See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220495959

Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile

Article  in  Computers in Human Behavior · September 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

275 3,363

5 authors, including:

Esther Calvete Izaskun Orue

University of Deusto University of Deusto, Bilbao
219 PUBLICATIONS   3,251 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   1,452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ana Estévez Lourdes Villardón

University of Deusto University of Deusto
71 PUBLICATIONS   1,127 CITATIONS    82 PUBLICATIONS   776 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Child-to-parent violence View project

PROEM: Interdisciplinary networks for the promotion of emotional health and well-being in the young View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ana Estévez on 29 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile

Esther Calvete *, Izaskun Orue, Ana Estévez, Lourdes Villardón, Patricia Padilla
Department of Psychology, Universitty of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, a questionnaire (Cyberbullying Questionnaire, CBQ) was developed to assess the prevalence
Available online 8 April 2010 of numerous modalities of cyberbullying (CB) in adolescents. The association of CB with the use of other
forms of violence, exposure to violence, acceptance and rejection by peers was also examined. In the
Keywords: study, participants were 1431 adolescents, aged between 12 and17 years (726 girls and 682 boys). The
Cyberbullying adolescents responded to the CBQ, measures of reactive and proactive aggression, exposure to violence,
Adolescents justification of the use of violence, and perceived social support of peers. Sociometric measures were also
Proactive and reactive aggression
used to assess the use of direct and relational aggression and the degree of acceptance and rejection by
Exposure to violence
Social support
peers. The results revealed excellent psychometric properties for the CBQ. Of the adolescents, 44.1%
responded affirmatively to at least one act of CB. Boys used CB to greater extent than girls. Lastly, CB
was significantly associated with the use of proactive aggression, justification of violence, exposure to
violence, and less perceived social support of friends.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction As this phenomenon is new, there is as yet little agreement

about the diverse categories of this form of violence, so that in
Violent behavior among adolescents and young people is a se- the studies carried out, different classifications can be found (e.g.,
vere problem in many countries. In recent years, new forms of Burgess-Proctor et al., 2008; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett,
aggression based on information and communication technology 2006; Willard, 2006, 2007). For example, according to Willard
(computers, cell phones, etc.) have been added to the traditional (2006, 2007), some of the modalities that CB can adopt are (1) on-
forms of violence. In this context, cyberbullying (CB) has been de- line fights, known as flaming, which imply the use of electronic
fined as an aggressive and deliberate behavior that is frequently re- messages with hostile and vulgar language; (2) slandering, a
peated over time, carried out by a group or an individual using modality that implies online disparagement, for example, sending
electronics and aimed at a victim who cannot defend him- or cruel images or rumors about others to spoil their reputations or
her-self easily (Smith, 2006). Patchin and Hinduja (2006) describe social relationships; (3) impersonation (hacking) by infiltration
it as deliberate and repeated harm performed with some kind of into someone’s account in order to send messages that make the
electronic text. These violent behaviors can be carried out by victim lose face, cause trouble for or endanger the victim, or harm
means of a cell phone, electronic mail, Internet chats, and online the victim’s reputation and friendships; (4) defamation by spread-
spaces such as MySpace, Facebook, and personal blogs. ing secrets or embarrassing information about someone; (5) delib-
Although in many cases, CB implies acts of traditional aggres- erate exclusion of someone from an online group; (6) cyber
sion (for example, insulting, spreading rumors, or threatening), harassment or the repeated sending of messages that include
which are communicated electronically instead of face-to-face, threats of injury or that are very intimidating.
CB can also include unique behaviors with no analogue in tradi- The phenomenon known as happy slapping consists of recording
tional bullying. For example, the phenomenon known as bombing with cell phone cameras images in which a person, who is often in
occurs when the aggressor uses an automated program to collapse a minority situation, is attacked. The image or video is later shared
the victim’s e-mail with thousands of simultaneous messages, with friends, posted online, or distributed electronically. This phe-
causing failure and blocking of the victim’s e-mail account (Bur- nomenon has recently been the object of attention by the mass
gess-Proctor, Patchin, & Hinduja, 2008). media in many European countries.
Diverse studies warn about the high occurrence of CB. Table 1
shows a sample of some representative studies. For example, in
* Corresponding author. Address: Esther Calvete, University of Deusto, Depart-
one of the first studies of CB, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) surveyed
ment of Psychology, Apdo. 1, 48080 Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 94 4139000x2847; fax:
+34 94 4139089. 1501 children and adolescents between ages 10 and 17 years by
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Calvete). phone and found that 12% had participated in cyberbullying. Li

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017
Table 1
Representative studies of cyberbullying.

