1. Abstract
The Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CWCBQ) is a comprehensive, multi-dimensional psychometric assessment instrument developed by Fabio Sticca, Katja Machmutow, Ariane Stauber, Sonja Perren, and colleagues in 2015 to assess behavioral, emotional, and cognitive coping responses employed by children, adolescents, and emerging adults when confronted with electronic victimization. Developed across multiple European cultural contexts, the CWCBQ addresses the unique ecological, technological, and interpersonal demands posed by digital harassment, which differ fundamentally from offline peer aggression due to potential 24/7 connectivity, rapid dissemination, audience breadth, and perpetrator anonymity. The instrument consists of 36 items structured across seven distinct first-order factors: Distal Advice, Close Support, Retaliation, Assertiveness, Active Ignoring, Helplessness/Self-blame, and Technical Coping. Respondents rate their behavioral likelihood on a 4-point response scale ranging from 1 (Definitely Not) to 4 (Definitely Yes), alongside an optional category for 5 (No Answer / non-endorsement).
Confirmatory factor analyses across diverse adolescent cohorts demonstrate robust construct validity, establishing that cyberbullying coping cannot be reduced to simple dichotomies of problem-focused versus emotion-focused actions, but rather encompasses technical actions, relational resources, confrontational dynamics, and maladaptive cognitive surrender. Internal consistency coefficients across the subscales typically range from satisfactory to excellent (Cronbach’s α = .67 to .89). Subscales exhibit meaningful patterns of convergent and discriminant validity with psychological adjustment indicators, depressive symptoms, self-esteem, peer support, and subsequent victimization trajectory. By offering a standardized framework for empirical research, school-based intervention planning, and clinical evaluation, the CWCBQ remains one of the most prominent, validated measures in digital peer-relations psychometrics.
2. Keywords
Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire, CWCBQ, cyberbullying, adolescent coping strategies, online harassment, psychometrics, technical coping, peer victimization, cyber aggression, factor structure
3. Authors
The Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire was developed through an international collaborative effort led by developmental and educational psychologists specializing in peer victimization and digital media:
- Fabio Sticca, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland; Marie Meierhofer Children’s Institute, Zurich, Switzerland. Expert in developmental psychopathology, longitudinal modeling, and cyber peer interactions.
- Katja Machmutow, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Developmental Psychology: Infancy and Childhood, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Research focus on adolescent emotional development, coping, and social media dynamics.
- Ariane Stauber, M.Sc. — Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Specializing in school-based prevention and digital aggression measurement.
- Sonja Perren, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and Professor of Empirical Educational Research, University of Konstanz / Thurgau University of Teacher Education, Kreuzlingen, Switzerland. Internationally recognized authority on peer bullying, cyberbullying prevention, and developmental social dynamics.
- Collaborating Members of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action IS0801 — “Cyberbullying: Coping with Negative and Enhancing Positive Uses of New Technologies, in Relationships in Educational Settings.”
4. Purpose
The fundamental purpose of the Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CWCBQ) is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound, and ecologically valid instrument capable of categorizing how individuals respond to cyber victimization scenarios. Prior to the establishment of the CWCBQ, the empirical assessment of coping with online peer aggression relied heavily on ad-hoc questionnaire batteries adapted from traditional stress and coping inventories, such as the Ways of Coping Checklist or the COPE inventory. However, these traditional measures fail to capture the idiosyncratic phenomenology of digital environments, particularly technological interventions (e.g., blocking perpetrators, changing screen names, saving forensic evidence) and the distinct power asymmetries inherent in online communication.
The clinical and developmental rationale for the CWCBQ rests on the understanding that coping behaviors act as primary mediators and moderators between the experience of cyber victimization and severe psychological outcomes, including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, academic alienation, non-suicidal self-injury, and suicidal ideation. Clinicians and school psychologists require nuanced diagnostic insight to identify whether a victimized adolescent is relying on adaptive, solution-focused approaches (e.g., mobilization of close support networks, technical protective barriers) or is descending into maladaptive coping sequences characterized by internalizing self-blame, paralyzed helplessness, or dangerous cyber retaliation.
In research contexts, the CWCBQ enables systematic cross-national and longitudinal investigations into how coping strategies evolve across childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood. It permits researchers to systematically differentiate between coping intentions (responses to hypothetical cyberbullying vignettes) and coping actions (retrospective accounts of actual cyberbullying incidents). Furthermore, the scale serves as an objective outcome evaluation tool for targeted anti-bullying curricula (e.g., the KiVa Anti-Bullying Program, Media Heroes) by monitoring whether targeted educational programs successfully increase constructive help-seeking and technical boundary setting while attenuating retaliatory aggression and self-punitive cognitions.
