research questions for cyber bullying

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Teens and Cyberbullying 2022

Nearly half of U.S. teens have been bullied or harassed online, with physical appearance being seen as a relatively common reason why. Older teen girls are especially likely to report being targeted by online abuse overall and because of their appearance

Table of contents.

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand teens’ experiences with and views on bullying and harassment online. For this analysis, we surveyed 1,316 U.S. teens. The survey was conducted online by Ipsos from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, which is an independent committee of experts that specializes in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents who were a part of its  KnowledgePanel , a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories.

Here are the  questions used for this report , along with responses, and  its methodology .

While bullying existed long before the internet, the rise of smartphones and social media has brought a new and more public arena into play for this aggressive behavior.

Nearly half of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 (46%) report ever experiencing at least one of six cyberbullying behaviors asked about in a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-May 4, 2022. 1

The most commonly reported behavior in this survey is name-calling, with 32% of teens saying they have been called an offensive name online or on their cellphone. Smaller shares say they have had false rumors spread about them online (22%) or have been sent explicit images they didn’t ask for (17%).

Some 15% of teens say they have experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with, while 10% say they have been physically threatened and 7% of teens say they have had explicit images of them shared without their consent.

In total, 28% of teens have experienced multiple types of cyberbullying.

Defining cyberbullying in this report

This report measures cyberbullying of teens using six distinct behaviors:

• Offensive name-calling
• Spreading of false rumors about them
• Receiving explicit images they didn’t ask for
• Physical threats
• Constantly being asked where they are, what they’re doing, or who they’re with by someone other than a parent
• Having explicit images of them shared without their consent

Teens who indicate they have personally experienced any of these behaviors online or while using their cellphone are considered targets of cyberbullying in this report. The terms “cyberbullying” and “online harassment” are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Age and gender are related to teens’ cyberbullying experiences, with older teen girls being especially likely to face this abuse

Teens’ experiences with online harassment vary by age. Some 49% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced at least one of the six online behaviors, compared with 42% of those ages 13 to 14. While similar shares of older and younger teens report being the target of name-calling or rumor spreading, older teens are more likely than their younger counterparts (22% vs. 11%) to say someone has sent them explicit images they didn’t ask for, an act sometimes referred to as cyberflashing ; had someone share explicit images of them without their consent, in what is also known as revenge porn (8% vs. 4%); or been the target of persistent questioning about their whereabouts and activities (17% vs. 12%).

While there is no gender difference in having ever experienced online abuse, teen girls are more likely than teen boys to say false rumors have been spread about them. But further differences are seen when looking at age and gender together: 15- to 17-year-old girls stand out for being particularly likely to have faced any cyberbullying, compared with younger teen girls and teen boys of any age. Some 54% of girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least one of the six cyberbullying behaviors, while 44% of 15- to 17-year-old boys and 41% of boys and girls ages 13 to 14 say the same. These older teen girls are also more likely than younger teen girls and teen boys of any age to report being the target of false rumors and constant monitoring by someone other than a parent.

White, Black and Hispanic teens do not statistically differ in having ever been harassed online, but specific types of online attacks are more prevalent among certain groups. 2 For example, White teens are more likely to report being targeted by false rumors than Black teens. Hispanic teens are more likely than White or Black teens to say they have been asked constantly where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with by someone other than a parent.

There are also differences by household income when it comes to physical threats. Teens who are from households making less than $30,000 annually are twice as likely as teens living in households making $75,000 or more a year to say they have been physically threatened online (16% vs. 8%).

Beyond those differences related to specific harassing behaviors, older teen girls are particularly likely to say they experience multiple types of online harassment. Some 32% of teen girls have experienced two or more types of online harassment asked about in this survey, while 24% of teen boys say the same. And 15- to 17-year-olds are more likely than 13- to 14-year-olds to have been the target of multiple types of cyberbullying (32% vs. 22%).

These differences are largely driven by older teen girls: 38% of teen girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least two of the harassing behaviors asked about in this survey, while roughly a quarter of younger teen girls and teen boys of any age say the same.

Beyond demographic differences, being the target of these behaviors and facing multiple types of these behaviors also vary by the amount of time youth spend online. Teens who say they are online almost constantly are not only more likely to have ever been harassed online than those who report being online less often (53% vs 40%), but are also more likely to have faced multiple forms of online abuse (37% vs. 21%).

These are some of the findings from a Pew Research Center online survey of 1,316 U.S. teens conducted from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

Black teens are about twice as likely as Hispanic or White teens to say they think their race or ethnicity made them a target of online abuse

There are numerous reasons why a teen may be targeted with online abuse. This survey asked youth if they believed their physical appearance, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation or political views were a factor in them being the target of abusive behavior online.

Teens are most likely to say their physical appearance made them the target of cyberbullying. Some 15% of all teens think they were cyberbullied because of their appearance.

About one-in-ten teens say they were targeted because of their gender (10%) or their race or ethnicity (9%). Teens less commonly report being harassed for their sexual orientation or their political views – just 5% each.

Looking at these numbers in a different way, 31% of teens who have personally experienced online harassment or bullying think they were targeted because of their physical appearance. About one-in-five cyberbullied teens say they were targeted due to their gender (22%) or their racial or ethnic background (20%). And roughly one-in-ten affected teens point to their sexual orientation (12%) or their political views (11%) as a reason why they were targeted with harassment or bullying online.

The reasons teens cite for why they were targeted for cyberbullying are largely similar across major demographic groups, but there are a few key differences. For example, teen girls overall are more likely than teen boys to say they have been cyberbullied because of their physical appearance (17% vs. 11%) or their gender (14% vs. 6%). Older teens are also more likely to say they have been harassed online because of their appearance: 17% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying because of their physical appearance, compared with 11% of teens ages 13 to 14.

Older teen girls are particularly likely to think they have been harassed online because of their physical appearance: 21% of all 15- to 17-year-old girls think they have been targeted for this reason. This compares with about one-in-ten younger teen girls or teen boys, regardless of age, who think they have been cyberbullied because of their appearance.

A teen’s racial or ethnic background relates to whether they report having been targeted for cyberbullying because of race or ethnicity. Some 21% of Black teens report being made a target because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 11% of Hispanic teens and an even smaller share of White teens (4%).

There are no partisan differences in teens being targeted for their political views, with 5% of those who identify as either Democratic or Republican – including those who lean toward each party – saying they think their political views contributed to them being cyberbullied.

Black or Hispanic teens are more likely than White teens to say cyberbullying is a major problem for people their age

In addition to measuring teens’ own personal experiences with cyberbullying, the survey also sought to understand young people’s views about online harassment more generally.

The vast majority of teens say online harassment and online bullying are a problem for people their age, with 53% saying they are a major problem. Just 6% of teens think they are not a problem.

Certain demographic groups stand out for how much of a problem they say cyberbullying is. Seven-in-ten Black teens and 62% of Hispanic teens say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with 46% of White teens. Teens from households making under $75,000 a year are similarly inclined to call this type of harassment a major problem, with 62% making this claim, compared with 47% of teens from more affluent homes. Teen girls are also more likely than boys to view cyberbullying as a major problem.

Views also vary by community type. Some 65% of teens living in urban areas say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with about half of suburban and rural teens.

Partisan differences appear as well: Six-in-ten Democratic teens say this is a major problem for people their age, compared with 44% of Republican teens saying this.

Roughly three-quarters of teens or more think elected officials and social media sites aren’t adequately addressing online abuse

In recent years, there have been several initiatives and programs aimed at curtailing bad behavior online, but teens by and large view some of those behind these efforts – including social media companies and politicians – in a decidedly negative light.

According to teens, parents are doing the best of the five groups asked about in terms of addressing online harassment and online bullying, with 66% of teens saying parents are doing at least a good job, including one-in-five saying it is an excellent job. Roughly four-in-ten teens report thinking teachers (40%) or law enforcement (37%) are doing a good or excellent job addressing online abuse. A quarter of teens say social media sites are doing at least a good job addressing online harassment and cyberbullying, and just 18% say the same of elected officials. In fact, 44% of teens say elected officials have done a poor job addressing online harassment and online bullying.

Teens who have been cyberbullied are more critical of how various groups have addressed online bullying than those who haven’t

Teens who have experienced harassment or bullying online have a very different perspective on how various groups have been handling cyberbullying compared with those who have not faced this type of abuse. Some 53% of teens who have been cyberbullied say elected officials have done a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying, while 38% who have not undergone these experiences say the same (a 15 percentage point gap). Double-digit differences also appear between teens who have and have not been cyberbullied in their views on how law enforcement, social media sites and teachers have addressed online abuse, with teens who have been harassed or bullied online being more critical of each of these three groups. These harassed teens are also twice as likely as their peers who report no abuse to say parents have done a poor job of combatting online harassment and bullying.

Aside from these differences based on personal experience with cyberbullying, only a few differences are seen across major demographic groups. For example, Black teens express greater cynicism than White teens about how law enforcement has fared in this space: 33% of Black teens say law enforcement is doing a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying; 21% of White teens say the same. Hispanic teens (25%) do not differ from either group on this question.

Large majorities of teens believe permanent bans from social media and criminal charges can help reduce harassment on the platforms

Teens have varying views about possible actions that could help to curb the amount of online harassment youth encounter on social media.

While a majority of teens say each of five possible solutions asked about in the survey would at least help a little, certain measures are viewed as being more effective than others.

Teens see the most benefit in criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media or permanently locking these users out of their account. Half of teens say each of these options would help a lot in reducing the amount of harassment and bullying teens may face on social media sites.

About four-in-ten teens think that if social media companies looked for and deleted posts they think are bullying or harassing (42%) or if users of these platforms were required to use their real names and pictures (37%) it would help a lot in addressing these issues. The idea of forcing people to use their real name while online has long existed and been heavily debated: Proponents see it as a way to hold bad actors accountable and keep online conversations more civil , while detractors believe it would do little to solve harassment and could even  worsen it .

Three-in-ten teens say school districts monitoring students’ social media activity for bullying or harassment would help a lot. Some school districts already use digital monitoring software to help them identify worrying student behavior on school-owned devices , social media and other online platforms . However, these programs have been met with criticism regarding privacy issues , mixed results and whether they do more harm than good .

Having personally experienced online harassment is unrelated to a teen’s view on whether these potential measures would help a lot in reducing these types of adverse experiences on social media. Views do vary widely by a teen’s racial or ethnic background, however.

Black or Hispanic teens are consistently more optimistic than White teens about the effectiveness of each of these measures.

Majorities of both Black and Hispanic teens say permanently locking users out of their account if they bully or harass others or criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media would help a lot, while about four-in-ten White teens express each view.

In the case of permanent bans, Black teens further stand out from their Hispanic peers: Seven-in-ten say this would help a lot, followed by 59% of Hispanic teens and 42% of White teens.

• It is important to note that there are various ways researchers measure youths’ experiences with cyberbullying and online harassment. As a result, there may be a range of estimates for how many teens report having these experiences. In addition, since the Center last polled on this topic in 2018, there have been changes in how the surveys were conducted and how the questions were asked. For instance, the 2018 survey asked about bullying by listing a number of possible behaviors and asking respondents to “check all that apply.” This survey asked teens to answer “yes” or “no” to each item individually. Due to these changes, direct comparisons cannot be made across the two surveys. ↩
• There were not enough Asian American teen respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis. As always, their responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout the report. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

Teens and Video Games Today

How teens and parents approach screen time, teens, social media and technology 2023, teens and social media: key findings from pew research center surveys, gun deaths among u.s. children and teens rose 50% in two years, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Open access
• Published: 14 January 2023

Prevalence and related risks of cyberbullying and its effects on adolescent

• Gassem Gohal 1 ,
• Ahmad Alqassim 2 ,
• Ebtihal Eltyeb 1 ,
• Ahmed Rayyani 3 ,
• Bassam Hakami 3 ,
• Abdullah Al Faqih 3 ,
• Abdullah Hakami 3 ,
• Almuhannad Qadri 3 &
• Mohamed Mahfouz 2  

BMC Psychiatry volume  23 , Article number:  39 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

59k Accesses

21 Citations

25 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cyberbullying is becoming common in inflicting harm on others, especially among adolescents. This study aims to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying, determine the risk factors, and assess the association between cyberbullying and the psychological status of adolescents facing this problem in the Jazan region, Saudi Arabia.

A cross-sectional study was conducted on 355 students, aged between 12–18 years, through a validated online questionnaire to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying and assess psychological effects based on cyberbullying questionnaire and Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) questions.

The participants in this study numbered 355; 68% of participants were females compared to 32% were males. Approximately 20% of the participants spend more than 12 h daily on the Internet, and the estimated overall prevalence of cyberbullying was 42.8%, with the male prevalence slightly higher than females. In addition, 26.3% of the participants were significantly affected in their academic Performance due to cyberbullying. Approximately 20% of all participants considered leaving their schools, 19.7% considered ceasing their Internet use, and 21.1% considered harming themselves due to the consequences of cyberbullying. There are essential links between the frequency of harassment, the effect on academic Performance, and being a cyber victim.