Authors Measurement of CB Sample Prevalence rate

Aricak et al. (2008) ‘‘Questionnaire of Cyberbullying” (QoCB) 269 students, aged between 12 and 35.7%
19 years from Istanbul
Beran and Li (2005) Questionnaire of 15 items, based on a definition of 432 students from 7th to 22% once or twice; 4% several
harassment. They use open questions to specify types. 9th grade. Canada times. No gender differences
Closed for frequency, being victim/aggressor, emotional
and behavioral responses
Dehue et al. (2008) They created a questionnaire for students and one for 1211 participants from the last grade 16% significantly more boys
parents. The questionnaire for students, among other things, of primary education and the first of (18.6%) in comparison with
asks about the prevalence and the methods used to carry secondary education. Mean age: 12.7 girls (13.4%)
out and/or be a victim of CB (SMS, e-mail, gossiping, ignoring, Holland
hacking, name-calling), the anonymity of the aggressor and the
sex of the victim. The questionnaire is based on the based on
‘‘Olweus Bully/victim Questionnaire” and on the ‘‘Amsterdam
Bullying Questionnaire for Children”
Li (2006) An anonymous survey that, among other aspects, asks whether 264 students from 7th to 9th grade. Canada 17% (22.3% boys and 11.6% girls)
the respondent had cyber-bullied others. If so, they should
indicate the means (e-mail, chat room, cell phone, other)
and the frequency
Li (2007a) The same questionnaire as in Li (2006) 177 Canadian students from 7th grade. 14.5%
Canada
Li (2007b) The same questionnaire as in Li (2006) 461 students from 7th grade. 17.8% (21.9% boys and 13.4% girls)
Canada and China
Li (2008) The same questionnaire as in Li (2006) 354 students between 11 and 15 years. Canada: 15%
Canada and China China: 7%
Ortega et al. (2008) Cyberbullying Questionnaire (Ortega, Calmaestra, 830 Spanish students between 12 and 18 years 1.7% severe cyberbullying,
& Mora-Merchán, 2007). Includes questions about 5.7% occasionally or moderate
CB through cell phones and the Internet No gender differences
Hinduja and Patchin (2008) Online. First, a description of CB. Includes two questions: 680 boys/698 girls 18% boys and 15.6% girls
Have you ever performed CB against others? and Have you 10–17 years
ever threatened to physically harm someone or have you
scared others this way online?
Patchin and Hinduja (2006) Online. First, a description of CB. Includes two questions: 384 people less than 18 years of age 10.7%
Have you ever performed CB? and, Have you ever threatened
to physically harm or scared others this way online?
Smith et al. (2008) Questionnaire based on Olweus’ Bully/Victim Questionnaire Two surveys with pupils aged 11–16 years: 6.6% often (2 or 3 times a month,
Author's personal copy

(Solberg & Olweus, 2003). The questionnaire includes a (1) 92 pupils, supplemented by focus groups; once a week, or several times
definition of bullying followed by a statement about (2) 533 pupils a week) and 15.6% once or twice
cyberbullying as including the seven media: through text No gender differences
E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135

messaging, pictures/photos or video clips, phone calls, e-mail,

chat rooms, instant messaging, and websites. Next, it asks
about the frequency of CB, for each of the seven media.
Open-ended questions allowed pupils to give more detailed
answers on examples of cyberbullying, reasons for perceived
impact, and suggestions for stopping it. The time-frame was
the ‘‘past couple of months”
Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) ‘‘Youth Internet Safety Survey”. By telephone. Included two 1501 young people between 12%
questions for aggressors: 10 and 17 years
(1) Have you ever made disagreeable or vulgar remarks USA
about others on the Internet?
(2) Have you used the Internet to harass or shame someone
with whom you were angry?
Williams and Guerra (2007) They use one item: I told lies about some students 3339 youths in 5th , 8th, 9.4%
though e-mail or instant messaging and 11th grades
1129
 Author's personal copy

