Association Between Executive Functions and Bullying Among High School Students in a Province of Central Thailand
5
Issued Date
2026-06-02
Resource Type
eISSN
22288082
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105044481200
Journal Title
Siriraj Medical Journal
Volume
78
Issue
6
Start Page
458
End Page
467
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.78 No.6 (2026) , 458-467
Suggested Citation
Sitthisorn C., Hosiri T., Sumalrot T., Auampradit N., Phattharayuttawat S. Association Between Executive Functions and Bullying Among High School Students in a Province of Central Thailand. Siriraj Medical Journal Vol.78 No.6 (2026) , 458-467. 467. doi:10.33192/smj.v78i6.281316 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/118050
Title
Association Between Executive Functions and Bullying Among High School Students in a Province of Central Thailand
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To examine and compare executive function (EF) profiles across different bullying roles and to assess whether EF predicts involvement in bullying among high school students. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 175 high school students from schools in a province in central Thailand between May and August 2025. Data were collected using validated Thai versions of the Executive Function Inventory, the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, and the Cyber-Aggression Perpetration and Victimization Scale. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA (with Welch's ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests where appropriate), Tukey's HSD test, and multinomial logistic regression. Results: Emotional and behavioral regulation showed significant group differences in traditional bullying (p = .040 and p = .033, respectively), while overall EF, cognitive, and emotional regulation differed significantly across cyberbullying groups (p = .019, .042, and .022, respectively). All three EF domains (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral regulation) were significant predictors of traditional bullying involvement (OR = .25, p = .024; OR = .29, p = .047; OR = .19, p = .009, respectively). Conclusion: Different EF domains play distinct roles in traditional and cyberbullying behaviors in adolescents. Interventions targeting behavioral regulation skills may be particularly effective in reducing traditional bullying, while cyberbullying appears to involve multiple EF domains and may require more comprehensive intervention strategies.