5. Psychological Construct
The construct assessed by the CWCBQ is the multidimensional taxonomy of cognitive, affective, and behavioral coping responses enacted in response to electronic victimization. Grounded in contemporary coping models, the instrument categorizes responses into seven distinct first-order dimensions:
Distal Advice
This dimension reflects formal, institutionally mediated help-seeking behaviors directed toward authoritative third parties who are physically or emotionally removed from the victim’s immediate personal peer circle. Items capture actions such as reporting victimization to law enforcement, consulting educational administrators (e.g., headmasters, teachers), reaching out to anonymous telephonic or digital crisis hotlines, or seeking formal psychiatric and psychological intervention. In contrast to casual peer socialization, distal advice requires the victim to transcend informal social boundaries to engage systemic support structures.
Close Support
Close Support assesses informal, relationship-oriented coping strategies that leverage immediate social capital. This dimension captures the victim’s deliberate effort to seek emotional solace, validation, and practical understanding from close friends, trusted peers, and compassionate family members. Engaging in close support serves both an emotion-focused coping function (venting emotional distress, receiving soothing reassurance) and a problem-focused function (collaborative problem-solving within trusted networks).
Retaliation
Retaliation encapsulates aggressive, confrontational, and punitive responses directed back at the perpetrator, either within the digital ecosystem (e.g., counter-flaming, sending hostile messages, cyber retaliatory shaming) or across physical school and community settings (e.g., face-to-face threats, physical confrontations, or mobilizing a peer collective to execute counter-attacks). Theoretically, retaliation reflects an externalizing, dysregulated attempt to restore perceived social dominance or alleviate subjective humiliation, which frequently escalates cyberbullying cycles into broader peer group warfare.
Assertiveness
Assertiveness reflects direct, non-aggressive, boundary-setting confrontation with the aggressor. Individuals scoring high on this dimension openly confront the perpetrator by stating that the behavior is unacceptable, requesting that malicious activity cease, demanding an explanation for the hostility, or clarifying that such interactions cause genuine harm. Unlike retaliation, assertiveness is devoid of malicious counter-attacks; instead, it models mature socio-emotional boundary enforcement and verbal conflict resolution.
Active Ignoring
Active Ignoring represents a deliberate, intentional cognitive-behavioral decision to refrain from reacting outwardly to malicious stimuli, with the strategic goal of depriving the perpetrator of reinforcement. This subscale includes behavioral avoidance (keeping out of the bully’s path), cognitive reframing (pretending the event is inconsequential), and message-level disengagement (refusing to open, read, or reply to offensive content so the aggressor loses interest). It represents a purposeful self-regulatory effort rather than passive surrender.
Helplessness/Self-blame
Helplessness/Self-blame captures dysfunctional internalizing reactions characterized by subjective defeat, profound distress, behavioral paralysis, and punitive self-attribution. Victims experiencing this pattern endorse catastrophic beliefs (e.g., believing nothing can be done), experience intense despair, lack directional agency, and attribute their victimization to their own perceived inadequacies or culpability. This subscale is the most significant psychopathological marker within the CWCBQ, correlating robustly with affective disorders.
Technical Coping
Technical Coping measures domain-specific actions afforded by digital communication architectures to terminate or mitigate digital harassment. Behaviors in this dimension include blocking perpetrators on social messaging platforms, reporting abuse to service providers (e.g., hosting platforms, telecommunication carriers), modifying account credentials, tightening privacy settings, minimizing digital footprints, and systematically archiving digital evidence (e.g., taking screenshots, storing server metadata) for future administrative or judicial review.
6. Theoretical Framework
The architectural foundation of the Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire integrates several prominent theoretical frameworks within cognitive psychology, developmental psychopathology, and media ecology:
Transactional Model of Stress and Coping
The primary theoretical bedrock of the CWCBQ is the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping articulated by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). According to this paradigm, stress is not an environmental event or a physiological response per se, but rather an ongoing dynamic relationship between an individual and their environment that is cognitively appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources. When an adolescent encounters digital hostility, they initiate primary appraisal (evaluating the personal threat, potential reputational loss, or bodily challenge) followed by secondary appraisal (evaluating behavioral resources, technological skills, and relational support available to cope with the threat).