1130 E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135

(2006), in a sample of 264 high school students, found that 22% of affect their future behavior. Cognitive-social theories have gener-
the boys and 12% of the girls admitted having cyberbullied others. ally called such knowledge structures schemas or scripts (Hues-
In a cross-cultural study, the same authoress found percentages of mann, 1988). In the case of aggressive behavior, many studies
cyberbullies ranging between 15% and 7%, respectively, for Canada have revealed the presence of schemas related to the justification
and China (Li, 2008). In a study carried out with Turkish students, of the use of violence. For example, various studies have detected
35.7% admitted performing CB (Aricak et al., 2008). In Spain, Orte- that children and adolescents who believe that it is appropriate
ga, Calmaestra, and Mora-Merchán (2008) found in adolescents to attack others when they deserve it are more apt to be aggressive
that 5.7% admitted having performed CB occasionally, and 1.7% (Bentley & Li, 1995; Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Calvete,
had carried out severe forms of CB. Although most of the research 2008; Calvete & Cardeñoso, 2005; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). In
was carried out in schools, in some cases it was online (Hinduja & fact, a recent study of Williams and Guerra (2007) found an asso-
Patchin, 2008). ciation between justification of violence and CB. However, in their
A limitation of many of the studies is that they assessed the study, the measurement of CB was a single question that referred
occurrence of CB generically, without specifying in detail the to spreading lies about classmates by e-mail or instant messaging,
modalities employed. For example, in some cases, they focused and other forms of CB were not included.
on providing a definition of CB and asking the participants whether In addition, a series of contextual variables have been linked to
they had carried out CB, and if so, to describe aspects such as the violent behavior for a long time. Firstly, the role of exposure to vio-
means employed (chat room, e-mail, cell phone). This perspective lence was pointed out from the social learning model by Bandura
is valuable to address a new phenomenon about which relatively (1986). Children who observe more positive consequences and
few studies have been carried out. However, as we discover more fewer negative ones for aggression acquire the belief that aggres-
about the importance of the phenomenon, it becomes appropriate sive behavior leads to good consequences. In general, diverse stud-
to develop more specific measures that include a broad array of CB ies support the fact that aggressive behavior increases with
modalities. Therefore, the first goal of this study consisted of devel- exposure to violence at home, at school, in the neighborhood,
oping a questionnaire to assess the performance of many types of and in the mass media (Baldry, 2003; Coyne & Archer, 2005; Flan-
CB by adolescents. nery, Wester, & Singer, 2004; Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004;
On the other hand, CB reveals a series of differences with the Harold & Conger, 1997; Huesmann, Moise-Tisus, Posolski, & Eron,
traditional types of maltreatment and bullying among school- 2003; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000).
mates. Elements such as the perception of online anonymity and Lastly, among the contextual variables are experiences with
the safety of hiding behind a computer screen contribute to freeing peers, and rejection by peers is one of the most important factors
individuals from traditional constraints and social pressures, as (Laird, Jordan, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2001). Numerous investiga-
well as from moral and ethical misgivings (Hinduja & Patchin, tions have found a clear relation between aggressive behavior
2008; Li, 2007a, 2007b). Thus, adolescents who would not behave and rejection (see Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). However, the re-
violently in a face-to-face situation can adopt different roles and sults have been mixed, depending on the type of aggressive behav-
perform this type of violence. Anonymity also implies the absence ior (Card & Little, 2006; Price & Dodge, 1989; Salmivalli,
of consequences, because the aggressors frequently cannot be Kaukiainen, & Lagerspetz, 2000), and, in general, suggest that rejec-
identified and, therefore, they avoid punishment. These character- tion is positively associated with reactive aggression and nega-
istics make one wonder whether the psychological profile of the tively with indirect aggression.
adolescents who carry out CB is similar to or different from the Summing up, the goals of this study were (1) to develop a ques-
profile associated with traditional forms of violence. Therefore, tionnaire to assess a variety of CB behaviors. This goal in turn im-
the second goal of the study consisted of assessing the relation be- plied the assessment of the measurement model of the instrument.
tween CB, offline forms of violence, and associated risk factors. (2) To study the relation of CB with other indicators of aggressive
Regarding the relation of CB to other violent behaviors in ado- behavior such as the justification of violence and the frequency
lescents, CB should be associated with forms of proactive aggres- of proactive, reactive, direct, and indirect aggressive behaviors.
sion and indirect aggression. Proactive aggression consists of And (3) to study the association between CB and diverse contextual
deliberate and planned behavior with the intention of obtaining variables such as exposure to violence and acceptance and rejec-
a reward and is differentiated from reactive aggression, which re- tion by peers.
fers to a furious response to a perceived threat or provocation
(Dodge, 1991). In fact, previous studies suggest that traditional
bullying is more closely associated with proactive than with reac- 2. Method
tive aggressiveness (Roland & Idsøe, 2001; Schwartz et al., 1998;
Unnever, 2005). On the other hand, indirect aggression, also called 2.1. Participants
relational or social aggression, consists of harming someone by
means of manipulating relationships (Björkqvist, 2001; Björkqvist, The sample was made up of 1431 adolescents, between 12 and
Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). In this 17 years, high school students from 31 classrooms of 10 educa-
type of aggression, covert strategies are used in order to exclude tional centers of Bizkaia (Spain). The measurements were taken be-
and isolate rivals in the peer group. These actions include spread- tween March and May of 2008. Of the sample, 726 were girls, 682
ing rumors about others, threatening to end personal relationships, boys, and 23 did not indicate gender. The mean age was
and to reveal private information (Crick, 1995; Galen & Under- 14.09 years (SD = 1.33). The degree of representativeness of the
wood, 1997). In this sense, certain forms of CB have the same char- sample was 3.82% and the sampling error 2.6%. A cluster-sampling
acteristics as traditional indirect bullying (Dehue, Bolman, & method was used, and high schools were selected randomly. Of the
Völlink, 2008) and CB has even been defined as a computer-medi- adolescents, 94.8% were White and 5.2% of other ethnic minorities.
ated form of indirect aggression (Piazza & Bering, 2009). Regarding academic course, 353 were first-graders of secondary
One of the risk factors that have been traditionally associated education, 353 were in second grade, 369 in third grade, and 300
with the above-mentioned forms of aggressive behavior, and with were in fourth grade. To determine the parents’ socioeconomic le-
bullying in particular, are normative beliefs about the justification vel, we followed the recommendations of the Work Group of the
of violence. Adolescents’ experiences throughout their lives lead Spanish Society of Epidemiology and the Spanish Society of Family
them to store in their memories certain knowledge structures that and Community Medicine (2000), which are based on the last job
 Author's personal copy

