
scale and pessimistic attributions were the best predictors victimization. A meta-analysis examining the studies
of discipline and aggressive problems at schools, even supporting relationships between parenting practices and
when controlling for other measured variables. delinquency also supported that gender moderated
several significant effect sizes, since supportive parenting
style of fathers was related to increased delinquency in
Locus of control and parenting practices
boys but not girls; and supportive parenting style of
Parenting practices have been found to be related to mothers was related to bullying behavior by girls but not
either internal or external orientation of control in boys (Hoeve et al., 2009). Also, gender was found to
children and adolescents. McClun and Merrell (1998) moderate the links between locus of control and bullying
have highlighted that internal locus of control is and victimization. As Osterman and colleagues (1999)
presented in children who are exposed to authoritative showed, external locus of control was related to bullying
parenting styles characterized by autonomy, consistency only for boys and not for girls. Furthermore, Hunter and
of punishment, discipline, and systematic reinforcement Boyle (2002) have found that males who are victimized
of positive behaviors. Examining a large-scale sample have stronger perceptions of internal control, compared
from nine high schools, Glasgow and colleagues (1997) to females who are victimized. One should note, however,
noted that nonauthoritative parenting styles are consist- that the gender differences reported by the recent
ently related to more dysfunctional attributions and literature could be at least partially attributable to the
external locus of control, which prevents students from engagement in different types of bullying by males and
attaining a better achievement in school. According to females. In particular, males are reported to be more
Marsiglia, Walczyk, Buboltz, and Griffith-Ross (2007), involved in direct physical and verbal forms of bullying
children exposed to permissive parenting styles are less (e.g., hitting, punching), whereas females are more likely
able to develop a sense of internal control. Spokas and to get involved in indirect, psychological, and relational
Heimberg (2009) have confirmed that authoritarian forms of bullying (e.g., spreading rumors, cyber-bullying;
4 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Turner et al., 2013). Also, males Cyprus Ministry of Education. The participants of this
are more likely to be bullies only or bullies as well as study were 447 students attending fifth to sixth grade of
victims, compared to females (e.g., Shao, Liang, Yuan, & elementary school (ages 10–11 years old) during the
Bian, 2014); an effect that may be related to community academic year of 2013 –2014. The participants were
values and traditional gender norms. randomly selected from 13 schools in urban and rural
Early adolescents’ (attending the last grades of areas in Cyprus. The only criterion used for the selection
elementary schools) risk factors among individual, of the 13 schools was the schools’ location in either a rural
parental, and peer domains are indicative and predictive or an urban area. Following the demographic represen-
of longitudinal involvement in bullying, whereas at tation of Cyprus, about 70% of these schools were located
the same time serious problems concerning individual in urban areas and about 30% of them were located in
factors seem to be already apparent in late elementary rural areas. Generally, blue-collar workers and lower
grades (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). Based on educational levels are found in rural rather than in urban
the biopsychosocial model of development (Ford & areas. All of the schools accepted the invitation. The fifth
Lerner, 1992), pubertal changes in early adolescence and and sixth grades of each school were asked to participate,
changes in peer contexts affect the efforts to establish and in case the schools had more than one section of fifth
power and control, and are expected to be reflected in the and sixth grades, one of them was randomly selected
emergence of bullying (Pepler et al., 2006). Involvement using a coin. Parent consent forms were given to the
in bullying around the transition to middle school is children and a period of two weeks was given to the
increased and highly important in our efforts to teachers in order to collect the signed consent forms. All
understand developmental trajectories of bullying and the children were asked to participate and no exclusion
victimization (Farmer et al., 2015). Therefore, the criteria were established (apart from the teachers’
purpose of the present study was formed around recent confirmation that all students were able to read
developmental considerations regarding bullying beha- independently using a single statement by the teachers),
vior, and we aimed to recruit early adolescents of fifth aiming to increase the generalizability of the study. The
and sixth elementary grades. response rate was 91.4%, as some children were absent
during the day of questionnaire administration (n ¼ 18),
Hypotheses and some children did not return the parental consent
forms (n ¼ 24). The administration of the questionnaires
Based on the literature outlined above, the following
occurred in a single date in each school, during a single
hypotheses were stated and tested:
45-min school period for each class, and students
1. Parental styles would be related differently to answered the questionnaires independently in their
bullying and victimization experiences. More classrooms. The sample consisted of 44.17% males and
specifically, authoritarian and permissive styles 55.83% females, a ratio that approximated the general
would be positively related to bully – victim population statistics on gender representation. In terms
behavior, whereas authoritative style would be of socioeconomic status (SES) the participants’ scores
negatively related to the same variables. had a normal distribution (about 20% low, 20% high,
2. Locus of control would mediate the relationship and 60% average) and are representative of national
between parenting styles and bullying. More population statistics (e.g., Koutsampelas, 2011). The
specifically, low internal locus of control would be normality of the SES was addressed by the selection of
a mediator between authoritarian parenting and schools with blue-collar and white-collar workers and by
bullying or victimization, and permissive parent- an indication of the educational level of participants’
ing and bullying or victimization. Higher internal parents, which followed the national statistics (e.g.,
locus would be a mediator between authoritative Andreou, 2012).
parenting and bullying experiences.
3. Gender would moderate the mediation model
among parenting styles, locus of control, and Measures
bullying. The participants completed three questionnaires: the
Revised Bullying and Victimization Questionnaire
Methodology (BVQ-R), the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ),
and the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External
Participants and procedure
control scale (CNSIE). All of the questionnaires were
This study is part of a larger study that was approved by administered in Greek using a rotated order to avoid
the Center of Educational Research and Evaluation of the response set bias, by postgraduate students in psychology,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