Lazarus and Folkman historically bifurcated coping into problem-focused coping (aimed at managing or altering the problem causing the distress) and emotion-focused coping (directed toward regulating emotional responses). Sticca et al. recognized that this classic dichotomy was insufficient to describe digital peer harassment. Consequently, the CWCBQ articulates a differentiated ecological framework wherein coping responses are organized by their targeted vector: the digital channel (Technical Coping), the aggressor directly (Assertiveness, Retaliation), third-party support networks (Distal Advice, Close Support), intrapsychic regulation (Active Ignoring), or internalizing failure (Helplessness/Self-blame).
Cyber-Ecological Systems Theory
Drawing on Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework as adapted for cyberspace, digital peer interactions function within an interconnected matrix of microsystems (e.g., virtual peer groups, online gaming channels, real-world school classrooms) embedded within an overarching technological exosystem. The CWCBQ recognizes that coping choices reflect the technical affordances (e.g., blocking, reporting mechanisms) and structural constraints of digital platforms. Cyberbullying differs from traditional schoolyard bullying in three critical ecological dimensions: permanence/replicability, public scalability, and spatial detachment. Consequently, adaptive coping mandates techno-behavioral maneuvers that alter the technological interface between the victim and the digital aggressor.
7. Validity
The psychometric validation of the CWCBQ has been rigorously established across several cross-sectional and longitudinal empirical investigations, encompassing thousands of adolescents across Europe, North America, and other global regions.
Construct and Factorial Validity
In the foundational validation study by Sticca et al. (2015), conducted among a representative sample of Swiss adolescents (N = 786, ages 12–17), structural equation modeling affirmed the construct validity of the hypothesized seven-factor model. The dimensional independence of the seven subscales demonstrated that adolescent coping profiles are distinct rather than unipolar. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that all 36 items loaded significantly on their designated latent factors without pathological cross-loadings or localized residual strain.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity has been repeatedly corroborated via systematic correlations with standardized measures of psychopathology, self-efficacy, and social support:
- Helplessness/Self-blame: Positively correlated with high depressive symptom scores on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; r = .45 to .58, p < .001) and generalized anxiety symptoms, while negatively correlated with subjective well-being and general coping self-efficacy.
- Close Support and Distal Advice: Showed positive convergent associations with perceived social support from peers and families, as well as institutional trust in school authority figures (r = .38 to .52, p < .001).
- Retaliation: Strongly correlated with externalizing behavior problems, proactive peer aggression, conduct disorder scales, and low levels of moral disengagement control.
- Technical Coping: Correlated significantly with digital media literacy scores, self-reported online safety behaviors, and technological self-efficacy.
Discriminant validity was established through low to negligible inter-factor correlations between conceptually divergent scales (e.g., Helplessness/Self-blame showed near-zero or non-significant correlations with Technical Coping, |r| < .15), demonstrating that the instrument successfully isolates distinct psychological mechanisms rather than a single generalized distress response.
8. Reliability
The Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire exhibits robust internal consistency and stability across diverse adolescent cohorts. In the primary psychometric validation by Sticca et al. (2015), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated good to excellent reliability across the distinct subscales:
- Distal Advice: α = .78 to .84 across sample cohorts.
- Close Support: α = .82 to .88, reflecting coherent interpersonal help-seeking tendencies.
- Retaliation: α = .80 to .85, indicating consistent measurement of aggressive counter-reactions.
- Assertiveness: α = .79 to .83, confirming homogeneous behavioral indicators of direct non-violent confrontation.
- Active Ignoring: α = .67 to .74, demonstrating satisfactory internal reliability for cognitive and behavioral disengagement.
- Helplessness/Self-blame: α = .79 to .84, showing strong reliability in capturing internalizing paralysis.
- Technical Coping: α = .73 to .81, capturing an array of digital defense actions.
Subsequent psychometric adaptations across different linguistic contexts (e.g., Italian, German, Spanish, and Turkish adaptations) have verified composite reliability values (ω) ranging between .72 and .89. Test-retest reliability evaluated across six-month longitudinal intervals yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between .55 and .71, which aligns with developmental expectations for coping strategies that fluctuate based on shifting social contexts, maturing executive functions, and varying peer pressures.
9. Factor Analysis
The factorial integrity of the CWCBQ was established through an iterative process of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during preliminary pilot stages, followed by rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during formal psychometric validation:
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Statistics
Using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) to account for multivariate non-normality, Sticca et al. (2015) evaluated the hypothesized 7-factor model against alternative competing models (including a 1-factor general coping model and a 2-factor problem/emotion-focused model). The 7-factor model demonstrated superior fit to the empirical data:
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (90% Confidence Interval: [.039, .046]), indicating excellent fit.
