FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
The hierarchic regression analysis results
| Predicted variables | Predictor variables | B | SEr | β |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CV (T2) | ||||
| Model 1 | Constant | 5.58 | 0.69 | |
| CV(T1) | 0.57 | 0.05 | 0.52** | |
| Model 2 | Constant | 5.41 | 0.87 | |
| CV (T1) | 0.55 | 0.06 | 0.51** | |
| CB (T1) | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.02 | |
| Note: For Model 1 R2 = 0.27 (p < 0.001); for Model 2 ΔR2 = 0.00 (p > 0.001) | ||||
| CB (T2) | ||||
| Model 1 | Constant | 6.00 | 0.64 | |
| CB (T1) | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.48** | |
| Model 2 | Constant | 5.11 | 0.66 | |
| CB(T1) | 0.37 | 0.06 | 0.35** | |
| CV (T1) | 0.20 | 0.05 | 0.24** | |
| Note: For Model 1 R2 = 0.23 (p < 0.001); for Model 2 ΔR2 = 0.04 (p < 0.001) | ||||
The descriptive statistics and correlations between variables
| Cyberbullying T1 | Cyber victimization T1 | Cyberbullying T2 | Cyber victimization T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyberbullying T1 | 1 | |||
| Cyber victimization T1 | 0.58** | 1 | ||
| Cyberbullying T2 | 0.56** | 0.42** | 1 | |
| Cyber victimization T2 | 0.41** | 0.55** | 0.64** | 1 |
| M | 12.66 | 13.26 | 12.49 | 13.24 |
| SD | 3.56 | 3.99 | 3.72 | 3.84 |