who were blinded to the aims of the study. All of the the permissive style. The PAQ has been translated into
questionnaires were translated from English to Greek Greek following a front and backward translation and has
using a front and backward translation method been validated showing adequate reliability and validity
(Giannitsas, 1988; Kyriakides, Kaloyirou, & Lindsay, estimates for all the styles by Tsaousis (2002). Previous
2006; Tsaousis, 2002). Also, all of them were adapted to studies in the Greek-Cypriot population have shown that
the Greek Cypriot culture and used in earlier studies (e.g., the instrument yields the three proposed factors with
Georgiou, 2008b; Georgiou et al., 2013). good psychometric properties of the subscales and the
The BVQ-R (Olweus, 1993, 1996) consists of 20 items whole scale and Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .73
that measure the children’s bullying and victimization to .87 (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2013; Koumoundourou et al.,
experiences (using 10 statements for each subscale). 2010). Prior research shows adequate validity of this
Participants give their answers on a 5-point Likert-type instrument and congruency with the construct theory for
scale ranging from 1 ( ¼ not true) to 5 ( ¼ absolutely parenting styles (Koumoundourou et al., 2010; Timpano
true). Sample items from the bullying subscale include, et al., 2010; Tsaousis, 2002). For the present study, the
“Other children are afraid of me” and “Other children psychometric properties for the authoritarian subscale
complain that I hit them.” Sample items from the were good, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .781, as well as for
victimization subscale include, “Other children have hit the authoritative subscale with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .826.
me or tried to hit me” and “Other children constantly The psychometric properties for the permissive parenting
tease me and call me names.” In earlier studies conducted style subscale were worse than the other subscales of the
with Cypriot populations (e.g., Georgiou, 2008b; PAQ, with alpha ¼ .61, but were considered acceptable.
Georgiou et al., 2013; Kyriakides et al., 2006; Stavrinides, The whole PAQ had good internal consistency in the
Georgiou, & Theofanous, 2010; Stavrinides, Georgiou, current study, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .786.
Nikiforou, & Kiteri, 2011), the measurement tool yielded The CNSIE scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)
two factors representing the concepts of bullying and assesses children’s and adolescents’ perceptions for
victimization and showed good psychometric properties locus of control. The CNSIE instrument consists of 40
(Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .70 to .80). This statements that are answered in a dichotomous yes or no
instrument was found to have construct validity, in a way, measuring the internal and the external orientation
considerably large sample of Greek Cypriot pupils to locus of control. Higher scores express more external
(Kyriakides et al., 2006) and results of prior research in locus of control, with yes responses gaining 1 point
the studies above constitute further evidence of (internal locus) and no responses gaining 2 points
consistency with the construct theory. For the present (external locus). Sample items include, “Do you feel that
study, both subscales showed good internal consistency, most of the time parents listen to what their children have
with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .821 for the victimization to say?” and “Are you often blamed for things that just
subscale and alpha ¼ .852 for the subscale of bullying. aren’t your fault?” The CNSIE measure has been adapted
Reliability analysis for the whole Revised Bullying and in Greek by Giannitsas (1988) and has been showed to be
Victimization Questionnaire showed excellent psycho- valid and reliable in previous studies conducted with
metric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .877. Greek populations (e.g., Andreou, 2000; Makri-Botsari,
The PAQ instrument (Buri, 1991) is a self-report 1999). Prior research shows appropriate content validity,
measuring the children’s perspective about the rearing concurrent validity, and construct validity of this
practices of their parents, which constitute their parenting instrument (e.g., Andreou, 2000; Gifford, Briceno-
style. According to Baumrind’s (1991) taxonomy, the Perriot, & Mianzo, 2006; Li & Lopez, 2004). Split-half
PAQ yields three factors that represent the authoritarian, methods that have been used to test the reliability of this
the permissive, and the authoritative parenting styles. The instrument showed satisfactory psychometric properties
tool consists of 30 statements on a 5-point Likert-type in previous studies (e.g., Chubb et al., 1997; Keshavarz
scale ranging from 1 ( ¼ strongly disagree) to 5 & Baharudin, 2012) with split-half coefficient values
( ¼ strongly agree), having 10 statements measuring ranging from .70 to .81. The psychometric properties of
each parenting style. Sample items include, “As I was the locus of control scale for the current study were
growing up my mother did not allow me to question any acceptable, with Spearman-Brown coefficient ¼ .783 and
decision she had made” for the authoritarian style, “My Guttman split-half coefficient ¼ .766.
mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take
whenever I have felt that family rules and restrictions
Data analysis
were unreasonable” for the authoritative style, and “As I
was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most All the confirmatory factor analyses, structural equation
things for myself without a lot of direction from her” for models, path analyses, and analyses of invariance were
6 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients between the studied constructs.
Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6
1. Authoritative parenting style 3.76 .79 .09 .23** .16** 2.08 2.09*
2. Authoritarian parenting style 2.47 .78 .20** 2.31** .28** .28**
3. Permissive parenting style 2.58 .63 2.15** .03 .17**
4. Internal locus of control NR NR 2.25** 2.26**
5. Bullying 1.38 .58 .51**
6. Victimization 1.71 .74
Note. *p , .05, **p , .01.
NR: mean and SD could not be imputed because of the dichotomous nature of these constructs and their
computation as factor scores

run using AMOS 19, and maximum likelihood associations between each parenting style, internal locus
estimation was applied, with the raw data matrix being of control, bullying, and victimization (see Table 1).
analyzed. Confirmatory factor analyses were run for the No multicollinearity (correlations above .80) was
PAQ and the BVQ scales before all the other analyses, in identified between the constructs. All the items were
order to confirm the consistency of the measurement assessed on normality, kyrtosis, and skewness as well,
models and the representation of the required-factors showing that some of the items in the bullying–
constructs, showing good fit for both. Locus of control victimization scale had univariate kyrtosis higher than 10.
represented an observed variable due to the dichotomous Logarithmic transformation was thus performed to all of
nature of its instrument. Model fit was a priori decided the items of the bullying –victimization scale, reducing
to be evaluated with the chi-square test, as well as the the univariate kyrtosis lower than 4. Mahalanobis
following approximate fit indices: the Root Mean Square distance showed that no outliers existed in any of the
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) that quantifies measured items and constructs. Tests for multivariate
badness of fit, the parsimony corrected (PCLOSE), the normality in AMOS with Mardia’s k showed that the
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of relative critical ratio for multivariate normality was well above 3,
improvement in the fit of the hypothesized model over indicating violation of the multivariate normality
a baseline one that assumes that factors are independent, hypothesis. Bayesian estimation was applied and
the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) of absolute fit, and the compared to maximum likelihood estimation, demon-
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) that strating similar results (example in Appendix).
measures the difference between observed and predicted Following this, the structural equation model
correlation. For an adequate model fit, most of the indices including parenting styles and bullying and victimiza-
should be met, with the CFI ..90, the PCLOSE close to 1, tion experiences was tested, with the parenting styles
the GFI ..90, and the RMSEA and the SRMR ,.05, being the exogenous variables. All the estimates
with ,.08 being satisfactory as well (Hu & Bentler, 1999). presented are the standardized estimates. The model
For the mediation models, the guidelines provided by showed that having an authoritative parent is associated
Holmbeck (1997) were followed, as well as the with lower levels of victimization (b ¼ 2.17, p ¼ .004)
suggestions by Wong and Law (1999) in order to test and lower levels of bullying (b ¼ 2.27, p , .001).
for the reciprocal effects between locus of control and In contrast, having an authoritarian parent positively
bullying and victimization using nonrecursive models. predicted greater levels of bullying (b ¼ .31, p , .001)
For the examination of gender differences, multigroup and greater levels of victimization (b ¼ .35, p , .001).
analyses were performed and evaluated by the change in Having a permissive parent predicted greater levels of
chi-square with the change in degrees of freedom, along bullying as well (b ¼ .19, p ¼ .008). The model had an
with the index presenting change in CFI ,.01 to be almost acceptable fit, with x2 (1064) ¼ 1860.005,
acceptable as well. p , .001, GFI ¼ .851, CFI ¼ .858, RMSEA ¼ .041,
PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .0655. The alternative
model with the reverse relations (i.e., from victimization
Results and bullying to parenting) had a less acceptable fit, with
A composite score was computed for each construct, x2(1066) ¼ 1922.942, p , .001, GFI ¼ .847, CFI ¼ .847,
using the raw data representing the answers of each RMSEA ¼ .042, PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .0731. The
individual on the items that compose each factor to create first model conceptualizing parenting styles as predictors
a mean score. The means and standard deviations of the of bullying and victimization was also better supported
constructs, as well as the bivariate correlations between by the theories of bullying (especially social-cognitive-
them, were computed in order to examine the learning theory and system developmental theory); thus
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