Conclusions

Cyberbullying showed a high prevalence among adolescents in the Jazan region with significant associated psychological effects. There is an urgency for collaboration between the authorities and the community to protect adolescents from this harmful occurrence.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cyberbullying is an intentional, repeated act of harm toward others through electronic tools; however, there is no consensus to define it [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. With the surge in information and data sharing in the emerging digital world, a new era of socialization through digital tools, and the popularization of social media, cyberbullying has become more frequent than ever and occurs when there is inadequate adult supervision [ 4 , 5 ]. A large study that looked at the incidence of cyberbullying among adolescents in England found a prevalence of 17.9%, while one study conducted in Saudi Arabia found a prevalence of 20.97% [ 6 , 7 ]. Cyberbullying can take many forms, including sending angry, rude, or offensive messages; intimidating, cruel, and possibly false information about a person to others; sharing sensitive or private information (outing); and exclusion, which involves purposefully leaving someone out of an online group [ 8 ]. Cyberbullying is influenced by age, sex, parent–child relationships, and time spent on the Internet [ 9 , 10 ]. Although some studies have found that cyberbullying continues to increase in late adolescence, others found that cyberbullying tends to peak at 14 and 15 years old before decreasing through the remaining years of adolescence [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

The COVID-19 epidemic has impacted the prevalence of cyberbullying since social isolation regulations have reduced face-to-face interaction, leading to a significant rise in the use of social networking sites and online activity. As a result, there was a higher chance of experiencing cyberbullying [ 14 ].

Unlike traditional Bullying, which usually only occurs in school and is mitigated at home, victims of cyberbullying can be contacted anytime and anywhere. Parents and teachers are seen as saviors in cases of traditional Bullying. Simultaneously, in cyberbullying, children tend to be reluctant to tell adults for fear of losing access to their phones and computers, so they usually hide the cyberbullying incident [ 15 ]. Reports show that cyberbullying is a form of harm not easily avoided by the victim. In addition, in the cyber form of Bullying, identification of the victim and the perpetrator is generally challenging compared to traditional Bullying; this makes an accurate estimation of the problem widely contested [ 16 , 17 ].

There is growing evidence that is cyberbullying causes more significant levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness than traditional forms of Bullying. A meta-analysis examining the association between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents indicates that cyberbullying is more intensely related to suicidal ideation than traditional Bullying [ 18 ]. Moreover, the significant problem is that cyberbullying impacts adolescent due to its persistence and recurrence. A recent report in Saudi Arabia indicated a growing rise in cyberbullying in secondary schools and higher education, from 18% to approximately 27% [ 19 ]. In primary schools and kindergartens in Saudi Arabia, we were not surprised to find evidence that children were unaware that cyberbullying is illegal. Although the study showed an adequate awareness of the problem in our country, Saudi Arabia, there were relatively significant misconceptions [ 20 ].

Adolescents' emotional responses to cyberbullying vary in severity and quality. However, anger, sadness, concern, anxiety, fear, and depression are most common among adolescent cyber victims [ 21 ]. Moreover, cyberbullying may limit students' academic Performance and cause higher absenteeism rates [ 22 ]. Consequently, this study aims to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying, determine the risk factors, and establish the association between cyberbullying and the psychological status of adolescents. We believe our study will be an extension of and significantly add to the literature regarding the nature and extent of cyberbullying in the Jazan region of Saudi Arabia.

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the Jazan region, a province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is located on the tropical Red Sea coast of southwestern Saudi Arabia.

Design and participants

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the Jazan region, a province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is located on the tropical Red Sea coast of southwestern Saudi Arabia. The study targeted adolescents (12–18 years old) who use the Internet to communicate in the Jazan region. The main inclusion criteria are adolescents between 12–18 years who use the Internet and agree to participate; however, it excludes adolescents not matching the inclusion criteria or those refusing to participate in the study. If participants were under 16, the parent and/or legal guardian should be notified. A sample of participants was estimated for this study, and the ideal sample size was calculated to be 385 using the Cochran formula, n  = (z) 2 p (1 – p) / d 2 . Where: p = prevalence of cyberbullying 50%, z = a 95% confidence interval, d = error of not more than 5%. A convenience sample was used to recruit the study participants. A self-administrated online questionnaire was used to collect the study information from May to December 2021.

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from The Institute Review Board (IRB) of Jazan University (Letter v.1 2019 dated 08/04/2021). Informed consent was acquired from all participants and was attached to the beginning of the form and mandatory to be read and checked before the participant proceeded to the first part of the questionnaire. For the participants under 16, informed consent was obtained from a parent and legal guardian.

Procedure of data collection and study measures

An Arabic self-administrated online questionnaire was used for this research. This anonymous online survey instrument was based on (Google Forms). The study team distributed the questionnaire to the participants through school teachers. The research team prepared the study questionnaire and chose the relevant cyberbullying scale questions from similar studies [ 5 , 6 ]. The questionnaire was translated by two bilingual professionals to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the instrument wording. A panel of experts then discussed and assessed the validity and suitability of the instrument for use on adolescents. The panel also added and edited a few questions to accommodate the local culture of Saudi students. It was validated with a pilot study that included 20 participants. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The first part of the questionnaire contains the basic participant information, including gender, age, nationality, school grade, residence, and information about family members and the mother's occupation and education. The mother's level of education was considered as it found that mothers' low levels of education specifically had a detrimental impact on the cyberbullying process [ 23 ]. The second section explores the participant's definition of cyberbullying, questions regarding exposure to cyberbullying as a victim or by bullying another person, and questions considering the possible risk factors behind cyberbullying. The last section explores how cyberbullying affects adolescents psychologically based on the standardized questionnaire Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5). MHI-5 is a well-known, valid, reliable, and brief international instrument for assessing mental health in children and adolescents (such as satisfaction, interest in, and enjoyment of life) and negative aspects (such as anxiety and depression) [ 24 ]. It is composed of five questions, as shown in Table 1 . There are six options available for each question, ranging from "all the time" (1 point) to "none of the time" (6 points); therefore, the adolescent's score varies between five and 30. These questions assess both negative and positive qualities of mental health, as well as questions about anxiety and depression. By adding all the item scores and converting this score to a scale ranging from 0 to 100, the final MHI-5 score is determined, with lower scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. The value for which the sum of sensitivity and specificity was utilized to establish the ideal cut-off score for MHI-5 in many similar studies was reviewed to reach an optimal conclusion. Therefore, we considered all cut-off values with associated sensitivities and specificities of various MHI-5 cut-off points previously employed among adolescents in similar studies and compared them to conclude that MHI-5 = 70 as our cut points. So the presence of depressive symptoms is considered with an MHI-5 cut-off score of ≤ 70 [ 25 ].

The Questionnaires were initially prepared in English and then translated into Arabic. A native speaker with fluency in English (with experience in translation) converted the questionnaire from the initial English version into Arabic. Then, we performed a pilot study among 20 participants to ensure the readability and understandability of the questionnaire questions. We also assessed the internal consistency of the questionnaire based on Cronbach’s alpha, which produced an acceptable value of 0.672. The internal consistency for Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) was reported at 0.557. In order to assess the factor structure of the Arabic-translated version of the (MHI-5) questionnaire, a factor analysis was conducted. The factor loading of the instrument is shown in Table 1 . Using principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method, we found a one-component solution explaining 56.766% of the total variance. All items loaded on the first factor ranged from (0.688 to 0.824), which confirms that a single factor has explained all the items of the scale. In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found significant ( p  < 0.001).

Data presentation & statistical analysis

Simple tabulation frequencies were used to give a general overview of the data. The prevalence of cyberbullying was presented using 95% C.I.s, and the Chi-squared test was performed to determine the associations between individual categorical variables and Mental Health. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression model was derived, and unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (C.I.s) were calculated. A P -value of 0.05 or less was used as the cut-off level for statistical significance. The statistical analysis was completed using SPSS ver. 25.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) software.

The distributed survey targeted approximately 385 students, but the precise number of respondents to the questionnaire was 355 (92% response rate), with 68% of female students responding, compared to 32% of male students. More than half of the respondents were secondary school students, with a nearly equal mix of respondents living in cities and rural areas. Table 2 demonstrates that 20% of the participants spend more than 12 h daily on the Internet and electronic gadgets, while only 13% spend less than two hours.

As demonstrated in Table 3 , the total prevalence of cyberbullying was estimated to be 42.8%, with male prevalence somewhat higher than female prevalence. Additional variables, such as the number of hours spent on the Internet, did not affect the prevalence. Table 4 shows the pattern and experience of being cyberbullied across mental health levels, as measured by the MHI-5.

Academic Performance was significantly affected due to cyberbullying in 26.3% of the participants. Furthermore, approximately 20% of all participants considered leaving their schools for this reason. Moreover, 19.7% of the participants thought of stopping using the Internet and electronic devices, while 21.1% considered harming themselves due to the effects of cyberbullying. Regarding associations between various variables and psychological effects using the MHI-5, there are significant associations between whether the participant has been a cyber victim before (cOR 2.8), the frequency of harassment (cOR 1.9), academic Performance (cOR 6.5), and considering leaving school as a result of being a cyber victim (cOR 3.0). In addition, by using univariate logistic regression analysis, there are significant associations between the psychological effects and the participant's thoughts of getting rid of a bully (cOR 2.8), thinking to stop using electronic devices (cOR 3.0), and considering hurting themselves as the result of cyberbullying (cOR 6.4). In addition, the use of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that frequency of harassment was the only statistically significant predictor of mental health among adolescents (aOR 2.8). Other variables continue to have higher (aORs) but without statistical significance. All these results are demonstrated in Table 4 .

Cyberbullying prevalence rates among adolescents vary widely worldwide, ranging from 10% to more than 70% in many studies. This variation results from certain factors, specifically gender involvement, as a decisive influencing factor [ 26 , 27 ]. Our study found a prevalence of 42.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 37.7–48), which is higher than the median reported prevalence of cyberbullying of 23.0% in a scoping review that included 36 studies conducted in the United States in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old [ 28 ]. A systematic review found that cyberbullying ranged from 6.5% to 35.4% [ 3 ]. These two studies gathered data before the COVID-19 pandemic. When compared to recent studies, it was found that cyberbullying increased dramatically during the COVID-19 era [ 29 , 30 ]. Subsequently, with the massive mandate of world online communication in teaching and learning, young adolescents faced a large amount of cyberspace exposure with all risk-related inquiries. Psychological distress due to COVID-19 and spending far more time on the Internet are vital factors in this problem, which might be a reasonable explanation for our results.

There is insufficient data to compare our findings to the Arab world context, notably Saudi Arabia. Although, according to one study done among Saudi Arabian university students, the prevalence was 17.6%. [ 31 ]. we discovered a considerable discrepancy between this prevalence and our findings, and the decisive explanation is the difference in the target age group studied. Age is a crucial risk factor for cyberbullying, and according to one study, cyberbullying peaks at around 14 and 15 years of age and then declines in late adolescence. Thus, a U-inverted relation exists between prevalence and age [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 32 ].

In our study, males reported being more vulnerable to cyberbullying despite there being more female participants; this inconsistent finding with previous literature requires further investigation. A strong, but not recent, meta-analysis in 2014 reported that, in general, males are likely to cyberbully more than females. Females were more likely to report cyberbullying during early to mid-adolescence than males [ 11 ]. This finding presents a concern for males reporting lower than females’ results in our data and raises some questions about whether cultural or religious conservative values play a role.

Increased Internet hours are another risk factor in this study and were significantly associated with cyberbullying. Specifically, it was likely to be with heavy Internet users (> 12 h/day); a similar result was well documented in one equivalent study [ 3 ]. Notably, while some studies have reported that those living in city areas are more likely to be cyberbullying victims than their counterparts from suburban areas [ 3 ], our observations reported no significant influence of this factor on the prevalence of cyberbullying.

According to a population-based study on cyberbullying and teenage well-being in England, which included 110,000 pupils, traditional Bullying accounted for more significant variability in mental well-being than cyberbullying. It did, however, conclude that both types of Bullying carry a risk of affecting mental health [ 33 ]. We confirmed in this study that multiple occurrences of cyberbullying and the potential for being a victim are risk factors influencing mental health ( P  < 0.001). Moreover, the frequency of harassment also shows a significant, influential effect. The victim's desire to be free from the perpetrator carrying out the cyberbullying is probably an alarming sign and a precursor factor for suicidal ideation; we reported that nearly half of the participants wished they could get rid of the perpetrators. Furthermore, more than 20% of participants considered harming themselves due to cyberbullying; this result is consistent with many studies that linked cyberbullying and self-harm and suicidal thoughts [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Adolescence is a particularly vulnerable age for the effects of cyberbullying on mental health. In one Saudi Arabian study, parents felt that cyberbullying is more detrimental than Bullying in the schoolyard and more harmful to their children's mental health. According to them, video games were the most popular social platform for cyberbullying [ 37 ]. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal research shows a significant link between cyberbullying and emotional symptoms, including anxiety and depression [ 38 , 39 ]. Therefore, we employed the MHI-5 to measure the mental impact of cyberbullying on adolescents in this study. Overall, the MHI-5 questionnaire showed relatively high sensitivity in detecting anxiety and depression disorders for general health and quality of life assessments. The questions listed happy times, peacefulness, and sensations of calmness, in addition to episodes of anxiousness, downheartedness, and feelings of depression, as given in Table 1 .