E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135 1131

held by the parents. According to this criterion, the distribution 2.2.3. The Exposure to Violence Scale (Orue & Calvete, 2008)
was as follows: 14.4% low, 20.7% low-medium, 30.3% medium, The Exposure to Violence Scale has 21 items about the exposure
21.2% high-medium, and 13.3% high. to violence (physical, verbal, and threats) in four contexts: at
school, in the neighborhood, at home, and on television. The items
include direct exposure, which refers to victimization and indirect
2.2. Measures
exposure, which refers to situations in which the adolescent wit-
nesses violence. Each item is responded on a 5-point Likert-type
2.2.1. The Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ)
scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (every day). The Cronbach alpha
This questionnaire was developed in this study. The CBQ con-
coefficient was .88.
sists of 16 items that describe 16 forms of CB, such as sending
threatening or intimidating messages to someone, impersonating
someone (hacking), recording aggressions by cell phone, excluding 2.2.4. Peer rejection and acceptance
an online companion, etc., which were identified in previous stud- Following the procedure of most of the previous studies (Dodge
ies (Smith et al., 2006; Willard, 2006, 2007). Some of the items im- et al., 2003; Miller-Johnson, Coie, Maumary-Gremaud, Bierman
ply very active participation (e.g., hanging intimidating material and Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2002; Prinstein
about a classmate on the Internet), whereas others assume collab- & La Greca, 2004), a peer nomination instrument was used to as-
oration with the previous action (e.g., resending the link to other sess acceptance and rejection by peers. The adolescents indicated
people for them to see). The adolescent had to respond on a scale the names of the classmates they ‘‘liked the most” and those they
of 0 (never) 1 (sometimes), and 2 (often). In addition, various items ‘‘liked the least.” The nominations were standardized within each
include open questions to describe the behavior carried out (e.g., class to obtain the scores of rejection and acceptance for each stu-
Item 3: In the case of hanging humiliating images of a classmate on dent. Previous studies indicate that peer nominations and the
the Internet, describe what kind of images). The Appendix includes scores thereby obtained are a valid indication of acceptance and
the complete questionnaire. rejection, with good indexes of test–retest validity (Coie & Dodge,
1983). In addition to the sociometric approach, we also assessed
perceived social support by means of the Multidimensional Scale
2.2.2. The Irrational Beliefs Scale for Adolescents (IBSA; Cardeñoso & of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley,
Calvete, 2004) 1988). This scale assesses support perceived to be available from
The Justification of Violence subscale of the IBSA consists of nine family, friends, and significant others. Each item is rated using a
items that reflect the idea that aggression is appropriate in a vari- scale from 1 (Very Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Very Strongly Agree). This
ety of situations (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes you have to hit others because scale has shown good reliability and validity, with Cronbach’s al-
they deserve it”), and that aggression enhances self-esteem and pha ranging from .84 to .92 in various American samples (Zimet,
helps to maintain status among peers (e.g., ‘‘Being good at fighting Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990), and a Cronbach’s alpha
is something to be proud of” and ‘‘It is better to have a row than let of .89 in a Spanish sample (Landeta & Calvete, 2002). In this study,
them think I am a coward”). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert- we only used the subscale of Friends’ Support which had a Cron-
type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (completely true). Pre- bach alpha coefficient of .81.
vious research has shown that this subscale is associated with
aggressive and delinquent behavior (Calvete & Cardeñoso, 2005).
2.3. Procedure
In this study, the alpha coefficient was .84.
Multiple measures were employed to assess aggressive behav-
The headmasters of several schools were contacted and asked
ior. The Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (Raine et al.,
for their schools to participate in the study. After granting permis-
2006) consists of 11 items for reactive aggression (‘‘How often have
sion, they decided to collect passive consent from the students’
you become angry or mad when you don’t get your way?”) and 12
parents. Thus, parents were informed and given the option of
items for proactive aggression (‘‘How often have you had fights
refusing to allow their son/daughter’s participation. The adoles-
with others to show who was on top?”). Each item is rated as 0
cents filled in the questionnaires in their classrooms. Participants
(never), 1 (sometimes) or 2 (often). The questionnaire has shown
were informed that their responses were confidential and were
good reliability and validity in adolescent samples. Alpha coeffi-
encouraged to ask questions if they had any trouble answering
cients in this study were .81 and .85 for reactive and proactive
the items. Participation was voluntary, and a few adolescents
aggression, respectively. In addition, a peer nomination instru-
(n = 6) decided not to participate in the study. The questionnaires
ment, similar to that used in other studies (Crick & Grotpeter,
took around 50 min to complete.
1995), was employed to assess direct and indirect aggressiveness.
The instrument has 8 items, 4 for direct aggressiveness (e.g., class-
mates who hit or shove others) and 4 for relational/indirect aggres- 3. Results
siveness (e.g., a classmate who tells his or her friends that they will
no longer be friends unless they do what he or she wants). Previous 3.1. Factor analysis of the Cyberbullying Questionnaire
studies have found satisfactory internal consistency of the scales
(e.g., Crick, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and good test–retest The Kaise–Meyer–Olkin index was .96, indicating that the cor-
validity, r = .82 for indirect aggressiveness and .90 for direct relation matrix was suitable for factor analysis. The parameters
aggressiveness over a 4-week interval (Crick, 1996). Following for confirmatory factor analysis were estimated using the polych-
the procedure employed in previous studies (Crick, 1995; Crick & oric and the asymptotic covariance matrixes of the CBQ items.
Grotpeter, 1995), the adolescents were requested to name three We tested a one-factor model via Weight Least Squared estimation
classmates of either sex who had behaved as described. The num- with LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Following the recom-
ber of nominations that the adolescents received from their class- mendations from a number of authors (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999),
mates for each item was added and standardized in each class. goodness of fit was assessed by the comparative fit index (CFI),
Then, the standardized scores of each item for each subscale were the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and the root mean square error
added to obtain the total score of direct and indirect aggressive- of approximation (RMSEA). Generally, CFI and NNFI values of .95
ness. The Cronbach alpha coefficients in this study were .90 for di- or above and RMSEA values less than .06 reflect good fit. In all
rect aggressiveness and .77 for indirect aggressiveness. the models, we used the effects-coding method proposed by Little,
 Author's personal copy

