Journal article Open Access

Cyber Bullying in the Netherlands: A Criminological Perspective

Kerstens, Joyce ; Veenstra, Sander

Jaishankar, K

It is assumed that the online world creates new possibilities for criminal behaviour. Only recently criminologists started the debate on the applicability of traditional criminological theories to cyber crime offending. Analyses based on a Dutch survey among 6,299 adolescents (50.9 % male), aged from 10 to 18 (M = 13.0, SD = 1.87) indicate that cyber bullying behaviour is not only strongly interwoven with traditional bullying behaviours, but also is affected by the distinct features of the online environment. The findings give support to the suggestion that the aetiological schema to explain cyber bullying should postulate the interaction between individual characteristics, distinct features of the online environment and the interaction between offline and online social realities.


Files (347.1 kB)
Name Size
347.1 kB Download
  • Amato, P., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703-716.
  • Andriessen, D., Onstenk, J., Delnooz, P., Smeijsters, H., & Peij, S. (2010). Gedragscode praktijkgericht onderzoek voor het hbo; Gedragscode voor het voorbereiden en uitvoeren van praktijkgericht onderzoek binnen het Hoger Beroepsonderwijs in Nederland [Dutch Code of conduct for research in applied sciences]. Delft: Elan Strategie & Creatie.
  • Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual Differences and their Relationship to Psychological Well-Being in Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.
  • Bernard, T. J. (2002). Twenty years of testing theories. What have we learned and why? In S. Côte (Ed.), Criminological theories. Bridging the past to the future (pp. 5-13). London: Sage.
  • Bottoms, A. (2000). The relationship between theory and research in criminology. In R. D. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (pp. 15-60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
  • Dijk, T. van (2012). Toegang en toezicht, online tijdbesteding en –activiteiten [Access and monitoring, time online and online activities]. In J. Kerstens & W. Ph. Stol (Red.), Jeugd en Cybersafety, Online slachtoffer- en daderschaponderNederlandsejongeren [Youth & Cybersafety: Online victimization and perpetration among Dutch youth] (pp. 55-72). Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
  • Eijnden, R. van den, Meerkerk, G., Vermulst, A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R. (2008). Online communication, compulsive Internet use and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 655-665.
  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (2003). Self-control and opportunity. In C.L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency (pp. 5-39). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Grabosky, P. (2001). Virtual criminality: old wine in new bottles? Social & Legal Studies, 10, 243-249.
  • Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik Jr. R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
  • Hay, C. & W. Forrest. (2008). Self-control theory and the concept of opportunity: The case for a more systematic union. Criminology, 46, 1039-1072.
  • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
  • Holt, T. J. (Ed.) (2013). Cyber crime and Criminological Theory: Fundamental Readings on Hacking, Piracy, Theft and Harassment. San Diego: Cognella.
  • Jaishankar, K. (2008). Space transition theory of cyber crimes. In F. Schmalleger & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 283−301). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Jaishankar, K. (Ed.) (2011). Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and Criminal Behavior. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Junger-Tas, J., Steketee, M. &, Moll, M. (2008). Achtergronden van jeugddelinquentie en middelengebruik [The background of juvenile delinquency and substance use]. Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut.
  • Kerstens, J., & Stol, W. P. (2012). Jeugd en Cybersafety: Online slachtoffer- en daderschap onder Nederlandse jongeren [Youth& Cybersafety: Online victimization and perpetration among Dutch youth]. Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
  • Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), s22-s30.
  • Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Development and validation of a game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology, 12, 77-95.
  • Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet: Great Expectations, Challenging Realities. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
  • McGuire, M. (2007). Hypercrime: The new geometry of harm. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
  • McQuade, S. C. (2006). Understanding and Managing Cyber crime. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Meerkerk, G. J. (2007). Pwned by the internet: Explorative research into the causes and consequences of compulsive internet use (PhD thesis). Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
  • Menesini, E. (2012).Cyber bullying: The right value of the phenomenon. Comments on the paper “Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?”. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 544-552.
  • Nikken, P., &Jansz, J. (2011). Parental mediation of young children’s Internet use. London: EU Kids Online Conference 2011, September 22-23.
  • Nofziger, S. (2001). Bullies, Fights and Guns: Testing Self-Control Theory with Juveniles. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
  • Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 9-33). New York: Routledge.
  • Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520-538.
  • Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In J. W. Patchin& S. Hinduja (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 13-35). New York: Routledge.
  • Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72(2), 583-598.
  • Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
  • Rooij, T. van, &Eijnden, R. van den (2007). Monitor internet en jongeren 2006 en 2007: Ontwikkelingen in internetgebruik en de rol van opvoeding [Monitor Internet and Youth 2006 and 2007: Developments in Internet use and the role of education]. Rotterdam: IVO.
  • Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112-120.
  • Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and Underlying Processes of Adolescents’ Online Self-Disclosure: Developing and Testing an “Internet-Attribute-Perception” Model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292-314.
  • Smith, P. K., del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. G. (2013). Definitions of Bullying and Cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.). Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, and Methodology (pp. 26-40). New York: Routledge.
  • Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, & Tippet, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
  • Sticca, F., Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., &Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal Risk Factors for Cyberbullying in Adolescence. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 52-67.doi: 10.1002/casp.2136
  • Stol, W. Ph. (2012). Cyberspace and safety. In E. R. Leukfeldt & W. Ph. Stol (Eds.), Cybersafety: An Introduction (pp. 19-30). Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.
  • Subrahmanyam, K, & Šmahel, D. (2011). Digital Youth: The Role of Media in Development. New York: Springer.
  • Suler, J. R. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior,7, 321-326.
  • Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., Liederbach, J., & Holt, T. J. (2010). Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Taylor, R., Caeti, T., Loper, D., Fritsch, E., &Liederbach, J. (2006). Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Tittle, C.R., Ward, D.A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4), 333-348.
  • Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computer in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
  • Udris, R. (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 253-261.
  • Unnever, J.D, & Cornell, D.G. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2),129-147.
  • Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K. et al. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486-495.
  • Vandebosch, H., Cleemput, K. van, Mortelmans, D. & Walrave, M. (2006). Cyberpestenbijjongeren in Vlaanderen [Cyberbullying among youth in Flanders]. Brussel: viWTA.
  • Veenstra, S. (2012). Cyberpesten [Cyberbullying]. In J. Kerstens & W. Ph. Stol (Red.), Jeugd en Cybersafety, Online slachtoffer- en daderschap onder Nederlandse jongeren [Youth & Cybersafety: Online victimization and perpetration among Dutch youth] (pp. 73-103). Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
  • Veiligheidsmonitor (2013). Veiligheidsmonitor 2012 [Safety Monitor 2012]. Den Haag: CBS/Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.
  • Von Marées, N., & Petermann, F. (2012). Cyberbullying: An increasing challenge for schools. School Psychology International, 33, 467-476.
  • Wall, D. (2001). Cyber crimes and the Internet. In D. Wall. (Ed.), Crime and the Internet (pp. 1-17), London: Routledge.
  • Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14-S21.
  • Wilson, J.Q., & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Yar, M. (2005). ‘The Novelty of ‘Cyber crime’: An Assessment in Light of Routine Activity Theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407-427.
  • Yar, M. (2006). Cyber crime and Society. London: Sage.
  • Yar, M. (2012). Sociological en Criminological Theories in the Information Era. In E.R. Leukfeldt, & W.Ph. Stol (Eds.) Cyber Safety: An Introduction (pp. 45-55). Den Haag: Eleven International Publishing.
  • Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336.
  • Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of Internet harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 189-195.


Cite as