Cyberbullying has been well-documented to affect the academic achievement of the victim adolescents. Therefore, bullied adolescents are likelier to miss school, have higher absence rates, dislike school, and report receiving lower grades. According to one meta-analysis, peer victimization has a significant negative link with academic achievement, as measured by grades, student performance, or instructor ratings of academic achievement [ 40 ]. In our investigation, we reported that up to 20% of participants considered leaving their schools due to the adverse effects of cyberbullying (cOR 3.0) and wished they could stop using the Internet; 26% of participants felt that their school performance was affected due to being cyber victims (cOR 6.5). The results of the univariate analysis showed a high odd ratio related to school performance and a willingness to leave school. This conclusion indicates the likelihood of these impacts specifically with a significant p-value, as shown in Table 5 .

In this study, approximately 88% of the participants were cyber victims compared to only 11% of cyberbullying perpetrators who committed this act on their peers. Mental health affection is well-reported in many studies on cyber victims with higher depression rates than cyberbullying perpetrators [ 41 , 42 ]. However, other studies indicate that cyberbullying victims are not the only ones affected; harm is also extended to involve perpetrators. Cyberbullying perpetrators have high-stress levels, poor school performance, and an increased risk of depression and alcohol misuse. Furthermore, research shows that adolescents who were victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying in their adolescence continue to engage in similar behavior into early adulthood [ 43 , 44 ].

Limitations of the study

Although the current study found a high prevalence and positive connections among variables, it should be emphasized that it was conducted on a determinate sample of respondents, 11 to 18 years old. Therefore, the results could not be generalized for other samples, age groups, and communities from other cultures and contexts. In addition, it was limited to adolescent survey responses, did not include parents' and caretakers' viewpoints, and failed to include other risk factors such as divorce and financial status. We believe future studies should consider parents' perspectives and more analysis of perpetrators' characteristics. Moreover, self-reported tools are susceptible to social desirability bias, which can influence test item responses. As a result, future research should employ a variety of monitoring and evaluation metrics and larger potential populations and age ranges. Another limitation of this analysis is that we cannot make conclusive inferences regarding gender and exact prevalence because male adolescents had a lower response rate than female adolescents, suggesting that males might be more sensitive to disclosing these issues.

Even though experts in the social sciences typically research cyberbullying, it is crucial to investigate it from a clinical perspective because it significantly affects mental health. Adolescents' lives have grown increasingly centered on online communication, which provides several possibilities for psychological outcomes and aggressive actions such as cyberbullying. Stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and deterioration in school performance are all linked to cyberbullying. Therefore, we emphasize the need for parents and educators to be conscious of these dangers and be the first line of protection for the adolescent by recognizing, addressing, and solving this problem. Furthermore, we urge the responsibility of pediatricians, physicians, and psychiatric consultants to create a comfortable atmosphere for adolescents to disclose and report this problem early and raise awareness of the problem in their communities. Furthermore, practical strategies for dealing with such occurrences involving health, education, and law authorities, should be supported to tackle this problem, which can affect the adolescent mentally and academically. Lastly, to decide how to intervene most effectively, more research must be done on the many methods to assess how schools, communities, and healthcare providers tackle cyberbullying.

Availability of data and materials

The authors ensure that the data supporting the results of this study are available within the article. The raw data for the study will be obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable demand.

Krešić Ćorić M, Kaštelan A. Bullying through the Internet - Cyberbullying. Psychiatr Danub. 2020;32(Suppl 2):269–72.

Google Scholar  

Englander E, Donnerstein E, Kowalski R, Lin CA, Parti K. Defining Cyberbullying. Pediatrics. 2017;140(Suppl 2):148–51. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758U .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bottino SM, Bottino CM, Regina CG, Correia AV, Ribeiro WS. Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: a systematic review. Cad Saude Publica. 2015;31(3):463–75. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311x00036114 .

Martín-Criado JM, Casas JA, Ortega-Ruiz R. Parental Supervision: Predictive Variables of Positive Involvement in Cyberbullying Prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041562 .

Uludasdemir D, Kucuk S. Cyber Bullying Experiences of Adolescents and Parental Awareness: Turkish Example. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;44:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.11.006 .

Jaffer M, Alshehri K, Almutairi M, Aljumaiah A, Alfraiji A, Hakami M, Al-Dossary M, Irfan T. Cyberbullying among young Saudi online gamers and its relation to depression. J Nat Sci Med. 2021;4(2):142–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/JNSM.JNSM_78_20 .

Cyberbullying: An Analysis of Data from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Survey for England; 2014. Available from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621070/Health_behaviour_in_school_age_children_cyberbullying.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 Nov 09].

LI Q. Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisation. Australasian J Educ Tech. 2007;23:435–54.

Rao J, Wang H, Pang M, et al. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou. China Inj Prev. 2019;25(1):13–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210 .

Samples-Kanyinga H, Lalande K, Colman I. Cyberbullying victimisation and internalising and externalising problems among adolescents: the moderating role of parent-child relationship and child’s sex. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2018;29:8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796018000653 .

Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth [published correction appears in Psychol Bull. 2014; 140(4): 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618

Tokunaga RS. Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(3):277–87.

Pichel R, Foody M, O’Higgins Norman J, Feijóo S, Varela J, Rial A. Bullying, Cyberbullying and the Overlap: What Does Age Have to Do with It? Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8527.

Shin SY, Choi Y-J. Comparison of Cyberbullying before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910085 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cassidy W, Jackson M, Brown KN. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me?: Students’ experiences with cyberbullying. Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30:383–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034309106948 .

Bonanno RA, Hymel S. Cyberbullying and internalizing difficulties: above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of Bullying. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(5):685–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1 .

Peebles E. Cyberbullying: Hiding behind the screen. Paediatr Child Health. 2014;19(10):527–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/19.10.527 .

Landstedt E, Persson S. Bullying, cyberbullying, and mental health in young people. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2014;42(4):393–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494814525004 .

Al-Zahrani, A. M. . Cyberbullying among Saudi’s Higher-Education Students: Implications for Educators and Policymakers. World Journal of Education.2015; 5(3). https://doi.org/10.5430/WJE.V5N3P15

Allehyani SH. Cyberbullying and It's Impact on The Saudi Kindergarten Children. Journal of Arts, Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences. 2018;4(22):307-329. https://doi.org/10.33193/1889-000-022-016 .

Ortega R, Elipe P, Mora-Merchan JA, Genta ML, Brighi A, Guarini A, et al. The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: a European Cross-National Study. Aggress Behav. 2012;38:342–56.

Kowalski RM, Limber SP. Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional Bullying. J Adolesc Health.2013; 53(1Suppl):13–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018

Chen Q, Lo CKM, Zhu Y, Cheung A, Chan KL, Ip P. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;77:180–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015 .

María Rivera-Riquelme, Jose A Piqueras, Pim Cuijpers. The Revised Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) as an ultra-brief screening measure of bi-dimensional mental health in children and adolescents. Psychiatry Research. 2019; 274:247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.02.045 .

van den Beukel TO, et al. Comparison of the SF-36 Five-item Mental Health Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory for the screening of depressive symptoms in chronic dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(12):4453–7.

Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippet N. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiat. 2008;49:376–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x .

Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among United States middle and high school aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58:125–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026 .

Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, et al. Prevalence and Effect of Cyberbullying on Children and Young People: A Scoping Review of Social Media Studies. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(8):770–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944 .

Zhang Y, Xu C, Dai H, Jia X. Psychological Distress and Adolescents’ Cyberbullying under Floods and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Parent-Child Relationships and Negotiable Fate as Moderators. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12279. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312279 .

Barlett CP, Simmers MM, Roth B, Gentile D. Comparing cyberbullying prevalence and process before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Soc Psychol. 2021;161(4):408–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1918619 .

Al Qudah MF, Al-Barashdi HS, Hassan EMAH, et al. Psychological Security, Psychological Loneliness, and Age as the Predictors of Cyber-Bullying Among University Students. Community Ment Health J. 2020;56(3):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00455-z .

Hinduja S, Cyberbullying in 2021 by Age, Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Race. https://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-statistics-age-gender-sexual-orientation-race .

Przybylski AK, Bowes L. Cyberbullying and adolescent well-being in England: a population-based cross-sectional study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2017;1:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30011-1 .

O’Connor RC, Rasmussen S, Miles J, Hawton K. Self-harm in adolescents: self-report survey in schools in Scotland. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(1):68–72.

John A, Glendenning AC, Marchant A, Montgomery P, Stewart A, Wood S, Lloyd K, Hawton K. Self-harm, suicidal Behaviours, and Cyberbullying in children and young people: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4): e129.

Nguyen HTL, Nakamura K, Seino K, et al. Relationships among cyberbullying, parental attitudes, self-harm and suicidal behavior among adolescents: results from a school-based survey in Vietnam. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:476. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08500-3 .

Alfakeh SA, Alghamdi AA, Kouzaba KA, Altaifi MI, Abu-Alamah SD, Salamah MM. Parents’ perception of cyberbullying of their children in Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2021;28(2):117–24. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_516_20 .

Kim S, Boyle MH, Georgiades K. Cyberbullying victimization and its association with health across the life course: a Canadian population study. Can J Public Health. 2018;108:468–74.

Fahy AE, Stansfeld SA, Smuk M, et al. Longitudinal associations between cyberbullying involvement and adolescent mental health. J Adolesc Health. 2016;59:502–9.

Gardella JH, Fisher BW, Teurbe-Tolon AR. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cyber-Victimization and Educational Outcomes for Adolescents. Rev Educ Res. 2017;87(2):283–308. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689136 .

Nansel TR, Craig W, Overpeck MD, Saluja G, Ruan WJ. Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(8):730–6.

Sourander A, Brunstein Klimek A, Ikonen M, et al. Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: a population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(7):720–8.

Daniela Š, Ivana D, Marija M. Psychological Outcomes of Cyber-Violence on Victims, Perpetrators and Perpetrators/Victims. Hrvat Rev Za Rehabil Istraz. 2017;53:98–110.

Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan Y-F, Moreno M. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: a multisite study. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18(2):79–86.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge the help and appreciate the efforts of the participating students and their guardians during data collection.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pediatric Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Gassem Gohal & Ebtihal Eltyeb

Family and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Ahmad Alqassim & Mohamed Mahfouz

Medical Intern, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Ahmed Rayyani, Bassam Hakami, Abdullah Al Faqih, Abdullah Hakami & Almuhannad Qadri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GG, EE and AA did the study design, data collection, statistical analysis manuscript writing, editing, revision, approved final manuscript, and responsible for integrity of research.

AR, BH, AF, AH, AQ, and MM contributed in data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript writing, editing, revision, approved final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Alqassim .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The ethical approval for this study was obtained from The Institute Review Board (IRB) of Jazan University (Letter v.1 2019 dated 08/04/2021). Informed consent was received from all participants, and for participants under age 16, informed consent was obtained from a parent and legal guardian. All methods were carried out under relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors state that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gohal, G., Alqassim, A., Eltyeb, E. et al. Prevalence and related risks of cyberbullying and its effects on adolescent. BMC Psychiatry 23 , 39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04542-0

Download citation

Received : 05 August 2022

Accepted : 11 January 2023

Published : 14 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04542-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cyberbullying
• Psychological effects
• Adolescents
• Public health
• Mental Health
• Saudi Arabia

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Future Research Questions in Cyberbullying

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

In the last decade, research on cyberbullying has provided much needed knowledge about this relatively new form of bullying. Earlier studies documented prevalence and developmental patterns (e.g., age and gender) of cyberbullying among children (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Research findings also identified a number of correlates of cybervictimization, including depression (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010), anxiety (Dempsey, Sulkowski, & Nichols, 2009), and suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Along with cyberbullying cases that have been widely publicized by the popular media, these studies have alerted us to the significance of hostile, aggressive behaviors using communication technology among children and adolescents. As the field pushes this research area forward, researchers must address the many challenges in studying cyberbullying, as have been outlined throughout the other chapters of this book. This chapter explores possible research questions that would stimulate future research efforts and thus contribute to ongoing theory building and intervention/prevention efforts against cyberbullying.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• General Psychology

Access to Document

• 10.4324/9780203084601-37

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Cyberbullying Keyphrases 100%
• Developmental Pattern Keyphrases 16%
• Aggressive Behavior Keyphrases 16%
• Prevention Efforts Keyphrases 16%
• Communication Technologies Keyphrases 16%
• Cybervictimization Keyphrases 16%
• Suicidal Ideation Keyphrases 16%
• Popular Media Keyphrases 16%

T1 - Future Research Questions in Cyberbullying

AU - Yoon, Jina

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2013 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - In the last decade, research on cyberbullying has provided much needed knowledge about this relatively new form of bullying. Earlier studies documented prevalence and developmental patterns (e.g., age and gender) of cyberbullying among children (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Research findings also identified a number of correlates of cybervictimization, including depression (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010), anxiety (Dempsey, Sulkowski, & Nichols, 2009), and suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Along with cyberbullying cases that have been widely publicized by the popular media, these studies have alerted us to the significance of hostile, aggressive behaviors using communication technology among children and adolescents. As the field pushes this research area forward, researchers must address the many challenges in studying cyberbullying, as have been outlined throughout the other chapters of this book. This chapter explores possible research questions that would stimulate future research efforts and thus contribute to ongoing theory building and intervention/prevention efforts against cyberbullying.