1132 E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135

Slegers, and Card (2006) to identify and set the scale of the latent graphs, adding, for example, a moustache”, or ‘‘silly dancing”.
variables. This method consists of constraining the set of indicator Examples of Items 8 and 9 were ‘‘cutting off the leg of a chair so
intercepts to sum to zero for each construct and the set of loadings they will fall down when they sit and then recording them” and
for a given construct to average 1.0, which is the same as having ‘‘making someone sing something silly and sending the video”.
them sum to the number of unique indicators. According to Little Most of the contents of Items 10 and 11 refer to kicking classmates,
et al., this method is suitable to confirm the factor structure of a or, in some cases, a vagabond. Lastly, in some cases, the adoles-
construct from particular items. The fit indexes were excellent cents indicated that they recorded aggressive scenes but as a joke,
for the model, v2(104, n = 1431) = 140, RMSEA = .016 (0.0079; like a stage scene. In these cases, it was not considered CB and
0.022), NNFI = 1, CFI = 1. All the factor loadings ranged between these responses were not included in the prevalence rate or in
.90 and .99. Alpha coefficient was .96 and the mean correlation be- the other statistical analyses.
tween items was .64, revealing that, in general, the use of the di-
verse CB modalities was highly consistent. 3.3. Variables associated with CB behavior

Gender differences were found in the use of CB. With regard to the
3.2. Frequency of CB behaviors
prevalence rate, 40.3% of the girls and 47.8% of the boys responded
affirmatively to at least one of the CBQ items, and the difference
Of the sample, 44.1% of the adolescents responded affirmatively
was statistically significant, v2(1, n = 1403) = 7.95, p < .01. When
to at least one of the items of the CBQ. Table 2 presents the prev-
assessing the differences by item, we found that they occurred in
alence rates of each type of CB. The most frequent behaviors were
the behaviors of recording humiliating images of classmates, v2(2,
intentionally excluding a classmate from an online group (20.2%),
n = 1380) = 8.45, p < .05, recording physical aggressions, v2(2,
hanging jokes, rumors, gossip, or embarrassing comments about
n = 1380) = 10.41, p < .01, sending images of physical aggression,
a classmate on the Internet (20.1%), sending the link of such com-
v2(2, n = 1380) = 8.72, p < .05, and sending images of a sexual nature,
ments to others (16.8%), and hacking in order to send messages by
v2(2, n = 1380) = 8.27, p < .05. The differences were observed espe-
e-mail that could cause trouble for the victim (18.1%). The two
cially for the response category ‘‘often”. So, 1.8% of the boys versus
forms of CB known as happy slapping (filming someone while they
0.1% of the girls often recorded physical aggressions, 2% of the boys
are forced to do something humiliating or filming someone while
versus 0.4% of the girls recorded humiliating images of a classmate,
they are being attacked) were indicated by 10.4 and 10.5%, respec-
2.14% of the boys versus 0.4% girls sent images of the recorded phys-
tively, of the adolescents.
ical aggressions, and 1.5% of the boys versus 0.1% of the girls sent
The content of the responses to the open questions were ana-
images of classmates of a sexual nature.
lyzed. Examples of Items 3 and 4 were ‘‘changing clothes in the
The total frequency of CB was calculated by adding the responses
locker room”, ‘‘bathing nude in the river”, ‘‘manipulated photo-
to the 16 CBQ items and an analysis of variance was carried out to as-
sess the differences as a function of gender and school level. Table 3
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations obtained. For school
Prevalence rates per items. grade, statistically significant differences were observed,
F(3, 1390) = 25, p < .001. Subsequent comparisons (Tukey’s method)
Sometimes Often Total
indicated that the frequency of CB behaviors was significantly higher
1. Sending threatening or insulting messages by 14.2 1.6 15.8
in second and third grade of secondary education than in first and
e-mail
2. Sending threatening or insulting messages by 14.2 1.5 15.7 fourth grade, p < .05. There were no significant differences between
cell phone second and third grade. No significant gender differences were found
3. Hanging humiliating images of classmates on 9.0 1.0 10 in CB frequency, M = 2.15 and SD = 5 in girls versus M = 2.53 and
the Internet SD = 4.99 in boys, F(1, 1390) = 2.69, ns. However, boys scored higher
4. Sending links of humiliating images to other 8.2 0.9 9.1
people for them to see
than girls in all the other aggressive behaviors (proactive, reactive,
5. Writing embarrassing jokes, rumors, gossip, 18.3 1.8 20.1 direct and indirect).
or comments about a classmate on the To assess the association between CB behavior and other indica-
Internet tors of aggressive behavior, we carried out multiple regression
6. Sending links with rumors, gossip, etc. about 15.5 1.3 16.8
analysis including the scores in proactive aggressive behavior,
a classmate to other people so they can read
them reactive aggressive behavior, direct aggressive behavior, indirect/
7. Hacking to send messages by e-mail that 15.5 2.6 18.1 relational aggressive behavior, and justification of violence as pre-
could make trouble for the other person dictor variables. This model explained 13% of the variance (R2 = .13,
8. Recording a video or taking pictures by cell 9.4 1.0 10.4 p < .001). Table 4 shows the results. The total CB score was only sig-
phone while a group laughs and forces
another person to do something humiliating
nificantly associated with proactive aggressiveness and beliefs that
or ridiculous justify violence.
9. Sending these images to other people 9.6 1.5 11.1 Lastly, another regression model was estimated, including as
10. Recording a video or taking pictures by cell 9.6 0.9 10.5 predictor variables the contextual variables rejection by others,
phone while someone hits or hurts another
acceptance by others, perceived social support, and exposure to
person
11. Sending these recorded images to other 10.0 1.3 11.3
people
12. Broadcasting online other people’s secrets, 13.3 1.3 14.6 Table 3
compromising information or images Frequency of CB as a function of academic grade and gender.
13. Deliberately excluding someone from an 18.1 2.1 20.2 First grade Second Third grade Fourth Total
online group of ESO of ESO of ESO grade of ESO
14. Sending messages massively that include 8.3 0.9 9.2 n = 389 n = 353 n = 369 n = 300
threats or are very intimidating
15. Recording a video or taking cell phone 8.4 0.7 9.1 Female 0.76 (1.81) 4.17 (6.98) 2.40 (5.08) 1.19 (1.75) 2.15 (4.73)
pictures of classmates performing some kind Male 1.27 (2.69) 3.41 (5.63) 3.46 (6.28) 2.05 (4.38) 2.53 (5.00)
of behavior of a sexual nature Mean (SD) 1.02 (2.32) 3.82 (6.39) 2.93 (5.73) 1.56 (3.19) 2.33 (4.86)
16. Sending these images to other people 7.7 0.9 8.6
Note: ESO, Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (compulsory secondary education).
 Author's personal copy