it was decided that it was the best, along with its confirmed the second hypothesis, since mediation effects
significantly better fit (Dx2 (2) ¼ 62.937, p , .001), in were found for authoritative and authoritarian styles
order to continue with the rest of the analyses. only, and not for permissive parenting style.
The mediation model was then calculated for testing Nonrecursive models to test reciprocal effects as
the second hypothesis, based on the steps suggested by suggested by Wong and Law (1999) were also
Holmbeck (1997). Only some of the associations were conducted, in order to increase the reliability of the
significant, with permissive parenting style not being findings. In these models, the parenting styles were the
related to any of the locus of control orientations. instrumental variables, while locus of control and
Therefore, separate mediation analyses were performed bullying and victimization were allowed to have
for the authoritarian parenting style and for the reciprocal relations and their disturbances were allowed
authoritative parenting style, which had associations to be correlated. The results showed that the
with locus attributions, and were further investigated standardized estimates were larger when the direction
(Table 2). The results showed that internal locus of was from locus of control to bullying and victimization,
control was a partial mediator of the relationship between compared to the reciprocal ones from bullying and
having an authoritarian parent and engaging in bullying victimization to locus of control (Figure 3). The higher
and victimization behaviors, whereas internal orientation effect of locus of control on behavior than the reversed
of control was a full mediator of the relationship between shows that internal orientation of control is negatively
authoritative parenting style and victimization and related to bullying and victimization. Based on the
bullying experiences. The direct effect of authoritarian theoretical framework outlined previously, orientation of
parenting on bullying and victimization became smaller control as a construct, starts its formation long before
after the inclusion of internal locus of control in the the beginning of primary school and one of the variables
model, and the mediated model had a better fit on the accounting for its variance is parenting style. After their
data. That is, greater authoritarian parenting predicts involvement in bullying and victimization, children
lower internal locus of control. Then, lower orientation of seem to slightly increase their internal orientation of
control predicts significantly higher victimization and control, at least at the short term. Children who bully
higher bullying. However, the model without the direct may increase their internal locus as a form of power
effects of authoritarian parenting on bullying and gain, whereas internal locus may be increased in victims
victimization had a worse fit than the mediated model, as a form of self-blame.
suggesting partial mediation of the relationship. To Following the mediation analyses, multigroup analyses
illustrate, authoritarian parenting significantly increases were applied, in order to identify if gender moderated the
victimization and bullying behaviors, apart from the mediation effects found for authoritative and authoritar-
variance accounted by the mediating factor of internal ian parenting styles. The model for the authoritarian style
locus of control (Figure 1). was not invariant, as the model fit for the unconstrained
On the other hand, having an authoritative parent model was not acceptable, with x2(736) ¼ 1,288.40,
significantly predicts higher internal locus of control and p , .001, GFI ¼ .836, CFI ¼ .851, RMSEA ¼ .041,
less bullying and victimization experiences. Internal PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .076. The investigation of
control was negatively associated with bullying and the differences in the estimates for males and females
victimization, suggesting that higher internal orientation showed that locus of control was (a) a full mediator of the
was related to less bullying and victimization experiences. relationship between authoritarian style and bullying for
The insert of locus of control in the relationship between males, as the direct relationship between authoritarian
authoritative parenting style and bullying – victimization style and bullying stopped being significant (b ¼ .147,
experiences annihilated the direct effect from author- p ¼ .121), but (b) a partial mediator of the same
itative parenting style, suggesting full mediation relationship for females, as authoritarian style main-
(Figure 2). The results of the mediation analyses partially tained a marginally positive effect on bullying (b ¼ .164,

Table 2. Steps to test mediation independently for authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles.
Model x2 (df) GFI CFI RMSEA /PCLOSE SRMR Dx2 (Ddf) Sig.
1A. Authoritarian parenting style, bullying –victimization 621.878** (df ¼ 343) .909 .924 .043 / .989 .0527
1B. Mediation by internal locus 649.300** (df ¼ 368) .909 .925 .041 / .997 .0518 27.422 (25) NS
1C. Authoritarian to bullying–victimization constrained to zero 675.486** (df ¼ 370) .906 .914 .043 / .988 .0705 26.186 (2) ***
2A. Authoritative parenting style, bullying–victimization 585.635** (df ¼ 343) .912 .938 .040 / .999 .0468
2B. Mediation by internal locus 612.757** (df ¼ 368) .911 .938 .039 / 1.000 .0460 27.12 (25) NS
2C. Authoritative to bullying–victimization constrained to zero 616.963** (df ¼ 370) .911 .938 .039 / 1.000 .0506 4.206 (2) NS
Note. **p , .001.
8 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Figure 1. Mediation models for authoritarian parenting, internal locus, and bullying– victimization (1A: direct model, 1B: mediation,
1C: direct effects constrained to zero).