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .941, well above established thresholds for adequate model specification.
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .934, confirming high structural fit.
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .049, indicating minimal residual variance across item covariances.
Factor Loadings
Standardized factor loadings across all 36 items were statistically significant (p < .001). Standardized factor saturation estimates for each specific subscale are summarized below:
- Distal Advice (Items 2, 7, 17, 23, 32): Standardized loadings ranged from .54 (seeking advice on an online platform) to .84 (informing a teacher or principal; calling a helpline).
- Close Support (Items 8, 11, 14, 27, 35): Standardized loadings ranged from .61 (spending time with friends to take mind off it) to .86 (going to someone I can trust).
- Retaliation (Items 5, 18, 26, 29, 33): Highly uniform loadings ranging from .65 to .87, with “getting back at the bully personally” and “getting back in the real world” demonstrating the strongest factor saturation.
- Assertiveness (Items 9, 16, 22, 25, 34): Loadings ranged from .58 to .82, with “tell the bully that this is not ok at all” showing the highest shared variance.
- Active Ignoring (Items 6, 10, 13, 19, 30): Loadings ranged from .48 to .76, reflecting cognitive reframing alongside direct physical/digital avoidance.
- Helplessness/Self-blame (Items 4, 12, 15, 20, 21): Factor loadings spanned .56 to .83, anchored strongly by “be totally desperate” and “not know what to do.”
- Technical Coping (Items 1, 3, 24, 28, 31, 36): Loadings ranged from .51 to .75, with “block the bully” and “change contact details” displaying the strongest factor representation.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Full Instrument Title: Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CWCBQ)
- Authors: Fabio Sticca, Katja Machmutow, Ariane Stauber, Sonja Perren, et al.
- Publication Year: 2015
- Instrument Format: Self-report psychometric rating scale administered via paper-and-pencil or computerized/web-based platforms.
- Item Count: 36 items, preceded by a screening/experiential context item (“Did you ever experience something like that? (Yes/No)”) and a framing stem: “What would you do in this situation? ‘I would…’”.
- Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type behavioral likelihood scale, with an explicit non-endorsement option:
- 1 = Definitely Not
- 2 = Probably Not
- 3 = Probably
- 4 = Definitely Yes
- 5 = No Answer (treated as missing/non-applicable in scoring)
- Subscale Allocation (7 Subscales):
- Distal Advice (5 items): Items 2, 7, 17, 23, 32
- Close Support (5 items): Items 8, 11, 14, 27, 35
- Retaliation (5 items): Items 5, 18, 26, 29, 33
- Assertiveness (5 items): Items 9, 16, 22, 25, 34
- Active Ignoring (5 items): Items 6, 10, 13, 19, 30
- Helplessness/Self-blame (5 items): Items 4, 12, 15, 20, 21
- Technical Coping (6 items): Items 1, 3, 24, 28, 31, 36
- Scoring Procedures: Item responses 1 to 4 are scored numerically. Option 5 (“No Answer”) is excluded from mean calculations or treated as missing data according to standard listwise/pairwise protocols or full information maximum likelihood (FIML). Subscale scores are derived by calculating the arithmetic mean of the non-missing items within each subscale, yielding a dimensional score between 1.00 and 4.00 for each coping category. Higher scores indicate greater propensity or intention to employ that specific coping strategy.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire was developed and published in 2015 under an Open Access framework. It was disseminated via MDPI in the academic journal Societies (Sticca et al., 2015; DOI: 10.3390/soc5020515) as an output of the European COST Action IS0801 research initiative.
In accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), the CWCBQ is made freely available to researchers, clinical practitioners, educational institutions, and healthcare providers worldwide without royalty charges, licensing fees, or prior copyright permission mandates, provided that appropriate academic attribution and citation are accorded to the original authors and the original publication source. Commercial adaptation into proprietary diagnostic batteries or fee-charging digital assessment systems requires direct consultation with the corresponding authors.
12. References
- Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
- Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D., McGuckin, C., Sevcikova, A., Tsatsou, P., & Völlink, T. (2012). Tackling cyberbullying: Review of empirical evidence regarding prevention and intervention. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2921
- Sticca, F., Machmutow, K., Stauber, A., Perren, S., Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., Corcoran, L., & O’Moore, M. (2015). The Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire: Development of a new measure. Societies, 5(2), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5020515
- Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
- Sticca, F., Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal risk factors for cyberbullying in adolescence. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2102