E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135 1133

Table 4 confirmed that they had recently had severe cases of CB. Moreover,
Indicators of aggressive behavior associated with CB. the adolescents were not surprised at the questions, but instead
B SE b t they seemed to be familiar with CB. In fact, some adolescents
Proactive aggressiveness .52 .06 .34 8.29** who said they had not participated in any CB acts wrote in the
Reactive aggressiveness .05 .06 .04 0.90 comments section that they had seen other classmates perform
Direct aggressiveness .06 .06 .03 0.93 such acts.
Relational aggressiveness .00 .07 .00. 0.06 It is important to note that the prevalence rate of each type of
Justification of violence .07 .03 .08 2.20*
CB behavior is lower when attending only to the response choice
*
p < .05. often, which better matches the conception of CB defined as an
**
p < .001. aggressive behavior that is repeated over time. Nevertheless, we
think that carrying out CB acts sometimes is also sufficiently severe
to be taken into account in the prevalence rates.
Table 5
The second goal of the study consisted of identifying the cyber-
Contextual variables associated with CB.
bully profile. Coinciding with various previous studies, the boys
B SE b t displayed more frequent use of CB than the girls (e.g., Dehue
Rejection by others .003 .17 .00 0.02 et al., 2008). Furthermore, we studied differences as a function of
Acceptance by others .031 .17 .01 0.19 the items, observing that such differences were particularly pres-
Perceived social support .122 .04 .10 3.10*
ent in the items related to happy slapping. This modality of CB,
Exposure to violence .057 .01 .13 4.21**
in contrast to the others, also involves the use of violence in a real
*
p < .05. setting. This is consistent with previous findings that have found
**
p < .001.
that boys are physically more aggressive than girls, but they use
some forms of internet bullying (telling lies about students
violence. This model only explained 2.5% of the variance of CB through e-mail) in the same way (Williams & Guerra, 2007). The
(R2 = .025, p < .001). Table 5 shows the results. CB was positively results also suggest that the peak frequency of CB is between the
associated with exposure to violence and negatively with per- second and third year of Secondary Education (13–15 years). Wil-
ceived social support. liams and Guerra (2007) also found the highest prevalence in 8th
grade (13-year-olds) comparing both with 5th grade (10-year-
4. Discussion olds) and 11th grade (16-year-olds).
With regard to the relation of CB with the other indicators of
The first goal of the study consisted of developing a question- violence, CB was significantly associated with the justification of
naire that included a broad array of CB behaviors. The CBQ includes violence, as reported in the study of Williams and Guerra (2007),
16 of such behaviors and has shown excellent psychometric prop- and in accordance with the extensive literature that links beliefs
erties insofar as concerns the factor structure and internal in the justification of violence to the use of aggression (Espelage
consistency. & Swearer, 2003; Huesmann, 1988).
The most frequent CB modalities were writing embarrassing ru- Moreover, as expected, CB was related to the use of proactive
mors or comments about classmates on the Internet, sending this aggression, which is carried out coldly and in order to achieve some
link to another person, deliberately excluding someone from an goal. In this sense, this result is coherent with the studies that con-
online group, and hacking a classmate in order to send trouble- ceptualize traditional bullying as essentially proactive aggression
making e-mail messages to others in the victim’s name. The high (Roland & Idsøe, 2001; Unnever, 2005). However, in contrast to our
rate of this last modality is surprising. However, it coincides with expectations, CB was not associated with relational aggression. This
the results obtained by Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008), shares contents with some types of CB, for example, excluding some-
who used focus groups and found that one of the most frequently one from the group or spreading rumors. An explanation of this lack
mentioned topics was hacking. Many students admitted that they of association may lie in the conditions under which many CB acts
(or someone they knew) had been a victim of hacking. For example, are carried out (anonymity, impersonal environment and lack of
someone had broken into their MSN account and had changed the consequences for the aggressor), which may cause adolescents
password and sent insulting or weird messages to their contacts. who would otherwise never dare to perform forms of violence in
The total prevalence of CB when the sometimes and often response the school setting to do so through electronic settings (Hinduja &
categories were included was 44.1, which approaches that obtained Patchin, 2008). A second explanation of the lack of association with
by Aricak et al. (2008), who found a prevalence rate of 35.7%. How- the scores in direct and relational aggression lies in the fact that
ever, the prevalence we obtained is much higher than that reported these scores were based on sociometric measures, whereas CB was
in most previous studies (e.g., Li, 2007a, 2007b; Ortega et al., 2008; assessed by means of self-reports.
Smith et al., 2008). One of the reasons for the high rate obtained in In support of this explanation, it is important to note that CB was
this study may be the instrument employed, which assesses a broad not associated with the sociometric indicators of rejection and
spectrum of CB acts, so there is a higher likelihood that the adoles- acceptance by others, despite the fact that previous studies of bully-
cents will respond affirmatively to at least one type of CB. In accor- ing and other forms of aggression have found significant relation-
dance with this interpretation, the study of Aricak et al. also used ships (Card & Little, 2006; Dodge et al., 2006; Laird et al., 2001).
an instrument with many CB items. In fact, in the present study, More specifically, this result does not support the hypothesis devel-
the prevalence rates of each of type CB ranged between 8.7 (sending oped by Piazza and Bering (2009), who proposed that relational
images of a classmate of a sexual nature) and 20.2 (deliberately cyberbullying would be initiated by high-status adolescents. In con-
excluding a classmate from an online group). These values are con- trast, perceived peer social support was significantly associated with
sistent with the prevalence rates obtained in the studies that em- CB. Adolescents who performed CB were characterized by having a
ployed one or a few CB items (e.g., Dehue et al., 2008; Hinduja & lower perception of social support from their friends. Williams and
Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006; Li, 2007a, 2007b). Guerra (2007) also found that less peer support predicted all the
Independently of the type of instrument, the data may also ex- types of bullying including internet bullying. Future research should
press an increase in the problem. When carrying out the study, the explore this aspect in more detail because it suggests that isolation
headmasters of various centers from which the data were collected and poor social relationships can act as risk factors for CB.
 Author's personal copy