p ¼ .05). The model for the authoritative style was not The results showed that parenting styles were
invariant either, as the fit indices of the unconstrained significantly associated to bully – victim behaviors.
model were not acceptable, with x2(736) ¼ 1,251.948, Specifically, authoritarian parenting was positively
p , .001, GFI ¼ .836, CFI ¼ .870, RMSEA ¼ .040, associated to bullying and victimization experiences,
PCLOSE ¼ 1.000, SRMR ¼ .066. Internal locus of whereas authoritative parenting was negatively associated
control was a full mediator of the relationship between to those behaviors. Permissive parenting was positively
authoritative style and victimization for females, as related only to bullying and not to victimization. Thus,
authoritative style stopped having a direct effect on Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. These findings
victimization (b ¼ 2.043, p ¼ .565), but a marginally are in line with the previous literature (Lereya et al.,
partial mediator for males, as having an authoritative 2013), but question some of the findings supporting that
parent still had a direct negative effect on victimization permissive style is positively associated to victimization
(b ¼ 2.164, p ¼ .05). (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Georgiou, 2008a). The
findings of the current study may point to the ineffective
monitoring that characterizes permissive styles, which
Discussion
may subsequently lead to delinquent behaviors by the
The present study examined the association between child. The positive association between authoritarian
parenting styles and bullying or victimization experiences parenting and bully– victim experiences, as well as the
in children aged 10– 11 years old. The study investigated negative association between authoritative parenting
the possible role of locus of control as a mediator in the and bully– victim experiences found in the current study
relationship between parenting style and bullying or offer support to several prior studies (e.g,, Ahmed &
victimization, as well as the moderating role of gender. Braithwaite, 2004; Stevens et al., 2002).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

Figure 2. Mediation models for authoritative parenting, internal locus of control, and bullying–victimization (2A: direct model,
2B: mediation, 2C: direct effects constrained to zero).

As far as the second aim of the study is concerned, victim rather than themselves (e.g., Georgiou &
Hypothesis 2 mediation analyses were partially successful Stavrinides, 2008). It may also be that low responsibility
in confirming that locus of control mediates the link at home, as the result of authoritarian parenting, fosters
between parenting styles and bullying experiences. Even engagement in bullying behaviors at school. That is,
though the permissive style did not have any relationship bullying represents a means to gain control at school,
to locus of control, the models with authoritative and since this control is fully exercised by the parent in the
authoritarian styles led to important findings. Specifi- home environment. This issue may have further
cally, internal locus of control partially mediated the link implications and should be more thoroughly investigated
between authoritarian parenting and bullying or by future studies. Decreased internal locus predicts also
victimization experiences and also internal locus fully higher victimization, probably because children who
mediated the linkage between authoritative parenting believe that their lives are controlled by powerful others
and engagement in bullying behaviors. That is, growing are easy targets of potential bullies.
up with an authoritarian parent decreases the children’s Authoritarian parenting remained a significant pre-
internal locus orientation, resulting in the belief that their dictor of bullying and victimization experiences, apart
actions happen as a matter of external forces and are from the mediating role of locus of control, suggesting
outside of their control. Decreased internal locus that other factors are also involved in this
becomes then predictor of more bullying experiences, relationship. Multigroup analyses based on gender
possibly because these children learn to attribute their suggested that partial mediation was a distinct phenom-
own behaviors to the control of others. This is in line with enon for females only, whereas full mediation was
previous findings arguing that bullies tend to blame the evident for males. A number of psychological factors
10 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Figure 3. Nonrecursive models to test the reciprocal relationships between locus of control and bullying and victimization with
instrumental variables being authoritarian parenting style and authoritative parenting style. Standardized estimates are presented.

related to bullying and victimization have been identified, powerful others). That may prevent the children from
such as social support, attachment, coping, somatization, being involved in bullying episodes, since they know that
and negative affectivity (Hansen, Steenberg, Palic, & they will then have to take responsibility for their own
Elklit, 2012), which could be tested as mediators or actions. A child who is reared by an authoritative parent
moderators. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the and has low external control, but not so extremely low
lacking relationship between permissive style and locus of as to be undermanaged (as is true with permissive
control, since having a permissive parent was related to parenting), may feel that his parents trust him to behave
more bullying behavior, but permissive style was not properly at school. Consequently, children who are not
related to locus of control. This finding suggests that exposed to overprotective practices and who have an
parenting alone cannot account for the variance of locus internal locus of control may be then less likely to become
of control and other school factors may be important, victimized. This hypothesis seems logical when consider-
such as peer connection, school climate, and teacher ing previous findings that link overprotection to
relationships. Future research should test other variables victimization (e.g., Bowers et al., 1994; Kokkinos &
accounting for the variance of locus of control, stressing Panayiotou, 2007). The findings of the study do not
the need to conceptualize it as a factor affected by suggest that authoritative parenting becomes not
different systems in a child’s life. important in the model, but that locus of control seem
The full mediation employed by internal locus in the to be important at this developmental stage as a
relationship between authoritative parenting and bully- mechanism linking parenting style to school behavior.
ing or victimization suggests that authoritative parenting The results on reciprocal effects of locus of control and
predicts less bullying and victimization experiences bullying and victimization illustrate the interaction
probably because of its effect on children’s locus of between the two during the progress of children’s life.
control. To illustrate, having an authoritative parent At a theoretical level, the interaction effects seem to
makes the children feel that the events in their life are indicate that children have more external orientation of
contingent upon their own behavior and not upon a control before their involvement in bullying and
complexity of other, external forces (such as luck, fate, or victimization, but after their involvement in bullying
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