AB - In the last decade, research on cyberbullying has provided much needed knowledge about this relatively new form of bullying. Earlier studies documented prevalence and developmental patterns (e.g., age and gender) of cyberbullying among children (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Research findings also identified a number of correlates of cybervictimization, including depression (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010), anxiety (Dempsey, Sulkowski, & Nichols, 2009), and suicidal ideation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Along with cyberbullying cases that have been widely publicized by the popular media, these studies have alerted us to the significance of hostile, aggressive behaviors using communication technology among children and adolescents. As the field pushes this research area forward, researchers must address the many challenges in studying cyberbullying, as have been outlined throughout the other chapters of this book. This chapter explores possible research questions that would stimulate future research efforts and thus contribute to ongoing theory building and intervention/prevention efforts against cyberbullying.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121889839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85121889839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9780203084601-37

DO - 10.4324/9780203084601-37

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85121889839

SN - 9780415897495

BT - Principles of Cyberbullying Research

PB - Taylor and Francis

Cyberbullying - Science topic

• asked a question related to Cyberbullying

• 11 Jul 2024
• 0 Recommendations

• 18 Jun 2024

• Scherm­afbeelding 2024-06-18 om 12.22. 04.png 66.8 kB
• Scherm­afbeelding 2024-06-18 om 12.22. 42.png 141 kB

• 30 Jun 2024

• 27 Sept 2013

• 25 Feb 2024

• 17 Dec 2023

• 22 Dec 2023

• 29 Mar 2022

• 2 Recommendations

• 15 Jan 2022
• 15 Feb 2022
• 30 Recommendations

• 20 Nov 2021

• 21 Nov 2021
• 4 Recommendations

• 17 Oct 2018

• 26 Oct 2021

• 10 Oct 2021

• 14 Oct 2021

• studentlearningfacto rs.jpg 132 kB

• 11 Sept 2021

• 17 Sept 2021
• 5 Recommendations

• 14 Feb 2021

• 16 Feb 2021

• 29 Jan 2014

• 12 Jan 2021
• Cyberbullying Across the Globe_ Gender, Family, and Mental Heal th.pdf 3.88 MB
• Cyberbullying_ Causes, Consequences, and Coping Strategi es.pdf 2.02 MB

• 15 Apr 2020

• 19 Oct 2020

• 25 Aug 2020

• 18 Mar 2020

• 2017-2 .pdf 1.08 MB

• 18 Jan 2019

• 22 Jan 2019
• 12 Recommendations

• 12 Jan 2019

• 17 Jan 2019

• 6 Recommendations

• 23 Dec 2018
• Call for papers Psihologija 20 19.pdf 207 kB

• 11 Oct 2018

• 13 Oct 2018
• 25 Recommendations

• 22 Sept 2018

• 23 Sept 2018
• 10 Recommendations

• 7 Sept 2018
• 12 Sept 2018

• 30 Jul 2018

• 8 Recommendations
• 29 Jan 2018

• 27 Mar 2018
• 1 Recommendation

• 21 Mar 2018
• 15 Jan 2018

• 16 Jan 2018

• 23 Mar 2017

• 29 Mar 2017

• 11 Mar 2017

• 13 Mar 2017

• 28 Apr 2016

• 15 Feb 2017

• 14 Oct 2016
• 16 Oct 2016
• 3 Recommendations

• 10 Oct 2016
• 19 Jul 2016

• 30 Jul 2016

• 30 Jun 2016

• Reserach article. Dr TUH Kas ur.doc 436 kB

• 26 Feb 2013

• 27 Apr 2016
• 9 Recommendations

• 21 Mar 2016

• 22 Mar 2016
• AttackAttributionResear ch.txt 2.15 kB
• SecurityBreachResear ch.txt 43.6 kB
• 20 Jul 2015

• 30 Oct 2015
• 14 Oct 2015

• 22 Oct 2015

• 28 Jun 2015
• 16 Oct 2015

• 26 Aug 2015

• 1 Sept 2015
• 27 Jul 2015

• 29 Jul 2015

• 25 Jun 2015

• 26 Jun 2015
• 20 Recommendations

• 13 May 2015

• 19 May 2015
• 27 Mar 2015

• 16 Recommendations

• 20 Jan 2015

• 16 Jan 2015

• 27 Jan 2015

• 10 Oct 2014

• 29 Nov 2013

• 23 Sept 2013

• 14 Nov 2013

• 22 Oct 2013

• 28 Oct 2013
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue

• Published: 12 August 2022
• Volume 4 , pages 175–179, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Paul Horton 1 &
• Selma Therese Lyng 2  

10k Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

School bullying research has a long history, stretching all the way back to a questionnaire study undertaken in the USA in the late 1800s (Burk, 1897 ). However, systematic school bullying research began in earnest in Scandinavia in the early 1970s with the work of Heinemann ( 1972 ) and Olweus ( 1978 ). Highlighting the extent to which research on bullying has grown exponentially since then, Smith et al. ( 2021 ) found that there were only 83 articles with the term “bully” in the title or abstract published in the Web of Science database prior to 1989. The numbers of articles found in the following decades were 458 (1990–1999), 1,996 (2000–2009), and 9,333 (2010–2019). Considering cyberbullying more specifically, Smith and Berkkun ( 2017 , cited in Smith et al., 2021 ) conducted a search of Web of Science with the terms “cyber* and bully*; cyber and victim*; electronic bullying; Internet bullying; and online harassment” until the year 2015 and found that while there were no articles published prior to 2000, 538 articles were published between 2000 and 2015, with the number of articles increasing every year (p. 49).

Numerous authors have pointed out that research into school bullying and cyberbullying has predominantly been conducted using quantitative methods, with much less use of qualitative or mixed methods (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Hutson, 2018 ; Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Smith et al., 2021 ). In their recent analysis of articles published between 1976 and 2019 (in WoS, with the search terms “bully*; victim*; cyberbullying; electronic bullying; internet bullying; and online harassment”), Smith et al. ( 2021 , pp. 50–51) found that of the empirical articles selected, more than three-quarters (76.3%) were based on quantitative data, 15.4% were based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, and less than one-tenth (8.4%) were based on qualitative data alone. What is more, they found that the proportion of articles based on qualitative or mixed methods has been decreasing over the past 15 years (Smith et al., 2021 ). While the search criteria excluded certain types of qualitative studies (e.g., those published in books, doctoral theses, and non-English languages), this nonetheless highlights the extent to which qualitative research findings risk being overlooked in the vast sea of quantitative research.

School bullying and cyberbullying are complex phenomena, and a range of methodological approaches is thus needed to understand their complexity (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000 ; Thornberg, 2011 ). Indeed, over-relying on quantitative methods limits understanding of the contexts and experiences of bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). Qualitative methods are particularly useful for better understanding the social contexts, processes, interactions, experiences, motivations, and perspectives of those involved (Hutson, 2018 ; Patton et al., 2017 ; Thornberg, 2011 ; Torrance, 2000 ).

Smith et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that the “continued emphasis on quantitative studies may be due to increasingly sophisticated methods such as structural equation modeling … network analysis … time trend analyses … latent profile analyses … and multi-polygenic score approaches” (p. 56). However, the authors make no mention of the range or sophistication of methods used in qualitative studies. Although there are still proportionately few qualitative studies of school bullying and cyberbullying in relation to quantitative studies, and this gap appears to be increasing, qualitative studies have utilized a range of qualitative data collection methods. These methods have included but are not limited to ethnographic fieldwork and participant observations (e.g., Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ; Gumpel et al., 2014 ; Horton, 2019 ), digital ethnography (e.g., Rachoene & Oyedemi, 2015 ; Sylwander, 2019 ), meta-ethnography (e.g., Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Moretti & Herkovits, 2021 ), focus group interviews (e.g., Odenbring, 2022 ; Oliver & Candappa, 2007 ; Ybarra et al., 2019 ), semi-structured group and individual interviews (e.g., Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016 ; Lyng, 2018 ; Mishna et al., 2005 ; Varjas et al., 2013 ), vignettes (e.g., Jennifer & Cowie, 2012 ; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ; Strindberg et al., 2020 ), memory work (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014 ; Malaby, 2009 ), literature studies (e.g., Lopez-Ropero, 2012 ; Wiseman et al., 2019 ), photo elicitation (e.g., Ganbaatar et al., 2021 ; Newman et al., 2006 ; Walton & Niblett, 2013 ), photostory method (e.g., Skrzypiec et al., 2015 ), and other visual works produced by children and young people (e.g., Bosacki et al., 2006 ; Gillies-Rezo & Bosacki, 2003 ).

This body of research has also included a variety of qualitative data analysis methods, such as grounded theory (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Bjereld, 2018 ; Thornberg, 2018 ), thematic analysis (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016 ; Forsberg & Horton, 2022 ), content analysis (e.g., Temko, 2019 ; Wiseman & Jones, 2018 ), conversation analysis (e.g., Evaldsson & Svahn, 2012 ; Tholander, 2019 ), narrative analysis (e.g., Haines-Saah et al., 2018 ), interpretative phenomenological analysis (e.g., Hutchinson, 2012 ; Tholander et al., 2020 ), various forms of discourse analysis (e.g., Ellwood & Davies, 2010 ; Hepburn, 1997 ; Ringrose & Renold, 2010 ), including discursive psychological analysis (e.g., Clarke et al., 2004 ), and critical discourse analysis (e.g., Barrett & Bound, 2015 ; Bethune & Gonick, 2017 ; Horton, 2021 ), as well as theoretically informed analyses from an array of research traditions (e.g., Davies, 2011 ; Jacobson, 2010 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2005 ).

In light of the growing volume and variety of qualitative studies during the past two decades, we invited researchers to discuss and explore methodological issues related to their qualitative school bullying and cyberbullying research. The articles included in this special issue of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention discuss different qualitative methods, reflect on strengths and limitations — possibilities and challenges, and suggest implications for future qualitative and mixed-methods research.

Included Articles

Qualitative studies — focusing on social, relational, contextual, processual, structural, and/or societal factors and mechanisms — have formed the basis for several contributions during the last two decades that have sought to expand approaches to understanding and theorizing the causes of cyber/bullying. Some have also argued the need for expanding the commonly used definition of bullying, based on Olweus ( 1993 ) (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Ellwood & Davies, 2010 Goldsmid & Howie, 2014 ; Ringrose & Rawlings,  2015 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2011 ). In the first article of the special issue, Using qualitative methods to measure and understand key features of adolescent bullying: A call to action , Natalie Spadafora, Anthony Volk, and Andrew Dane instead discuss the usefulness of qualitative methods for improving measures and bettering our understanding of three specific key definitional features of bullying. Focusing on the definition put forward by Volk et al. ( 2014 ), they discuss the definitional features of power imbalance , goal directedness (replacing “intent to harm” in order not to assume conscious awareness, and to include a wide spectrum of goals that are intentionally and strategically pursued by bullies), and harmful impact (replacing “negative actions” in order to focus on the consequences for the victim, as well as circumventing difficult issues related to “repetition” in the traditional definition).

Acknowledging that these three features are challenging to capture using quantitative methods, Spadafora, Volk, and Dane point to existing qualitative studies that shed light on the features of power imbalance, goal directedness and harmful impact in bullying interactions — and put forward suggestions for future qualitative studies. More specifically, the authors argue that qualitative methods, such as focus groups, can be used to investigate the complexity of power relations at not only individual, but also social levels. They also highlight how qualitative methods, such as diaries and autoethnography, may help researchers gain a better understanding of the motives behind bullying behavior; from the perspectives of those engaging in it. Finally, the authors demonstrate how qualitative methods, such as ethnographic fieldwork and semi-structured interviews, can provide important insights into the harmful impact of bullying and how, for example, perceived harmfulness may be connected to perceived intention.

