Open family conversations linked to lower cyberbullying victimization in teens

What the study found

The statistical model found that four measures made significant unique contributions to reported cyberbullying victimization. Social assessment, or mentally evaluating social interactions, was negatively associated with victimization (β = −0.256), as was self-management, a form of self-regulatory inner dialogue (β = −0.311). Conversation-oriented family communication was also negatively associated with victimization (β = −0.298). Conformity-oriented communication, which emphasizes uniformity and obedience, was positively associated with victimization (β = 0.303).

The model explained 31.5% of the variance in victimization scores. In the correlation analysis, all four measured inner self-talk dimensions—including self-reinforcement and self-criticism—were associated with lower victimization. However, self-reinforcement and self-criticism did not make distinct contributions once the other measures were considered together.

Why family talk matters

The findings suggest that both adolescents’ internal ways of evaluating and regulating social experiences and the communication patterns they perceive at home are relevant to understanding cyberbullying victimization. In particular, the results point to open family discussion and constructive self-regulation as factors associated with lower reported vulnerability, while also indicating that conformity-focused family communication may be linked to more victimization. The study does not establish that changing family communication or self-talk would reduce cyberbullying.

Evidence and caveats

This was a quantitative, cross-sectional correlational study of 200 secondary school students in Shiraz, Iran, selected through convenience sampling. Participants completed questionnaires about cyberbullying victimization, family communication and inner self-talk; the researchers analyzed the responses with Pearson correlations and multiple regression.

Because the study measured the factors at one point in time, it cannot determine cause and effect. The sample came from one city and may not represent adolescents in other settings. All measures were self-reported, which can introduce reporting or self-perception biases. The study also did not examine other potentially relevant factors, such as peer relationships, school climate, personality or online behavior.