1134 E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135

Lastly, CB was significantly related to higher environmental Appendix A (continued)

exposure to violence. This result thus joins the extensive bibliogra-
phy about the role of exposure to violence as a risk factor for learn- 012
ing and developing aggressive behaviors (Baldry, 2003; Flannery or an acquaintance to other people for them to
et al., 2004; Gorman-Smith et al., 2004). read
The main shortcoming of our research is that we relied only on 7. Getting someone’s password (nicks, cues, etc.) and
self-report measures to assess CB behavior. Some adolescents may sending e-mail messages to others in this person’s
over- or under-report their involvement in CB. Future studies name, which could make this person lose face or
should include peer, parent or teacher reports in order to control cause trouble with his or her acquaintances
for external validity, and take into account different perspectives, 8. Recording a video or taking pictures by cell phone
such as the reactions of parents and teachers when they discover while a group laughs and forces another person to do
these behaviors. Moreover, group effects on CB behavior should something humiliating or ridiculous
be addressed. For instance, the risk of CB could be particularly high If so, describe:
in some groups of adolescents who consider this behavior appro- 9. Sending these images to other people
priate. Namely, qualitative research methods (e.g., focus groups) 10. Recording a video or taking pictures by cell phone
would provide a useful approach to aspects such as the approval while someone hits or hurts another person
of CB behavior by group members and the dynamics among mem- If so, describe:
bers that contribute to CB. Finally, in the present study, only the 11. Sending these recorded images to other people
aggressors’ profile was studied. Future studies should address the 12. Broadcasting online other people’s secrets,
overlapping between CB perpetration and victimization, and the compromising information or images
consequences of CB behavior for aggressors and victims. 13. Deliberately excluding someone from an online
To conclude, the results of this study warn about increasing on- group (chats, lists of friends, thematic forums, etc.)
line violence among adolescents and indicate that CB is becoming a 14. Sending messages repeatedly that include threats or
highly concerning problem in the school setting and for society in that are very intimidating
general. This is one of the few studies that has assessed the factors 15. Recording a video or taking cell phone pictures of
associated with performance of CB and it shows that some of the some classmate while he or she is carrying out some
predictors of CB are common to other types of aggressive behavior kind of behavior of a sexual nature
and should be taken into account with a view to preventing this 16. Sending these images to other people
problem. Specifically, intervention should deal with the normative
beliefs about the use of violence, for example, through activities
aimed at achieving empathy, and should strengthen interpersonal References
peer relationships in order to promote a system of positive social
support (Olweus & Limber, 1999). Cooperative learning in small Aricak, T., Siyahaan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N., et al.
(2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
groups or common positive activities, such as organizing a trip or 11, 253–261.
a dance where everybody takes part, have been proposed as mea- Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child
sures to establish positive peer relationships and prevent bullying Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713–732.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A Social Cognitive Theory.
(Olweus, 1993; Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2001). Englewood Cliffs, Nueva Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bentley, K. M., & Li, A. K. F. (1995). Bully and victim problems in elementary schools
Acknowledgment and students’ beliefs about aggression. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11,
153–165.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old
This research was supported by a Grant from the Ministerio de behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 265–277.
Ciencia y Tecnología, Reference SEJ2006-61720 (Spanish Björkqvist, K. (2001). Different names, same issue. Social Development, 10, 272–274.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and
Government).
boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117–127.
Appendix A Bosworth, K., Espelage, D. L., & Simon, T. (1999). Factors associated with bullying
behavior among early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 341–362.
Burgess-Proctor, A., Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2008). Cyberbullying and online
The following sentences refer to the use of the Internet and cell harassment: Reconceptualizing the victimization of adolescent girls. In V.
phones. Mark with an ‘‘X” the corresponding cells if you have ever Garcia & J. Clifford (Eds.), Female crime victims: Reality reconsidered. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
carried out any of these actions, using this scale: 0 = never, Calvete, E. (2008). Justification of violence and grandiosity schemas as predictors of
1 = sometimes, and 2 = often. antisocial behavior in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,
1083–1095.
012 Calvete, E., & Cardeñoso, O. (2005). Gender differences in cognitive vulnerability to
depression and behavior problems in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child
1. Sending threatening or insulting messages by e-mail Psychology, 33, 179–192.
2. Sending threatening or insulting messages by cell Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial
phone
adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466–480.
3. Hanging humiliating images of a classmate on the Cardeñoso, O., & Calvete, E. (2004). Desarrollo del Inventario de Creencias
Internet Irracionales para Adolescentes (Development of the irrational beliefs
If so, describe the type of images inventory for adolescents). Psicología Conductual, 12, 289–304.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status:
4. Sending links of humiliating images to other people A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282.
for them to see Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2005). The relationship between indirect and physical
If so, describe: aggression on television and in real life. Social Development, 14, 324–338.
Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of
5. Writing embarrassing jokes, rumors, gossip, or distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313–322.
comments about a classmate on the Internet Crick, N. R. (1996). Te role of overt aggression, relational aggression and prosocial
6. Sending links with rumors, gossip, etc., of a classmate behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child
Development, 67, 2317–2327.
 Author's personal copy