In the second article, Understanding bullying and cyberbullying through an ecological systems framework: The value of qualitative interviewing in a mixed methods approach , Faye Mishna, Arija Birze, and Andrea Greenblatt discuss the ways in which utilizing qualitative interviewing in mixed method approaches can facilitate greater understanding of bullying and cyberbullying. Based on a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed methods study of cyberbullying, the authors demonstrate not only how qualitative interviewing can augment quantitative findings by examining process, context and meaning for those involved, but also how qualitative interviewing can lead to new insights and new areas of research. They also show how qualitative interviewing can help to capture nuances and complexity by allowing young people to express their perspectives and elaborate on their answers to questions. In line with this, the authors also raise the importance of qualitative interviewing for providing young people with space for self-reflection and learning.

In the third article, Q methodology as an innovative addition to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire , Adrian Lundberg and Lisa Hellström focus on Q methodology as an inherently mixed methods approach, producing quantitative data from subjective viewpoints, and thus supplementing more mainstream quantitative and qualitative approaches. The authors outline and exemplify Q methodology as a research technique, focusing on the central feature of Q sorting. The authors further discuss the contribution of Q methodology to bullying research, highlighting the potential of Q methodology to address challenges related to gaining the perspectives of hard-to-reach populations who may either be unwilling or unable to share their personal experiences of bullying. As the authors point out, the use of card sorting activities allows participants to put forward their subjective perspectives, in less-intrusive settings for data collection and without disclosing their own personal experiences. The authors also illustrate how the flexibility of Q sorting can facilitate the participation of participants with limited verbal literacy and/or cognitive function through the use of images, objects or symbols. In the final part of the paper, Lundberg and Hellström discuss implications for practice and suggest future directions for using Q methodology in bullying and cyberbullying research, particularly with hard-to-reach populations.

In the fourth article, The importance of being attentive to social processes in school bullying research: Adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach , Camilla Forsberg discusses the use of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) in her research, focusing on social structures, norms, and processes. Forsberg first outlines CGT as a theory-methods package that is well suited to meet the call for more qualitative research on participants’ experiences and the social processes involved in school bullying. Forsberg emphasizes three key focal aspects of CGT, namely focus on participants’ main concerns; focus on meaning, actions, and processes; and focus on symbolic interactionism. She then provides examples and reflections from her own ethnographic and interview-based research, from different stages of the research process. In the last part of the article, Forsberg argues that prioritizing the perspectives of participants is an ethical stance, but one which comes with a number of ethical challenges, and points to ways in which CGT is helpful in dealing with these challenges.

In the fifth article, A qualitative meta-study of youth voice and co-participatory research practices: Informing cyber/bullying research methodologies , Deborah Green, Carmel Taddeo, Deborah Price, Foteini Pasenidou, and Barbara Spears discuss how qualitative meta-studies can be used to inform research methodologies for studying school bullying and cyberbullying. Drawing on the findings of five previous qualitative studies, and with a transdisciplinary and transformative approach, the authors illustrate and exemplify how previous qualitative research can be analyzed to gain a better understanding of the studies’ collective strengths and thus consider the findings and methods beyond the original settings where the research was conducted. In doing so, the authors highlight the progression of youth voice and co-participatory research practices, the centrality of children and young people to the research process and the enabling effect of technology — and discuss challenges related to ethical issues, resource and time demands, the role of gatekeepers, and common limitations of qualitative studies on youth voice and co-participatory research practices.

Taken together, the five articles illustrate the diversity of qualitative methods used to study school bullying and cyberbullying and highlight the need for further qualitative research. We hope that readers will find the collection of articles engaging and that the special issue not only gives impetus to increased qualitative focus on the complex phenomena of school bullying and cyberbullying but also to further discussions on both methodological and analytical approaches.

Allen, K. A. (2015). “We don’t have bullying, but we have drama”: Understandings of bullying and related constructs within the school milieu of a U.S. high school. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 25 (3), 159–181.

Barrett, B., & Bound, A. M. (2015). A critical discourse analysis of No Promo Homo policies in US schools. Educational Studies, 51 (4), 267–283.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bethune, J., & Gonick, M. (2017). Schooling the mean girl: A critical discourse analysis of teacher resource materials. Gender and Education, 29 (3), 389–404.

Bjereld, Y. (2018). The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology, 23 (8), 1110–1118.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bosacki, S. L., Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Pictorial and narrative representations of children’s bullying experiences. Journal of Moral Education, 35 (2), 231–245.

Burk, F. L. (1897). Teasing and Bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336–371.

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (4), 531–550.

Cunningham, C. E., Mapp, C., Rimas, H., Cunningham, S. M., Vaillancourt, T., & Marcus, M. (2016). What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students. Psychology of Violence, 6 (4), 596–606.

Davies, B. (2011). Bullies as guardians of the moral order or an ethic of truths? Children & Society, 25 , 278–286.

Dennehy, R., Meaney, S., Walsh, K. A., Sinnott, C., Cronin, M., & Arensman, E. (2020). Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51 , 101379.

Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2010). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7 (2), 85–98.

Eriksen, I. M., & Lyng, S. T. (2018). Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education, 30 (3), 396–409.

Evaldsson, A. -C., Svahn, J. (2012). School bullying and the micro-politics of girls’ gossip disputes. In S. Danby & M. Theobald (Eds.). Disputes in everyday life: Social and moral orders of children and young people (Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, Vol. 15) (pp. 297–323). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Forsberg, C., & Horton, P. (2022). ‘Because I am me’: School bullying and the presentation of self in everyday school life. Journal of Youth Studies, 25 (2), 136–150.

Forsberg, C., & Thornberg, R. (2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children’s perspectives on bullying. International Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 13–23.

Ganbaatar, D., Vaughan, C., Akter, S., & Bohren, M. A. (2021). Exploring the identities and experiences of young queer people in Mongolia using visual research methods. Culture, Health & Sexuality . Advance Online Publication: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1998631

Gillies-Rezo, S., & Bosacki, S. (2003). Invisible bruises: Kindergartners’ perceptions of bullying. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 8 (2), 163–177.

Goldsmid, S., & Howie, P. (2014). Bullying by definition: An examination of definitional components of bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 19 (2), 210–225.

Gumpel, T. P., Zioni-Koren, V., & Bekerman, Z. (2014). An ethnographic study of participant roles in school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40 (3), 214–228.

Haines-Saah, R. J., Hilario, C. T., Jenkins, E. K., Ng, C. K. Y., & Johnson, J. L. (2018). Understanding adolescent narratives about “bullying” through an intersectional lens: Implications for youth mental health interventions. Youth & Society, 50 (5), 636–658.

Heinemann, P. -P. (1972). Mobbning – gruppvåld bland barn och vuxna [Bullying – group violence amongst children and adults]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Hepburn, A. (1997). Discursive strategies in bullying talk. Education and Society, 15 (1), 13–31.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64 (1), 115–126.

Horton, P. (2019). The bullied boy: Masculinity, embodiment, and the gendered social-ecology of Vietnamese school bullying. Gender and Education, 31 (3), 394–407.

Horton, P. (2021). Building walls: Trump election rhetoric, bullying and harassment in US schools. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 8 (1), 7–32.

Hutchinson, M. (2012). Exploring the impact of bullying on young bystanders. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28 (4), 425–442.

Hutson, E. (2018). Integrative review of qualitative research on the emotional experience of bullying victimization in youth. The Journal of School Nursing, 34 (1), 51–59.

Jacobson, R. B. (2010). A place to stand: Intersubjectivity and the desire to dominate. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 , 35–51.

Jennifer, D., & Cowie, H. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Moral emotional attributions in relation to primary school bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3–4), 229–241.

Johnson, C. W., Singh, A. A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). “It’s complicated”: Collective memories of transgender, queer, and questioning youth in high school. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (3), 419–434.

Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–15.

Lopez-Ropero, L. (2012). ‘You are a flaw in the pattern’: Difference, autonomy and bullying in YA fiction. Children’s Literature in Education, 43 , 145–157.

Lyng, S. T. (2018). The social production of bullying: Expanding the repertoire of approaches to group dynamics. Children & Society, 32 (6), 492–502.

Malaby, M. (2009). Public and secret agents: Personal power and reflective agency in male memories of childhood violence and bullying. Gender and Education, 21 (4), 371–386.

Maran, D. A., & Begotti, T. (2021). Measurement issues relevant to qualitative studies. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 233–249). John Wiley & Sons.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understandings of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 718–738.

Moretti, C., & Herkovits, D. (2021). Victims, perpetrators, and bystanders: A meta-ethnography of roles in cyberbullying. Cad. Saúde Pública, 37 (4), e00097120.

Newman, M., Woodcock, A., & Dunham, P. (2006). ‘Playtime in the borderlands’: Children’s representations of school, gender and bullying through photographs and interviews. Children’s Geographies, 4 (3), 289–302.

Odenbring, Y. (2022). Standing alone: Sexual minority status and victimisation in a rural lower secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 (5), 480–494.

Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling.’ Oxford Review of Education, 33 (1), 71–86.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools – Bullies and the whipping boys . Wiley.

Google Scholar  

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do . Blackwell.

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (3), 699–725.

Rachoene, M., & Oyedemi, T. (2015). From self-expression to social aggression: Cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research , 41 (3), 302–319.

Ringrose, J., & Rawlings, V. (2015). Posthuman performativity, gender and ‘school bullying’: Exploring the material-discursive intra-actions of skirts, hair, sluts, and poofs.  Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 3 (2), 80–119.

Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (4), 573–596.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., & Sandhu, D. (2015). Using the PhotoStory method to understand the cultural context of youth victimization in the Punjab. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 7 (1), 52–68.

Smith, P., Robinson, S., & Slonje, R. (2021). The school bullying research program: Why and how it has developed. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 42–59). John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, P. K., & Berkkun, F. (2017). How research on school bullying has developed. In C. McGuckin & L. Corcoran (Eds.), Bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, psychological impacts and intervention strategies (pp. 11–27). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.

Strindberg, J., Horton, P., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The fear of being singled out: Pupils’ perspectives on victimization and bystanding in bullying situations. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41 (7), 942–957.

Sylwander, K. R. (2019). Affective atmospheres of sexualized hate among youth online: A contribution to bullying and cyberbullying research on social atmosphere. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 , 269–284.

Søndergaard, D. M. (2012). Bullying and social exclusion anxiety in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33 (3), 355–372.

Temko, E. (2019). Missing structure: A critical content analysis of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Children & Society, 33 (1), 1–12.

Tholander, M. (2019). The making and unmaking of a bullying victim. Interchange, 50 , 1–23.

Tholander, M., Lindberg, A., & Svensson, D. (2020). “A freak that no one can love”: Difficult knowledge in testimonials on school bullying. Research Papers in Education, 35 (3), 359–377.

Thornberg, R. (2011). ‘She’s weird!’ – The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society, 25 , 258–267.

Thornberg, R. (2018). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39 (1), 144–158.

Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27 (1), 16–21.

Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology hurts? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12 (1), 27–44.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition, Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343.

Walton, G. (2005). Bullying widespread. Journal of School Violence, 4 (1), 91–118.

Walton, G. (2011). Spinning our wheels: Reconceptualizing bullying beyond behaviour-focused Approaches.  Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 32 (1), 131–144.

Walton, G., & Niblett, B. (2013). Investigating the problem of bullying through photo elicitation. Journal of Youth Studies, 16 (5), 646–662.

Wiseman, A. M., & Jones, J. S. (2018). Examining depictions of bullying in children’s picturebooks: A content analysis from 1997 to 2017. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32 (2), 190–201.

Wiseman, A. M., Vehabovic, N., & Jones, J. S. (2019). Intersections of race and bullying in children’s literature: Transitions, racism, and counternarratives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47 , 465–474.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., Hong, J. S., & Prescott, T. L. (2019). Perceptions of middle school youth about school bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 75 , 175–187.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the authors for sharing their work; Angela Mazzone, James O’Higgins Norman, and Sameer Hinduja for their editorial assistance; and Dorte Marie Søndergaard on the editorial board for suggesting a special issue on qualitative research in the journal.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Paul Horton

Work Research Institute (WRI), Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

Selma Therese Lyng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Horton .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Horton, P., Lyng, S.T. Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 175–179 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Download citation

Published : 12 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Cyberbullying: What is it and how can you stop it?

Explore the latest psychological science about the impact of cyberbullying and what to do if you or your child is a victim

• Mental Health
• Social Media and Internet

Cyberbullying can happen anywhere with an internet connection. While traditional, in-person bullying is still more common , data from the Cyberbullying Research Center suggest about 1 in every 4 teens has experienced cyberbullying, and about 1 in 6 has been a perpetrator. About 1 in 5 tweens, or kids ages 9 to 12, has been involved in cyberbullying (PDF, 5.57MB) .

As technology advances, so do opportunities to connect with people—but unfettered access to others isn’t always a good thing, especially for youth. Research has long linked more screen time with lower psychological well-being , including higher rates of anxiety and depression. The risk of harm is higher when kids and teens are victimized by cyberbullying.

