Cross-cultural and gender differences in cyberbullying coping strategies among adolescents: A comparative analysis of Russia and Kazakhstan

Gulmira U. Utemissova

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.33910/2686-9527-2025-7-3-393-407
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Introduction. This study investigates cross-cultural and gender differences in cyberbullying coping strategies among adolescents in Russia and Kazakhstan, addressing a critical gap in understanding how cultural and gender factors shape adaptive behaviors. Grounded in G. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede 2011) and A. H. Eagly’s gender socialization model (Eagly 2013), the research proposes culturally tailored prevention frameworks. Materials and Methods. A sample of 404 adolescents (11–17 years; Russia: n = 206, 52 % female; Kazakhstan: n = 198, 54 % female) completed the adapted Russian Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CWCBQ) (Sticca 2020; Utemisova 2024). The questionnaire was validated through exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.85; χ² = 13,691.213, p < 0.001) (Brown 2015) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.036), with cross-cultural invariance confirmed (ΔCFI < 0.01). Analyses included Mann–Whitney U tests, Spearman correlations, and two-way ANOVA accounting for age, gender, and country. Results. ‘Close support’ emerged as the dominant strategy (M = 23.2, SD = 5.3), strongly correlated with ‘active ignoring’ (r = 0.664, p < 0.01). Kazakh adolescents relied on ‘distal advice’ (ΔM = 3.1, p < 0.001) to a greater extent than Russian adolescents, reflecting collectivist norms and institutional trust (e. g., Kibertumar and DosbolLIKE initiatives). Russian peers favored ‘active ignoring’ (M = 14.8), aligning with individualistic values. Females employed ‘close support’ (M = 24.7 / 21.3; p < 0.001) and ‘active ignoring’ (M = 15.8 / 14.0; p < 0.001) more frequently, underscoring gendered socialization (Eagly, Wood 2012). The role of ‘setting boundaries’ diminished by age 13–14 (M = 11.9), diverging from Lazarus’s stress-coping model (Lazarus 2020). The results demonstrate modulation by both cultural context (Kazakhstan’s collectivism vs. Russia’s individualism) and gender. Consistent with Soldatova and Mambetalina (Soldatova, Voiskunsky 2021; Mambetalina et al. 2020), institutional trust (Kazakhstan) and digital autonomy (Russia) emerge as critical mediators. Conclusion. The study supports differentiated interventions — integrating clan-based support systems in Kazakhstan and enhancing digital communication literacy in Russia. Future research should explore socioeconomic moderators and develop training to promote proactive strategies (e. g., setting boundaries) among adolescents. These insights advance culturally responsive frameworks to mitigate the psychosocial impacts of cyberbullying, emphasizing the interplay of cultural norms, gender roles, and developmental stages in shaping adaptive resilience.