and victimization their orientation of control becomes be considered stable enough, though locus of control may
more internal, at least in the short term. Longitudinal never get stable as a construct and may differ based on
designs are needed to replicate this hypothesis. the context and other situational factors influencing
Hypothesis 3, stating that gender moderates the orientation of control (such as people involved,
mediating role of locus of control, was confirmed, motivation and values, suddenness of event, etc.).
suggesting that the mediation models had mild
differences across gender. The results on gender confirm
Limitations
previous research indicating mixed evidence on the
moderating role of gender, and may capture the Limitations of the study include the use of a cross-
differential effects of the same parenting practices for sectional design and the potential cultural specificity of
males and females. Internal locus of control seems to the results. Cypriot culture used to be more collectivistic
have a more central function for males, among at the beginning of the previous century, but individua-
adolescents with authoritarian parents. This may be listic values have prevailed among the Cypriot families,
related to the differential nature of authoritarian with the children being abler to voice their options
parenting style for males and females, as well as with against parental control (Georgiou, 1996). A meta-
the perceptions of control. Authoritarian parenting for analysis that included a Cypriot study on parenting styles
males may be conceptualized as an effort to control their showed comparability of the parenting dimensions found
orientation, which, combined with the sociocultural in the Cypriot population with the Western studies
pressures to gain control, increases bullying, especially (Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). The use of a nonrecursive
physical and direct forms of bullying. At the same time, reciprocal model and the strong theoretical background,
authoritarian parenting for females may be related to by which the direction of effect was decided, increase the
bullying not only because of the elimination of their reliability of the findings. Also, all of the measures used
perceived control, but also because of other mechanisms, have been previously validated and adapted in this
such as increase of their emotional hardness and a culture, suggesting consistent factorial structure with
decreased sense of self-efficacy, that increase indirect and Western countries. The moderate correlation between
psychological forms of bullying. Comparisons for bullying and victimization may call into question the
adolescents with authoritative parents point to a slightly discriminant validity of the constructs, but this is a
more important role of internal locus of control for problem that many studies report for that specific
females than for males. It might be that due to different instrument (e.g., Beran, 2006). Since the instrument does
characteristics of adolescent males and females and not differentiate between bullies, victims, bully– victims,
earlier maturation of females, authoritative parenting and uninvolved, it might be that the moderate correlation
may support more internal orientation of control by captures the children in the bully– victim category.
females, which protects them against bullying and Because assessment was exclusively provided by children
victimization. One should note that locus of control through self-reports, it is possible that answers in some of
may be a construct that is differentially conceptualized by the tests were influenced by children’s responses in the
cultures depending on gender. Bullying usually takes rest of the tests (e.g., orientation of control impacted
different forms among genders and this may have impact children’s perceptions about their parents’ practices, or
on the finding of moderation by gender. Parenting styles about their rating of bullying). Additional raters would
may be qualitatively different for males and females, as have increased the reliability of the findings. The
related to sociocultural background as well. acceptable and almost acceptable fit indices of some of
All of the above need to be discussed through a the models suggest that other factors should be taken into
developmental perspective. The point at which the consideration in future investigations. Also, even though
variables measured become developmentally operational the vast majority of bullying research investigates
and can be considered stable needs to be clarified. The children from the late elementary school, there is not
time in which early adolescents were tested in the study yet a clear consensus regarding when children have the
is important, as the influence of peers is thought to have cognitive abilities and are developmentally operational to
been more prominent at this age. Also, the impact of describe and report bullying and victimization (Hemp-
parenting practices is progressively reduced during this hill, Heerde, & Gomo, 2014). Locus of control is not
developmental stage. During this developmental stage, considered a stable characteristic, since many psychoso-
children may form a more personal orientation of cial factors and their interpretation may alter one’s
control, as they distance themselves more from parental orientation, though the findings of the present study
control, protection, and involvement. On the other hand, suggest its importance at this developmental stage.
the time in which we measured locus of control may not Culturally related factors, such as the sociopolitical
12 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