Here’s what you need to know about cyberbullying, and psychology’s role in stopping it.

What is cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying occurs when someone uses technology to demean, inflict harm, or cause pain to another person. It is “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” Perpetrators bully victims in any online setting, including social media, video or computer games, discussion boards, or text messaging on mobile devices.

Virtual bullying can affect anyone, regardless of age. However, the term “cyberbullying” usually refers to online bullying among children and teenagers. It may involve name calling, threats, sharing private or embarrassing photos, or excluding others.

One bully can harass another person online or several bullies can gang up on an individual. While a stranger can incite cyberbullying, it more frequently occurs among kids or teens who know each other from school or other social settings. Research suggests bullying often happens both at school and online .

Online harassment between adults can involve different terms, depending on the relationship and context. For example, dating violence, sexual harassment, workplace harassment, and scamming—more common among adults—can all happen on the internet.

How can cyberbullying impact the mental health of myself or my child?

Any form of bullying can negatively affect the victim’s well-being, both at the time the bullying occurs and in the future. Psychological research suggests being victimized by a cyberbully increases stress and may result in anxiety and depression symptoms . Some studies find anxiety and depression increase the likelihood adolescents will become victims to cyberbullying .

Cyberbullying can also cause educational harm , affecting a student’s attendance or academic performance, especially when bullying occurs both online and in school or when a student has to face their online bully in the classroom. Kids and teens may rely on negative coping mechanisms, such as substance use, to deal with the stress of cyberbullying. In extreme cases, kids and teens may struggle with self-harm or suicidal ideation .

How can parents talk to their children about cyberbullying?

Parents play a crucial role in preventing cyberbullying and associated harms. Be aware of what your kids are doing online, whether you check your child’s device, talk to them about their online behaviors, or install a monitoring program. Set rules about who your child can friend or interact with on social media platforms. For example, tell your child if they wouldn’t invite someone to your house, then they shouldn’t give them access to their social media accounts. Parents should also familiarize themselves with signs of cyberbullying , such as increased device use, anger or anxiety after using a device, or hiding devices when others are nearby.

Communicating regularly about cyberbullying is an important component in preventing it from affecting your child’s well-being. Psychologists recommend talking to kids about how to be safe online before they have personal access to the internet. Familiarize your child with the concept of cyberbullying as soon as they can understand it. Develop a game plan to problem solve if it occurs. Cultivating open dialogue about cyberbullying can ensure kids can identify the experience and tell an adult, before it escalates into a more harmful situation.

It’s also important to teach kids what to do if someone else is being victimized. For example, encourage your child to tell a teacher or parent if someone they know is experiencing cyberbullying.

Keep in mind kids may be hesitant to open up about cyberbullying because they’re afraid they’ll lose access to their devices. Encourage your child to be open with you by reminding them they won’t get in trouble for talking to you about cyberbullying. Clearly explain your goal is to allow them to communicate with their friends safely online.

How can I report cyberbullying?

How you handle cyberbullying depends on a few factors, such as the type of bullying and your child’s age. You may choose to intervene by helping a younger child problem solve whereas teens may prefer to handle the bullying on their own with a caregiver’s support.

In general, it’s a good practice to take screenshots of the cyberbullying incidents as a record, but not to respond to bullies’ messages. Consider blocking cyberbullies to prevent future harassment.

Parents should contact the app or website directly about removing bullying-related posts, especially if they reveal private or embarrassing information. Some social media sites suspend perpetrators’ accounts.

If the bullying also occurs at school or on a school-owned device, or if the bullying is affecting a child’s school performance, it may be appropriate to speak with your child’s teacher or school personnel.

What are the legal ramifications of cyberbullying?

In some cases, parents should report cyberbullying to law enforcement. If cyberbullying includes threats to someone’s physical safety, consider contacting your local police department.

What’s illegal can vary from state to state. Any illegal behaviors, such as blackmailing someone to send money, hate crimes, stalking, or posting sexual photos of a minor, can have legal repercussions. If you’re not sure about what’s legal and what’s not, check your state’s laws and law enforcement .

Are big tech companies responsible for promoting positive digital spaces?

In an ideal world, tech companies would prioritize creating safer online environments for young people. Some companies are working toward it already, including partnering with psychologists to better understand how their products affect kids, and how to keep them safe. But going the extra mile isn’t always profitable for technology companies. For now, it’s up to individuals, families, and communities to protect kids’ and teens’ best interest online.

What does the research show about psychology’s role in reducing this issue?

Many studies show preventative measures can drastically reduce cyberbullying perpetration and victimization . Parents and caregivers, schools, and technology companies play a role in educating kids about media literacy and mental health. Psychologists—thanks to their expertise in child and teen development, communication, relationships, and mental health—can also make important contributions in preventing cyberbullying.

Because cybervictimization coincides with anxiety and depression, research suggests mental health clinicians and educators should consider interventions that both address adolescents’ online experiences and support their mental, social, and emotional well-being. Psychologists can also help parents speak to their kids about cyberbullying, along with supporting families affected by it.

You can learn more about cyberbullying at these websites:

• Cyberbullying Research Center
• StopBullying.gov
• Nemours Kids Health

Acknowledgments

APA gratefully acknowledges the following contributors to this publication:

• Sarah Domoff, PhD, associate professor of psychology at Central Michigan University
• Dorothy Espelage, PhD, William C. Friday Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of North Carolina
• Stephanie Fredrick, PhD, NCSP, assistant professor and associate director of the Dr. Jean M. Alberti Center for the Prevention of Bullying Abuse and School Violence at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
• Brian TaeHyuk Keum, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Social Welfare at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
• Mitchell J. Prinstein, PhD, chief science officer at APA
• Susan Swearer, PhD, Willa Cather Professor of School Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; licensed psychologist

Recommended Reading

You may also like

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures.

• 1 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
• 2 School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
• 3 College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Background: Cyberbullying is well-recognized as a severe public health issue which affects both adolescents and children. Most extant studies have focused on national and regional effects of cyberbullying, with few examining the global perspective of cyberbullying. This systematic review comprehensively examines the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures taken worldwide to fight cyberbullying among adolescents and children.

Methods: A systematic review of available literature was completed following PRISMA guidelines using the search themes “cyberbullying” and “adolescent or children”; the time frame was from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019. Eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology were consulted, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. A total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review focusing on cyberbullying prevalence and risk factors.

Results: The prevalence rates of cyberbullying preparation ranged from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the rates of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 13.99 to 57.5%, based on 63 references. Verbal violence was the most common type of cyberbullying. Fourteen risk factors and three protective factors were revealed in this study. At the personal level, variables associated with cyberbullying including age, gender, online behavior, race, health condition, past experience of victimization, and impulsiveness were reviewed as risk factors. Likewise, at the situational level, parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location were also reviewed in relation to cyberbullying. As for protective factors, empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate were frequently mentioned.

Conclusion: The prevalence rate of cyberbullying has increased significantly in the observed 5-year period, and it is imperative that researchers from low and middle income countries focus sufficient attention on cyberbullying of children and adolescents. Despite a lack of scientific intervention research on cyberbullying, the review also identified several promising strategies for its prevention from the perspectives of youths, parents and schools. More research on cyberbullying is needed, especially on the issue of cross-national cyberbullying. International cooperation, multi-pronged and systematic approaches are highly encouraged to deal with cyberbullying.

Introduction

Childhood and adolescence are not only periods of growth, but also of emerging risk taking. Young people during these periods are particularly vulnerable and cannot fully understand the connection between behaviors and consequences ( 1 ). With peer pressures, the heat of passion, children and adolescents usually perform worse than adults when people are required to maintain self-discipline to achieve good results in unfamiliar situations. Impulsiveness, sensation seeking, thrill seeking, and other individual differences cause adolescents to risk rejecting standardized risk interventions ( 2 ).

About one-third of Internet users in the world are children and adolescents under the age of 18 ( 3 ). Digital technology provide a new form of interpersonal communication ( 4 ). However, surveys and news reports also show another picture in the Internet Age. The dark side of young people's internet usage is that they may bully or suffer from others' bullying in cyberspace. This behavior is also acknowledged as cyberbullying ( 5 ). Based on Olweus's definition, cyberbullying is usually regarded as bullying implemented through electronic media ( 6 , 7 ). Specifically, cyberbullying among children and adolescents can be summarized as the intentional and repeated harm from one or more peers that occurs in cyberspace caused by the use of computers, smartphones and other devices ( 4 , 8 – 12 ). In recent years, new forms of cyberbullying behaviors have emerged, such as cyberstalking and online dating abuse ( 13 – 15 ).

Although cyberbullying is still a relatively new field of research, cyberbullying among adolescents is considered to be a serious public health issue that is closely related to adolescents' behavior, mental health and development ( 16 , 17 ). The increasing rate of Internet adoption worldwide and the popularity of social media platforms among the young people have worsened this situation with most children and adolescents experiencing cyberbullying or online victimization during their lives. The confines of space and time are alleviated for bullies in virtual environments, creating new venues for cyberbullying with no geographical boundaries ( 6 ). Cyberbullying exerts negative effects on many aspects of young people's lives, including personal privacy invasion and psychological disorders. The influence of cyberbullying may be worse than traditional bullying as perpetrators can act anonymously and connect easily with children and adolescents at any time ( 18 ). In comparison with traditional victims, those bullied online show greater levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness ( 19 ). Self-esteem problems and school absenteeism have also proven to be related to cyberbullying ( 20 ).

Due to changes in use and behavioral patterns among the youth on social media, the manifestations and risk factors of cyberbullying have faced significant transformation. Further, as the boundaries of cyberbullying are not limited by geography, cyberbullying may not be a problem contained within a single country. In this sense, cyberbullying is a global problem and tackling it requires greater international collaboration. The adverse effects caused by cyberbullying, including reduced safety, lower educational attainment, poorer mental health and greater unhappiness, led UNICEF to state that “no child is absolutely safe in the digital world” ( 3 ).

Extant research has examined the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying to unravel the complexity of cyberbullying across different countries and their corresponding causes. However, due to variations in cyberbullying measurement and methodologies, no consistent conclusions have been drawn ( 21 ). Studies into inconsistencies in prevalence rates of cyberbullying, measured in the same country during the same time period, occur frequently. Selkie et al. systematically reviewed cyberbullying among American middle and high school students aged 10–19 years old in 2015, and revealed that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 3 to 72%, while perpetration ranged from 1 to 41% ( 22 ). Risk and protective factors have also been broadly studied, but confirmation is still needed of those factors which have more significant effects on cyberbullying among young people. Clarification of these issues would be useful to allow further research to recognize cyberbullying more accurately.

This review aims to extend prior contributions and provide a comprehensive review of cyberbullying of children and adolescents from a global perspective, with the focus being on prevalence, associated risk factors and protective factors across countries. It is necessary to provide a global panorama based on research syntheses to fill the gaps in knowledge on this topic.

Search Strategies

This study strictly employed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We consulted eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. With regard to the duration of our review, since most studies on cyberbullying arose around 2015 ( 9 , 21 ), this study highlights the complementary aspects of the available information about cyberbullying during the recent 5 year period from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019.

One researcher extracted keywords and two researchers proposed modifications. We used two sets of subject terms to review articles, “cyberbullying” and “child OR adolescent.” Some keywords that refer to cyberbullying behaviors and young people are also included, such as threat, harass, intimidate, abuse, insult, humiliate, condemn, isolate, embarrass, forgery, slander, flame, stalk, manhunt, as well as teen, youth, young people and student. The search formula is (cyberbullying OR cyber-bullying OR cyber-aggression OR ((cyber OR online OR electronic OR Internet) AND (bully * OR aggres * OR violence OR perpetrat * OR victim * OR threat * OR harass * OR intimidat * OR * OR insult * OR humiliate * OR condemn * OR isolate * OR embarrass * OR forgery OR slander * OR flame OR stalk * OR manhunt))) AND (adolescen * OR child OR children OR teen? OR teenager? OR youth? OR “young people” OR “elementary school student * ” OR “middle school student * ” OR “high school student * ”). The main search approach is title search. Search strategies varied according to the database consulted, and we did not limit the type of literature for inclusion. Journals, conference papers and dissertations are all available.

Specifically, the inclusion criteria for our study were as follows: (a). reported or evaluated the prevalence and possible risk factors associated with cyberbullying, (b). respondents were students under the age of 18 or in primary, junior or senior high schools, and (c). studies were written in English. Exclusion criteria were: (a). respondents came from specific groups, such as clinical samples, children with disabilities, sexual minorities, specific ethnic groups, specific faith groups or samples with cross-national background, (b). review studies, qualitative studies, conceptual studies, book reviews, news reports or abstracts of meetings, and (c). studies focused solely on preventive measures that were usually meta-analytic and qualitative in nature. Figure 1 presents the details of the employed screening process, showing that a total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow chart diagram showing the process of study selection for inclusion in the systematic review on children and adolescents cyberbullying.