E. Calvete et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 1128–1135 1135

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social- Ortega R., Calmaestra, J., & Mora-Merchán, J. A. (2007). Cuestionario cyberbullying.
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. Universidad de Córdoba, unpublished manuscript.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences Ortega, R., Calmaestra, J., & Mora-Merchán, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: un estudio
and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 217–223. exploratorio en educación secundaria. International Journal of Psychology and
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. Psychological Therapy, 8, 183–192.
In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood Orue, I., & Calvete, E. (2008, July). Exposure to violence, justification of violence beliefs
aggression (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. and aggressive behavior in children. Paper presented at the eighteenth world
Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antisocial behavior in meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Budapest,
youth. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.). Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 719–788). Hungary.
New York: Wiley. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. A
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., et al. preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4,
(2003). Peer rejection and social information processing factors in the 148–169.
development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, Piazza, J., & Bering, J. M. (2009). Evolutionary cyber-psychology: Applying an
74, 374–393. evolutionary framework to internet behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25,
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and 1258–1269.
victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Price, J. M., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood:
Psychology Review, 32, 365–383. Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child
Flannery, D. J., Wester, K. L., & Singer, M. I. (2004). Impact of exposure to violence in Psychology, 17, 455–471.
school on child and adolescent mental health and behavior. Journal of Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as
Community Psychology, 32, 559–573. predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103–112.
aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589–600. Raine, A., Dodge, K. A., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., et al.
Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community (2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates
violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439–449. 159–171.
Grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Epidemiologia y de la Sociedad Roland, E., & Idsøe, T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27,
Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria (2000). Una propuesta de 446–462.
medida de clase social (Proposal for a social class measure). Atención Primaria, Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Lagerspetz, K. (2000). Aggression and sociometric
25, 350–363. status among peers: Do gender and type of aggression matter? Scandinavian
Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The Journal of Psychology, 41, 17–24.
role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333–350. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., Hubbard, J. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Lemerise, E. A.,
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors et al. (1998). Social-cognitive and behavioral correlates of aggression and
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156. victimization in boys’ play groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26,
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure 431–440.
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s
Modeling, 6, 1–55. social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24. 670–683.
Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about Smith, P. (2006). Ciberacoso: naturaleza y extensión de un nuevo tipo de acoso dentro y
aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, fuera de la escuela. Paper presented at Education Congress, Palma de Mallorca,
72, 408–419. Spain.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Tisus, J., Posolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into
Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age
violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, and gender in cyberbullying. Research Brief No. RBX03-06. London: DfES.
39, 201–221. Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of
Scientific Software International Inc.. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.
Laird, R. D., Jordan, K. Y., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2001). Peer rejection Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
in childhood, involvement with antisocial peers in early adolescence, and the the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.
development of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2001). Anti-bullying interventions
Psychopathology, 13, 337–354. at school: Aspects of programme adaptation and critical issues for further
Landeta, O., & Calvete, E. (2002). Adaptación y validación de la Escala programme development. Health Promotion International, 16, 155–167.
Multidimensional de Apoyo Social Percibido (Adaptation and validation of the Unnever, J. D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct
multidimensional scale of perceived social support). Revista de Ansiedad y Estrés, groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153–171.
8, 173–182. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools. A research of gender differences. School research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11,
Psychology International, 27, 157–170. 499–503.
Li, Q. (2007a). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. online social cruelty, threats, and distress. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Safe and
Li, Q. (2007b). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and Responsible Internet Use.
cyber victimization. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 435–454. Willard, N. E. (2007). An Educatoŕs Guide to Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats.
Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to Available from http://www.cyberbully.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf
cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50, 223–234. Retrieved 15 February 2008.
Little, T. D., Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet
identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21.
Equation Modeling, 13, 59–72. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressors/targets, aggressors, and
Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary-Gremaud, A., & Bierman, K.the Conduct targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child
Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Peer rejection and aggression and Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.
early starter models of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The
30, 217–230. multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Assessment, 52, 30–41.
Blackwell. Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990).
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
the Study and Prevention of Violence. Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610–617.

View publication stats