history of Cyprus, may have influenced parents’ and tion. The examination of multiple parenting variables
children’s feelings of external control, and cultural gender together would also be of importance, providing a more
differences may have influenced the findings pointing at holistic conceptualization of parenting practices. Future
the moderating role of gender. studies should also examine the importance of locus of
control as a mechanism for understanding the relation-
ship between parenting styles and bullying and
Contribution of the present study and future
victimization in other developmental stages. Longitudinal
studies
studies would be able to increase the specificity of the
Regardless of the above limitations, the findings of the findings regarding the direction of relationships, and
current study add to the literature exploring the factors complex designs including nonrecursive longitudinal
that are related to bullying and victimization experiences, studies would increase our insight into the reciprocal
focusing on the cumulative effect of a familial factor relations within parent –child relationships.
(parenting style) and a personal one (locus of control).
The results show that the locus of control construct is About the authors
important in early adolescence and should be addressed Stelios N. Georgiou is a Professor of educational psychology at
in intervention and prevention programs for bullying and the University of Cyprus. His main research interests include
victimization at schools. Through classes of psychoemo- parenting, home-school relations, peer aggression and bullying at
tional development and social-emotional learning, school.
children should learn to attribute their behaviors to Myria Ioannou is a Doctoral Student in Clinical Psychology at the
internal factors, as this may protect them from a range of University of Cyprus. Her main research interests include
behavioral problems and resilience in adolescence, and self-
dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., bullying and victimization, regulation mechanisms after exposure to psychological trauma.
low school effort and achievement, or disruptive
Panayiotis Stavrinides is an Assistant Professor of Developmental
behaviors). Given the early development of locus of Psychology at the University of Cyprus. He is the director of the
control and its dynamic nature, prevention programs Developmental Psychology Lab, and his main research interests
should be applied from the beginning of social include parenting, atypical developmental adaptation in adoles-
cence, mechanisms related to peer aggression and bullying at
interactions with others in the kindergarten. At this school.
stage, preschoolers should learn to balance between their
interactions with family, peers, and schools, and to start
attributing the results of their behaviors to themselves. References
Prevention and intervention programs are doomed Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimiza-
to failure if they are constrained within the boundaries tion: Cause for concern for both families and schools. Social
of the school only. Students’ homes should also be Psychology of Education, 7, 35– 54. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:
involved, especially parental attitudes and practices. SPOE.0000010668.43236.60
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their
Most importantly, parents should be educated about the association with psychological constructs in 8- to 12-year-
effects that their rearing style has on a series of variables old Greek school children. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 49 –56.
that concern their children, including their perceived http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1,49:AID-
locus of control and their bullying and victimization AB4.3.0.CO;2-M
experiences at school. Psychoeducation sessions Andreou, S. N. (2012). Analysis of household expenditure on
education in Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review, 6(2),
and skills training for parents should be evaluated in
17 – 38. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://www.ucy.ac.cy/
terms of their effect on parenting practices, and also in erc/documents/Andreou_17-38-new.pdf
terms of the impact of parenting practices on personal Atik, G., & Güneri, O. Y. (2013). Bullying and victimization:
variables. Predictive role of individual, parental, and academic factors.
Future studies should also investigate additional School Psychology International, 34(6), 658– 673. http://doi.
parameters regarding their mediating or moderating org/10.1177/0143034313479699
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and
role in the relationship between parenting styles and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles.
bullying experiences. Examples of such parameters are Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10,
the emotional proximity between parents and children, 17– 31. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)
fear of rejection, child resilience, and child disclosure. 10:1,17:AID-CASP526.3.0.CO;2-M
More than that, future investigations should concurrently Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent
development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A. Petersen
examine the potential role of multiple personal variables
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746– 758). New
as mediators, and also determine the potential signifi- York, NY: Garland.
cance of each of them in order to explain the relationship Beran, T. N. (2006). A construct validity study of bullying.
between parenting practices and bullying and victimiza- Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52(4), 241 –250.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Retrieved on April 15, 2016, from http://search.proquest. Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2008). Bullies, victims, and
com/docview/228669903?accountid¼17200 bully-victims: Psychosocial profiles and attribution styles.
Bowers, L., Smith, P. K., & Binney, V. (1994). Perceived family School Psychology International, 29, 574 – 589. http://doi.org/
relationships of bullies, victims and bully/victims in middle 10.1177/0143034308099202
childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home
215 –232. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594112004 and bullying at school. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2),
Brock, S. E., Nickerson, A. B., O’Malley, M. D., & Chang, Y. 165 – 179. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z
(2006). Understanding children victimized by their peers. Giannitsas, N. (1988). Degree of “certainty-uncertainty”:
Journal of School Violence, 5(3), 3 – 18. http://doi.org/10. Causal factors and impact on child’s adaptation (Unpub-
1300/J202v05n03_02 lished doctoral dissertation). University of Athens, Athens,
Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Greece.
Personality Assessment, 1, 110 –119. http://doi.org/10.1207/s Gifford, D. D., Briceno-Perriot, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus
15327752jpa5701_13 of control: Academic achievement and retention in a sample
Cardoos, S. L., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2011). Friendship as of university first-year students. Journal of College Admission,
protection from peer victimization for girls with and without 191, 18– 25. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952675.n169
ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(7), Hansen, T. B., Steenberg, L. M., Palic, S., & Elklit, A. (2012).
1035– 1045. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9517-3 A review of psychological factors related to bullying
Chubb, N. H., Fertman, C. I., & Ross, J. L. (1997). Adolescent victimization in schools. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
self-esteem and locus of control: A longitudinal study of 17(4), 383 –387. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.008
gender and age differences. Adolescence, 32(125), 113– 129, Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Mak, A. (2004). The impact of
Retrieved on May 3, 2016, from http://search.proquest.com/ adolescent and parental characteristics on adolescent levels of
docview/195943252?accountid¼17200 delinquency and depression. Personality and Individual
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2003). Identifying and targeting Differences, 36(1), 173 – 185. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian 8869(03)00077-1
Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 577– 582. http://doi.org/10.1177/ Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual
070674370304800903 definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining and academic community. Australia: Australian Research
the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Alliance for Children and Youth.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326 –333. http:// Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Bullying beyond the
doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying.
Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Motoca, L. M., Leung, M. C., Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hutchins, B. C., Brooks, D. S., & Hall, C. M. (2015). Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H.,
Externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, peer Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. (2009). The relationship between
affiliations, and bullying involvement across the transition to parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of
middle school. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749 – 775. http://doi.org/
23(1), 3 – 16. http://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613491286 10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual,
involvement and father involvement in adolescent bullying statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators:
behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 634– 644. Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology
http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503251129 literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems 599 – 610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599
theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
Publications. in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
Georgiou, S. N. (1996). Parental involvement: Definition and versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 1(3), 189– 209. Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1– 55. http://doi.org/10.1080/
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02339890 10705519909540118
Georgiou, S. N. (2008a). Parental style and child bullying and Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control
victimization experiences at school. Social Psychology of in the victims of school bullying: The importance of early
Education, 11(3), 213– 227. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218- intervention. Educational Research, 44(3), 323 – 336. http://
007-9048-5 doi.org/10.1080/0013188022000031614
Georgiou, S. N. (2008b). Bullying and victimization at school: Juvonen, J. (2007). Reforming middle schools: Focus on
The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational continuity, social connectedness, and engagement. Edu-
Psychology, 78, 109 – 125. http://doi.org/10.1348/ cational Psychologist, 42, 197– 208. http://doi.org/10.1080/
000709907X204363 00461520701621046
Georgiou, S. N. (2009). Personal and maternal parameters of Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2002). Bullying and
peer violence at school. Journal of School Violence, 8(2), victimisation in Scottish secondary schools: Same or separate
100 –119. http://doi.org/10.1080/15388220802073928 entities? Aggressive Behavior, 28, 45– 61. http://doi.org/10.
Georgiou, S. N., Fousiani, K., Michaelides, M., & Stavrinides, P. 1002/ab.90005
(2013). Cultural value orientation and authoritarian parent- Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R., Salcedo, O.,
ing as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Gadd, R. (2000). The relationship
International Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 69 – 78. http://doi. between parenting style and children’s adjustment: The
org/10.1080/00207594.2012.754104 parents’ perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
14 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