Meta-analysis was not conducted as the limited research published within the 5 years revealed little research which reported odds ratio. On the other hand, due to the inconsistency of concepts, measuring instruments and recall periods, considerable variation could be found in research quality ( 23 ). Meta-analysis is not a preferred method.

Coding Scheme

For coding, we created a comprehensive code scheme to include the characteristics. For cyberbullying, we coded five types proposed by Willard ( 24 – 26 ), which included verbal violence, group violence, visual violence, impersonating and account forgery, and other behaviors. Among them, verbal violence is considered one of the most common types of cyberbullying and refers to the behavior of offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. Group violence is associated with preventing others from joining certain groups or isolating others, forcing others to leave the group. Visual violence relates to the release and sharing of embarrassing photos and information without the owners' consent. Impersonating and account forgery refers to identity theft, stealing passwords, violating accounts and the creation of fake accounts to fraudulently present the behavior of others. Other behaviors include disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking. To comprehensively examine cyberbullying, we coded cyberbullying behaviors from both the perspectives of cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, if mentioned in the studies.

In relation to risk factors, we drew insights from the general aggression model, which contributes to the understanding of personal and situational factors in the cyberbullying of children and adolescents. We chose the general aggression model because (a) it contains more situational factors than other models (e.g., social ecological models) - such as school climate ( 9 ), and (b) we believe that the general aggression model is more suitable for helping researchers conduct a systematic review of cyberbullying risk and protective factors. This model provides a comprehensive framework that integrates domain specific theories of aggression, and has been widely applied in cyberbullying research ( 27 ). For instance, Kowalski and colleagues proposed a cyberbullying encounter through the general aggression model to understand the formation and development process of youth cyberbullying related to both victimization and perpetration ( 9 ). Victims and perpetrators enter the cyberbullying encounter with various individual characteristics, experiences, attitudes, desires, personalities, and motives that intersect to determine the course of the interaction. Correspondingly, the antecedents pertaining to cyberbullying are divided into two broad categories, personal factors and situational factors. Personal factors refer to individual characteristics, such as gender, age, motivation, personality, psychological states, socioeconomic status and technology use, values and perceptions, and other maladaptive behaviors. Situational factors focus on the provocation/support, parental involvement, school climate, and perceived anonymity. Consequently, our coders related to risk factors consisting of personal factors and situational factors from the perspectives of both cyberbullying perpetrators and victims.

We extracted information relating to individual papers and sample characteristics, including authors, year of publication, country, article type, sampling procedures, sample characteristics, measures of cyberbullying, and prevalence and risk factors from both cyberbullying perpetration and victimization perspectives. The key words extraction and coding work were performed twice by two trained research assistants in health informatics. The consistency test results are as follows: the Kappa value with “personal factors” was 0.932, and the Kappa value with “situational factors” was 0.807. The result shows that the coding consistency was high enough and acceptable. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with other authors.

Quality Assessment of Studies

The quality assessment of the studies is based on the recommended tool for assessing risk of bias, Cochrane Collaboration. This quality assessment tool focused on seven items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias ( 28 ). We assessed each item as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear” for included studies. A study is considered of “high quality” when it meets three or more “low risk” requirements. When one or more main flaw of a study may affect the research results, the study is considered as “low quality.” When a lack of information leads to a difficult judgement, the quality is considered to be “unclear.” Please refer to Appendix 1 for more details.

This comprehensive systematic review comprised a total of 63 studies. Appendices 2 , 3 show the descriptive information of the studies included. Among them, 58 (92%) studies measured two or more cyberbullying behavior types. The sample sizes of the youths range from several hundred to tens of thousands, with one thousand to five thousand being the most common. As for study distribution, the United States of America, Spain and China were most frequently mentioned. Table 1 presents the detail.

Table 1 . Descriptive information of studies included (2015–2019).

Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying

Prevalence across countries.

Among the 63 studies included, 22 studies reported on cyberbullying prevalence and 20 studies reported on prevalence from victimization and perpetration perspectives, respectively. Among the 20 studies, 11 national studies indicated that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 14.6 to 52.2% and 6.3 to 32%, respectively. These studies were conducted in the United States of America ( N = 4) ( 29 – 32 ), South Korea ( N = 3) ( 33 – 35 ), Singapore ( N = 1) ( 36 ), Malaysia ( N = 1) ( 37 ), Israel ( N = 1) ( 38 ), and Canada ( N = 1) ( 39 ). Only one of these 11 national studies is from an upper middle income country, and the rest are from highincome countries identified by the World Bank ( 40 ). By combining regional and community-level studies, the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 13.99 to 57.5% and 6.0 to 46.3%, respectively. Spain reported the highest prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (57.5%) ( 41 ), followed by Malaysia (52.2%) ( 37 ), Israel (45%) ( 42 ), and China (44.5%) ( 43 ). The lowest reported victim rates were observed in Canada (13.99%) and South Korea (14.6%) ( 34 , 39 ). The reported prevalence of cyberbullying victimization in the United States of America ranged from 15.5 to 31.4% ( 29 , 44 ), while in Israel, rates ranged from 30 to 45% ( 26 , 42 ). In China, rates ranged from 6 to 46.3% with the country showing the highest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration (46.30%) ( 15 , 43 , 45 , 46 ). Canadian and South Korean studies reported the lowest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration at 7.99 and 6.3%, respectively ( 34 , 39 ).

A total of 10 studies were assessed as high quality studies. Among them, six studies came from high income countries, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and South Korea ( 13 , 34 , 39 , 46 – 48 ). Three studies were from upper middle income countries, including Malaysia and China ( 37 , 43 ) and one from a lower middle income country, Nigeria ( 49 ). Figures 2 , 3 describe the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration respectively among high quality studies.

Figure 2 . The prevalence of cyberbullying victimization of high quality studies.

Figure 3 . The prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration of high quality studies.

Prevalence of Various Cyberbullying Behaviors

For the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration, the data were reported in 18 and 14 studies, respectively. Figure 4 shows the distribution characteristics of the estimated value of prevalence of different cyberbullying behaviors with box plots. The longer the box, the greater the degree of variation of the numerical data and vice versa. The rate of victimization and crime of verbal violence, as well as the rate of victimization of other behaviors, such as cyberstalking and digital dating abuse, has a large degree of variation. Among the four specified types of cyberbullying behaviors, verbal violence was regarded as the most commonly reported behaviors in both perpetration and victimization rates, with a wide range of prevalence, ranging from 5 to 18%. Fewer studies reported the prevalence data for visual violence and group violence. Studies also showed that the prevalence of impersonation and account forgery were within a comparatively small scale. Specific results were as follows.

Figure 4 . Cyberbullying prevalence across types (2015–2019).

Verbal Violence

A total of 13 studies reported verbal violence prevalence data ( 15 , 26 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ). Ten studies reported the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranging from 2.8 to 47.5%, while seven studies claimed perpetration prevalence ranging from 1.5 to 31.8%. Malaysia reported the highest prevalence of verbal violence victimization (47.5%) ( 37 ), followed by China (32%) ( 43 ). China reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 5.1 to 32% ( 15 , 43 ). Israel reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 3.4 to 18% ( 26 , 38 , 42 ). For perpetration rate, Malaysia reported the highest level at 31.8% ( 37 ), while a study for Spain reported the lowest, ranging from 3.2 to 6.4% ( 51 ).

Group Violence

The prevalence of group violence victimization was explored within 4 studies and ranged from 5 to 17.8% ( 26 , 34 , 42 , 43 ), while perpetration prevalence was reported in three studies, ranging from 10.1 to 19.07% ( 34 , 43 , 47 ). An Israeli study suggested that 9.8% of respondents had been excluded from the Internet, while 8.9% had been refused entry to a group or team ( 26 ). A study in South Korea argued that the perpetration prevalence of group violence was 10.1% ( 34 ), while a study in Italy reported that the rate of online group violence against others was 19.07% ( 47 ).

Visual Violence

The prevalence of visual violence victimization was explored within three studies and ranged from 2.6 to 12.1% ( 26 , 34 , 43 ), while the perpetration prevalence reported in four studies ranged from 1.7 to 6% ( 34 , 43 , 47 , 48 ). For victimization prevalence, a South Korean study found that 12.1% of respondents reported that their personal information was leaked online ( 34 ). An Israel study reported that the prevalence of outing the picture was 2.6% ( 26 ). For perpetration prevalence, a South Korean study found that 1.7% of respondents had reported that they had disclosed someone's personal information online ( 34 ). A German study reported that 6% of respondents had written a message (e.g., an email) to somebody using a fake identity ( 48 ).

Impersonating and Account Forgery

Four studies reported on the victimization prevalence of impersonating and account forgery, ranging from 1.1 to 10% ( 15 , 42 , 43 ), while five studies reported on perpetration prevalence, with the range being from 1.3 to 9.31% ( 15 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 51 ). In a Spanish study, 10% of respondents reported that their accounts had been infringed by others or that they could not access their account due to stolen passwords. In contrast, 4.5% of respondents reported that they had infringed other people's accounts or stolen passwords, with 2.5% stating that they had forged other people's accounts ( 51 ). An Israeli study reported that the prevalence of being impersonated was 7% ( 42 ), while in China, a study reported this to be 8.6% ( 43 ). Another study from China found that 1.1% of respondents had been impersonated to send dating-for-money messages ( 15 ).

Other Behaviors

The prevalence of disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking were also explored by scholars. Six studies reported the victimization prevalence of other cyberbullying behaviors ( 13 , 15 , 34 , 37 , 42 , 43 ), and four studies reported on perpetration prevalence ( 34 , 37 , 43 , 48 ). A study in China found that 1.2% of respondents reported that their privacy had been compromised without permission due to disputes ( 15 ). A study from China reported the prevalence of cyberstalking victimization was 11.9% ( 43 ), while a Portuguese study reported that this was 62% ( 13 ). In terms of perpetration prevalence, a Malaysian study reported 2.7% for sexual harassment ( 37 ).

Risk and Protective Factors of Cyberbullying

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, this comprehensive review highlighted both personal and situational factors. Personal factors referred to age, gender, online behavior, race, health conditions, past experiences of victimization, and impulsiveness, while situational factors consisted of parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location. In addition, protective factors against cyberbullying included: empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate. Table 2 shows the risk and protective factors for child and adolescent cyberbullying.

Table 2 . Risk and protective factors of cyberbullying among children and adolescents.

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization at the personal level, many studies evidenced that females were more likely to be cyberbullied than males ( 13 , 26 , 29 , 38 , 43 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ). Meanwhile, adolescents with mental health problems ( 61 ), such as depression ( 33 , 62 ), borderline personality disorder ( 63 ), eating disorders ( 41 ), sleep deprivation ( 56 ), and suicidal thoughts and suicide plans ( 64 ), were more likely to be associated with cyberbullying victimization. As for Internet usage, researchers agreed that youth victims were probably those that spent more time online than their counterparts ( 32 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 60 ). For situational risk factors, some studies have proven the relationship between cyberbullying victims and parental abuse, parental neglect, family dysfunction, inadequate monitoring, and parents' inconsistency in mediation, as well as communication issues ( 33 , 64 , 68 , 73 ). In terms of geographical location, some studies have reported that youths residing in city locations are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than their peers from suburban areas ( 61 ).

Regarding the risk factors of cyberbullying perpetration at the personal level, it is generally believed that older teenagers, especially those aged over 15 years, are at greater risk of becoming cyberbullying perpetrators ( 55 , 67 ). When considering prior cyberbullying experiences, evidence showed that individuals who had experienced cyberbullying or face-to-face bullying tended to be aggressors in cyberbullying ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 55 ); in addition, the relationship between impulsiveness and cyberbullying perpetration was also explored by several pioneering scholars ( 55 , 72 , 80 ). The situational factors highlight the role of parents and teachers in cyberbullying experiences. For example, over-control and authoritarian parenting styles, as well as inharmonious teacher-student relationships ( 61 ) are perceived to lead to cyberbullying behaviors ( 74 , 75 ). In terms of differences in geographical locations, students residing in cities have a higher rate of online harassment than students living in more rural locations ( 49 ).

In terms of the protective factors in child and adolescent cyberbullying, scholars have focused on youths who have limited experiences of cyberbullying. At the personal level, high emotional intelligence, an ability for emotional self-control and empathy, such as cognitive empathy ability ( 44 , 55 ), were associated with lower rates of cyberbullying ( 57 ). At the situational level, a parent's role is seen as critical. For example, intimate parent-child relationships ( 46 ) and open active communication ( 19 ) were demonstrated to be related to lower experiences of cyberbullying and perpetration. Some scholars argued that parental supervision and monitoring of children's online activities can reduce their tendency to participate in some negative activities associated with cyberbullying ( 31 , 46 , 73 ). They further claimed that an authoritative parental style protects youths against cyberbullying ( 43 ). Conversely, another string of studies evidenced that parents' supervision of Internet usage was meaningless ( 45 ). In addition to conflicting roles of parental supervision, researchers have also looked into the role of schools, and posited that positive school climates contribute to less cyberbullying experiences ( 61 , 79 ).