9(2), 231 –245. http://doi.org/1062-1024/00/0600-0231$18. Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S., & Isava, D. (2008). How
00/0 effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-
Keshavarz, S., & Baharudin, R. (2012). The moderating role of analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quar-
gender on the relationships between perceived paternal terly, 23, 26– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26
parenting style, locus of control and self-efficacy. Procedia: Miller, J. M., Diiorio, C., & Dudley, W. (2002). Parenting style
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32(2011), 63 – 68. http://doi. and adolescent’s reaction to conflict: Is there a relationship?
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.011 Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 463– 468. http://doi.org/
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00452-4
acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta- Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2007).
analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of The association of bullying and victimization with middle
Marriage and Family, 64(1), 54– 64. http://doi.org/10.1111/j. school adjustment. In J. E. Zins, M. J. Elias, & C. A. Maher
1741-3737.2002.00054.x (Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and peer harassment
Khamis, V. (2015). Bullying among school-age children in the (pp. 49 – 65). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
greater Beirut area: Risk and protective factors. Child Abuse Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale
& Neglect, 39, 137 – 146. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014. for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
08.005 40(1), 148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033978
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2007). Parental discipline Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
practices and locus of control: Relationship to bullying and we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
victimization experiences of elementary school students. Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects,
Social Psychology of Education, 10(3), 281– 301. http://doi. 26, 331 – 359. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195509
org/10.1007/s11218-007-9021-3 Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Charpentier,
Koumoundourou, G. A., Tsaousis, I., & Kounenou, K. (2010). S., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1999). Locus of control
Parental influences on Greek adolescents’ career decision- and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 61 –65.
making difficulties: The mediating role of core self- http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:1,61:AID-
evaluations. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(2), 165– 182. AB6.3.0.CO;2-G
http://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710385547 Pellegrini, A. D., & Van Ryzin, M. J. (2011). Part of the problem
Koutsampelas, C. (2011). Social transfers and income and part of the solution: The role of peers in bullying,
distribution in Cyprus. Cyprus Economic Policy Review, dominance, and victimization during the transition from
5(2), 35 – 55, Retrieved on July 2, 2016, from http:// primary school to secondary school. In D. L. Espelage &
econpapers.repec.org/article/erccypepr/ S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (2nd
v_3a5_3ay_3a2011_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a35-55.htm ed., pp. 91 – 100). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008).
of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors.
Rasch measurement model. The British Journal of Edu- Child Development, 79(2), 325– 338. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
cational Psychology, 76(Pt 4), 781– 801. http://doi.org/10. 1467-8624.2007.01128.x
1348/000709905X53499 Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., Mcmaster,
Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on
behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/ bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376 –384. http://doi.org/10.
victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1002/ab.20136
37(12), 1091– 1108. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03. Rigby, K. (2013). Bullying in schools and its relation to
001 parenting and family life. Family Matters, 92(92), 61 –67.
Li, H. C. W., & Lopez, V. (2004). Chinese translation and Retrieved March 27, 2016, from https://search.informit.com.
validation of the Nowicki-Strickland locus of control scale for au/documentSummary;dn¼442237495856995;res¼IELAPA
children. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(5), Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
463 –469. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2003.12.001 external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs:
Makri-Botsari, E. (1999). Academic intrinsic motivation: General and Applied, 80, 1– 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
Developmental differences and relations to perceived h0092976
scholastic competence, locus of control and achievement. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social
Evaluation & Research in Education, 13(3), 157– 171. http:// withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
doi.org/10.1080/09500799908666955 141 – 171. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.
Marsiglia, C. S., Walczyk, J. J., Buboltz, W. C., & Griffith-Ross, 163642
D. A. (2007). Impact of parenting styles and locus of control Salmivalli, C. (2010). Aggression and violent behavior bullying
on emerging adults’ psychosocial success. Journal of and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent
Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1 – 12, Retrieved Behavior, 15(2), 112– 120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.
on February 16, 2016, from http://www.scientificjournals. 08.007
org/journals2007/articles/1031.htm Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The
McClun, L. A., & Merrell, K. W. (1998). Relationship of aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioural
perceived parenting styles, locus of control orientation, and dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers.
self-concept among junior high age students. Psychology in In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:
the Schools, 35(4), 381– 390. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147– 174).
1520-6807(199810)35:4,381:AID-PITS9.3.0.CO;2-S New York, NY: Guilford Press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 15

Shao, A., Liang, L., Yuan, C., & Bian, Y. (2014). A latent class of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(3), 151– 164. http://doi.org/
analysis of bullies, victims and aggressive victims in Chinese 10.1891/0889-8391.24.3.151
adolescence: Relations with social and school adjustments. Tony, S. T. K. (2010). Locus of control, attributional style and
PLoS ONE, 9(4). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. discipline problems in secondary schools. Early Child
0095290 Development and Care, 173(5), 37 – 41. http://doi.org/10.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & 1080/0300443032000088203
Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionistic self- Tsaousis, I. (2002). The parental authority style and students
representations: The mediational link between psychological self-esteem as variables relevant to school problem
control and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differ- behaviour. In M. Kaila, G. Kalavasis, & N. Polemikos
ences, 38(2), 487– 498. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05. (Eds.), Educational, family and political psychopathology
008 (pp. 274 –303). Athens, Greece: Atrapos.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationships among parenting Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013).
practices, parenting styles and adolescent school achieve- Bullying victimization and adolescent mental health: General
ment. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125– 146. http:// and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice,
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1 41(1), 53 –59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005
Spokas, M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2009). Overprotective Wallace, M. T., Barry, C. T., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Green, B. A.
parenting, social anxiety, and external locus of control: (2012). Locus of control as a contributing factor in the
Cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships. Cognitive relation between self-perception and adolescent aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 38, 213– 221. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.
Therapy and Research, 33(6), 543 – 551. http://doi.org/10.
21419
1007/s10608-008-9227-5
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., Nikiforou, M., & Kiteri, E. (2011).
motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 –573.
Longitudinal investigation of the relationship between
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
bullying and psychosocial adjustment. European Journal of
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. (2003). Perceived
Developmental Psychology, 8(6), 730 – 743. http://doi.org/10. parenting styles, depersonalization, anxiety and coping
1080/17405629.2011.628545 behavior in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differ-
Stavrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying ences, 34(3), 521– 531. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869
and empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation. (02)00092-2
Educational Psychology, 30(7), 793– 802. http://doi.org/10. Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Testing reciprocal relations by
1080/01443410.2010.506004 nonrecursive structural equation models using cross-
Stevens, V., Bourdeaudhuij, I. D., & Oost, P. V. (2002). sectional data. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1),
Relationship of the family environment to children’s 69 – 87. http://doi.org/10.1177/109442819921005
involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu,
Youth and Adolescence, 31(6), 419– 428. http://doi.org/10. B. C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory,
1023/A:1020207003027 empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Haymel, S. Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 134 – 151. http://doi.org/10.
(2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking 1111/1469-7610.00106
research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, Yau, G., Schluchter, M., Taylor, H. G., Margevicius, S., Forrest,
39(1), 38– 47. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622 C. B., . . . Hack, M. (2013). Bullying of extremely low birth
Timpano, K. R., Keough, M. E., Mahaffey, B., Schmidt, N. B., & weight children: Associated risk factors during adolescence.
Abramowitz, J. (2010). Parenting and obsessive compulsive Early Human Development, 89(5), 333 – 338. http://doi.org/
symptoms: Implications of authoritarian parenting. Journal 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2012.11.004
16 S. N. GEORGIOU ET AL.

Appendix: Regression weights for the mediation model (authoritative, internal/ external locus,
victimization and bullying) with maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimation
Regression weights with maximum likelihood estimation

Estimate SE C.R. P Label

FACexternal ˆ authoritative 2.300 .062 24.861 *** par_24
FACinternal ˆ authoritative .192 .065 2.979 .003 par_25
FACinternal ˆ eext 2.852 .029 229.716 *** par_31
FACexternal ˆ eint .773 .026 29.423 *** par_32
bullying ˆ resbul .129 .008 16.375 *** par_14
bullying ˆ authoritative 2.020 .011 21.944 .052 par_26
victimization ˆ FACinternal 2.043 .009 24.884 *** par_27
bullying ˆ FACinternal 2.043 .008 25.425 *** par_28
victimization ˆ FACexternal .008 .008 .986 .324 par_29
victimization ˆ resvic .138 .011 12.370 *** par_33
victimization ˆ authoritative 2.015 .012 21.278 .201 par_34
tb14 ˆ bullying 1.085 .067 16.148 *** par_1
tb15 ˆ bullying .742 .068 10.993 *** par_2
tb18 ˆ bullying .495 .072 6.888 *** par_3
tb19 ˆ bullying .872 .068 12.904 *** par_4
c27 ˆ authoritative 1.086 .116 9.334 *** par_5
c23 ˆ authoritative 1.274 .117 10.852 *** par_6
c22 ˆ authoritative .828 .101 8.169 *** par_7
c20 ˆ authoritative 1.035 .116 8.925 *** par_8
c15 ˆ authoritative 1.065 .111 9.597 *** par_9
c11 ˆ authoritative .922 .106 8.692 *** par_10
c8 ˆ authoritative .959 .103 9.274 *** par_11
c5 ˆ authoritative .938 .121 7.725 *** par_12
c4 ˆ authoritative .985 .110 8.973 *** par_13
tb3 ˆ victimization .974 .102 9.558 *** par_15
tb4 ˆ victimization 1.252 .108 11.579 *** par_16
tb5 ˆ victimization 1.206 .106 11.408 *** par_17
tb6 ˆ victimization .833 .082 10.128 *** par_18
tb7 ˆ victimization .549 .065 8.446 *** par_19
tb8 ˆ victimization .842 .087 9.696 *** par_20
tb9 ˆ victimization .726 .080 9.073 *** par_21
tb12 ˆ bullying .875 .049 18.026 *** par_35
tb13 ˆ bullying 1.066 .072 14.912 *** par_36
tb16 ˆ bullying .698 .078 8.947 *** par_37
tb17 ˆ bullying .434 .059 7.382 *** par_38
tb20 ˆ bullying .652 .062 10.442 *** par_39
***p , .001.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOOL & EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 17

Regression weights with Bayesian estimation

Regression weights Mean SE SD C.S. Skewness Kurtosis Min Max

tb14 ˆ bullying 1.112 0.002 0.071 1.000 0.280 0.494 0.879 1.539
tb15 ˆ bullying 0.760 0.002 0.071 1.000 0.227 0.146 0.513 1.057
tb18 ˆ bullying 0.509 0.003 0.075 1.001 0.028 0.056 0.198 0.868
tb19 ˆ bullying 0.893 0.002 0.072 1.000 0.157 0.085 0.594 1.178
c27 ˆ authoritative 1.187 0.006 0.138 1.001 0.404 0.142 0.728 1.729
c23 ˆ authoritative 1.394 0.007 0.142 1.001 0.406 0.089 0.982 1.981
c22 ˆ authoritative 0.897 0.005 0.114 1.001 0.224 0.042 0.477 1.406
c20 ˆ authoritative 1.130 0.005 0.133 1.001 0.335 0.143 0.669 1.687
c15 ˆ authoritative 1.164 0.006 0.136 1.001 0.377 0.176 0.691 1.730
c11 ˆ authoritative 1.008 0.005 0.124 1.001 0.403 0.225 0.625 1.558
c8 ˆ authoritative 1.047 0.007 0.122 1.001 0.321 0.208 0.666 1.624
c5 ˆ authoritative 1.029 0.005 0.140 1.001 0.366 0.473 0.550 1.707
c4 ˆ authoritative 1.081 0.006 0.128 1.001 0.286 0.193 0.595 1.637
bullying ˆ resbul 0.127 0.000 0.008 1.000 0.034 20.039 0.095 0.157
tb3 ˆ victimization 1.000 0.004 0.108 1.001 0.316 0.251 0.627 1.488
tb4 ˆ victimization 1.285 0.005 0.115 1.001 0.385 0.248 0.910 1.832
tb5 ˆ victimization 1.242 0.004 0.115 1.001 0.498 0.485 0.876 1.800
tb6 ˆ victimization 0.854 0.003 0.090 1.001 0.503 0.864 0.583 1.381
tb7 ˆ victimization 0.566 0.002 0.069 1.000 0.371 0.474 0.341 0.935
tb8 ˆ victimization 0.867 0.002 0.092 1.000 0.283 0.118 0.568 1.256
tb9 ˆ victimization 0.746 0.002 0.087 1.000 0.358 0.261 0.450 1.130
FACexternal ˆ authoritative 20.328 0.002 0.070 1.001 20.259 0.170 20.621 20.088
FACinternal ˆ authoritative 0.207 0.002 0.071 1.001 0.113 0.104 20.079 0.475
bullying ˆ authoritative 20.022 0.001 0.012 1.001 20.148 0.054 20.069 0.023
victimization ˆ FACinternal 20.042 0.000 0.009 1.000 20.077 20.034 20.076 20.011
bullying ˆ FACinternal 20.043 0.000 0.008 1.001 20.070 0.125 20.078 20.012
victimization ˆ FACexternal 0.008 0.000 0.008 1.000 20.096 0.232 20.027 0.042
FACinternal ˆ eext 0.856 0.001 0.029 1.001 0.160 0.019 0.743 0.966
FACexternal ˆ eint 20.777 0.001 0.026 1.000 20.138 20.025 20.885 20.676
victimization ˆ resvic 0.136 0.000 0.012 1.001 0.075 0.042 0.094 0.183
victimization ˆ authoritative 20.016 0.000 0.013 1.001 20.246 0.254 20.075 0.033
tb12 ˆ bullying 0.890 0.001 0.051 1.000 0.253 0.262 0.700 1.122
tb13 ˆ bullying 1.092 0.002 0.080 1.000 0.288 0.213 0.819 1.451
tb16 ˆ bullying 0.713 0.003 0.082 1.001 0.131 0.070 0.404 1.082
tb17 ˆ bullying 0.444 0.002 0.062 1.000 0.048 20.068 0.206 0.673
tb20 ˆ bullying 0.669 0.002 0.067 1.000 0.200 0.081 0.417 0.941