Some risk factors may be protective factors under another condition. Some studies suggest that parental aggressive communication is related to severe cyberbullying victims, while open communication is a potential protective factor ( 19 ). Parental neglect, parental abuse, parental inconsistency in supervision of adolescents' online behavior, and family dysfunction are related to the direct or indirect harm of cyberbullying ( 33 , 68 ). Parental participation, a good parental-children relationship, communication and dialogue can enhance children's school adaptability and prevent cyberbullying behaviors ( 31 , 74 ). When parental monitoring reaches a balance between control and openness, it could become a protective factor against cyberbullying, and it could be a risk factor, if parental monitoring is too low or over-controlled ( 47 ).

Despite frequent discussion about the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, some are still deemed controversial factors, such as age, race, gender, and the frequency of suffering on the internet. For cyberbullying victims, some studies claim that older teenagers are more vulnerable to cyberbullying ( 15 , 38 , 52 , 53 ), while other studies found conflicting results ( 26 , 33 ). As for student race, Alhajji et al. argued that non-white students were less likely to report cyberbullying ( 29 ), while Morin et al. observed no significant correlation between race and cyberbullying ( 52 ). For cyberbullying perpetration, Alvarez-Garcia found that gender differences may have indirect effects on cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ), while others disagreed ( 42 , 61 , 68 – 70 ). Specifically, some studies revealed that males were more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators ( 34 , 39 , 56 ), while Khurana et al. presented an opposite point of view, proposing that females were more likely to attack others ( 71 ). In terms of time spent on the Internet, some claimed that students who frequently surf the Internet had a higher chance of becoming perpetrators ( 49 ), while others stated that there was no clear and direct association between Internet usage and cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ).

In addition to personal and situational factors, scholars have also explored other specific factors pertaining to cyberbullying risk and protection. For instance, mindfulness and depression were found to be significantly related to cyber perpetration ( 76 ), while eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents was associated with cyber victimization ( 41 ). For males who were familiar with their victims, such as family members, friends and acquaintances, they were more likely to be cyberstalking perpetrators than females or strangers, while pursuing desired closer relationships ( 13 ). In the school context, a lower social likability in class was identified as an indirect factor for cyberbullying ( 48 ).

This comprehensive review has established that the prevalence of global childhood and adolescent victimization from cyberbullying ranges from 13.99 to 57.5%, and that the perpetration prevalence ranges from 6.0 to 46.3%. Across the studies included in our research, verbal violence is observed as one of the most common acts of cyberbullying, including verbal offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. The victimization prevalence of verbal violence is reported to be between 5 and 47.5%, and the perpetration prevalence is between 3.2 and 26.1%. Personal factors, such as gender, frequent use of social media platforms, depression, borderline personality disorder, eating disorders, sleep deprivation, and suicidal tendencies, were generally considered to be related to becoming a cyberbullying victim. Personal factors, such as high school students, past experiences, impulse, improperly controlled family education, poor teacher-student relationships, and the urban environment, were considered risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration. Situational factors, including parental abuse and neglect, improper monitoring, communication barriers between parents and children, as well as the urban environment, were also seen to potentially contribute to higher risks of both cyberbullying victimization and perpetration.

Increasing Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying With Changing Social Media Landscape and Measurement Alterations

This comprehensive review suggests that global cyberbullying rates, in terms of victimization and perpetration, were on the rise during the 5 year period, from 2015 to 2019. For example, in an earlier study conducted by Modecki et al. the average cyberbullying involvement rate was 15% ( 81 ). Similar observations were made by Hamm et al. who found that the median rates of youth having experienced bullying or who had bullied others online, was 23 and 15.2%, respectively ( 82 ). However, our systematic review summarized global children and adolescents cyberbullying in the last 5 years and revealed an average cyberbullying perpetration rate of 25.03%, ranging from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the average victimization was 33.08%, ranging from 13.99 to 57.5%. The underlying reason for increases may be attributed to the rapid changing landscape of social media and, in recent years, the drastic increase in Internet penetration rates. With the rise in Internet access, youths have greater opportunities to participate in online activities, provided by emerging social media platforms.

Although our review aims to provide a broader picture of cyberbullying, it is well-noted in extant research that difficulties exist in accurately estimating variations in prevalence in different countries ( 23 , 83 ). Many reasons exist to explain this. The first largely relates poor or unclear definition of the term cyberbullying; this hinders the determination of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration ( 84 ). Although traditional bullying behavior is well-defined, the definition cannot directly be applied to the virtual environment due to the complexity in changing online interactions. Without consensus on definitions, measurement and cyberbullying types may vary noticeably ( 83 , 85 ). Secondly, the estimation of prevalence of cyberbullying is heavily affected by research methods, such as recall period (lifetime, last year, last 6 months, last month, or last week etc.), demographic characteristics of the survey sample (age, gender, race, etc.), perspectives of cyberbullying experiences (victims, perpetrators, or both victim and perpetrator), and instruments (scales, study-specific questions) ( 23 , 84 , 86 ). The variety in research tools and instruments used to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying can cause confusion on this issue ( 84 ). Thirdly, variations in economic development, cultural backgrounds, human values, internet penetration rates, and frequency of using social media may lead to different conclusions across countries ( 87 ).

Acknowledging the Conflicting Role of the Identified Risk Factors With More Research Needed to Establish the Causality

Although this review has identified many personal and situational factors associated with cyberbullying, the majority of studies adopted a cross-sectional design and failed to reveal the causality ( 21 ). Nevertheless, knowledge on these correlational relationships provide valuable insights for understanding and preventing cyberbullying incidents. In terms of gender differences, females are believed to be at a higher risk of cyberbullying victimization compared to males. Two reasons may help to explain this. First, the preferred violence behaviors between two genders. females prefer indirect harassment, such as the spreading of rumors, while males tend toward direct bullying (e.g., assault) ( 29 ) and second, the cultural factors. From the traditional gender perspective, females tended to perceive a greater risk of communicating with others on the Internet, while males were more reluctant to express fear, vulnerability and insecurity when asked about their cyberbullying experiences ( 46 ). Females were more intolerant when experiencing cyberstalking and were more likely to report victimization experiences than males ( 13 ). Meanwhile, many researchers suggested that females are frequent users of emerging digital communication platforms, which increases their risk of unpleasant interpersonal contact and violence. From the perspective of cultural norms and masculinity, the reporting of cyberbullying is also widely acknowledged ( 37 ). For example, in addition, engaging in online activities is also regarded as a critical predictor for cyberbullying victimization. Enabled by the Internet, youths can easily find potential victims and start harassment at any time ( 49 ). Participating in online activities directly increases the chance of experiencing cyberbullying victimization and the possibility of becoming a victim ( 36 , 45 ). As for age, earlier involvement on social media and instant messaging tools may increase the chances of experiencing cyberbullying. For example, in Spain, these tools cannot be used without parental permission before the age of 14 ( 55 ). Besides, senior students were more likely to be more impulsive and less sympathetic. They may portray more aggressive and anti-social behaviors ( 55 , 72 ); hence senior students and students with higher impulsivity were usually more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators.

Past experiences of victimization and family-related factors are another risk for cyberbullying crime. As for past experiences, one possible explanation is that young people who had experienced online or traditional school bullying may commit cyberbullying using e-mails, instant messages, and text messages for revenge, self-protection, or improving their social status ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 55 ). In becoming a cyberbullying perpetrator, the student may feel more powerful and superior, externalizing angry feelings and relieving the feelings of helplessness and sadness produced by past victimization experiences ( 51 ). As for family related factors, parenting styles are proven to be highly correlated to cyberbullying. In authoritative families, parents focus on rational behavioral control with clear rules and a high component of supervision and parental warmth, which have beneficial effects on children's lifestyles ( 43 ). Conversely, in indulgent families, children's behaviors are not heavily restricted and parents guide and encourage their children to adapt to society. The characteristics of this indulgent style, including parental support, positive communication, low imposition, and emotional expressiveness, possibly contribute to more parent-child trust and less misunderstanding ( 75 ). The protective role of warmth/affection and appropriate supervision, which are common features of authoritative or indulgent parenting styles, mitigate youth engagement in cyberbullying. On the contrary, authoritarian and neglectful styles, whether with excessive or insufficient control, are both proven to be risk factors for being a target of cyberbullying ( 33 , 76 ). In terms of geographical location, although several studies found that children residing in urban areas were more likely to be cyberbullying victims than those living in rural or suburban areas, we cannot draw a quick conclusion here, since whether this difference attributes to macro-level differences, such as community safety or socioeconomic status, or micro-level differences, such as teacher intervention in the classroom, courses provided, teacher-student ratio, is unclear across studies ( 61 ). An alternative explanation for this is the higher internet usage rate in urban areas ( 49 ).

Regarding health conditions, especially mental health, some scholars believe that young people with health problems are more likely to be identified as victims than people without health problems. They perceive health condition as a risk factor for cyberbullying ( 61 , 63 ). On the other hand, another group of scholars believe that cyberbullying has an important impact on the mental health of adolescents which can cause psychological distress consequences, such as post-traumatic stress mental disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and drug abuse ( 70 , 87 ). It is highly possible that mental health could be risk factors, consequences of cyberbullying or both. Mental health cannot be used as standards, requirements, or decisive responses in cyberbullying research ( 13 ).

The Joint Effort Between Youth, Parents, Schools, and Communities to Form a Cyberbullying-Free Environment

This comprehensive review suggests that protecting children and adolescents from cyberbullying requires joint efforts between individuals, parents, schools, and communities, to form a cyberbullying-free environment. For individuals, young people are expected to improve their digital technology capabilities, especially in the use of social media platforms and instant messaging tools ( 55 ). To reduce the number of cyberbullying perpetrators, it is necessary to cultivate emotional self-regulation ability through appropriate emotional management training. Moreover, teachers, counselors, and parents are required to be armed with sufficient knowledge of emotional management and to develop emotional management capabilities and skills. In this way, they can be alert to the aggressive or angry emotions expressed by young people, and help them mediate any negative emotions ( 45 ), and avoid further anti-social behaviors ( 57 ).

For parents, styles of parenting involving a high level of parental involvement, care and support, are desirable in reducing the possibility of children's engagement in cyberbullying ( 74 , 75 ). If difficulties are encountered, open communication can contribute to enhancing the sense of security ( 73 ). In this vein, parents should be aware of the importance of caring, communicating and supervising their children, and participate actively in their children's lives ( 71 ). In order to keep a balance between control and openness ( 47 ), parents can engage in unbiased open communication with their children, and reach an agreement on the usage of computers and smart phones ( 34 , 35 , 55 ). Similarly, it is of vital importance to establish a positive communication channel with children ( 19 ).

For schools, a higher priority is needed to create a safe and positive campus environment, providing students with learning opportunities and ensuring that every student is treated equally. With a youth-friendly environment, students are able to focus more on their academic performance and develop a strong sense of belonging to the school ( 79 ). For countries recognizing collectivist cultural values, such as China and India, emphasizing peer attachment and a sense of collectivism can reduce the risk of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization ( 78 ). Besides, schools can cooperate with mental health agencies and neighboring communities to develop preventive programs, such as extracurricular activities and training ( 44 , 53 , 62 ). Specifically, school-based preventive measures against cyberbullying are expected to be sensitive to the characteristics of young people at different ages, and the intersection of race and school diversity ( 29 , 76 ). It is recommended that school policies that aim to embrace diversity and embody mutual respect among students are created ( 26 ). Considering the high prevalence of cyberbullying and a series of serious consequences, it is suggested that intervention against cyberbullying starts from an early stage, at about 10 years old ( 54 ). Schools can organize seminars to strengthen communication between teachers and students so that they can better understand the needs of students ( 61 ). In addition, schools should encourage cyberbullying victims to seek help and provide students with opportunities to report cyberbullying behaviors, such as creating online anonymous calls.

Conclusions and Limitations

The comprehensive study has reviewed related research on children and adolescents cyberbullying across different countries and regions, providing a positive understanding of the current situation of cyberbullying. The number of studies on cyberbullying has surged in the last 5 years, especially those related to risk factors and protective factors of cyberbullying. However, research on effective prevention is insufficient and evaluation of policy tools for cyberbullying intervention is a nascent research field. Our comprehensive review concludes with possible strategies for cyberbullying prevention, including personal emotion management, digital ability training, policy applicability, and interpersonal skills. We highlight the important role of parental control in cyberbullying prevention. As for the role of parental control, it depends on whether children believe their parents are capable of adequately supporting them, rather than simply interfering in their lives, restricting their online behavior, and controlling or removing their devices ( 50 ). In general, cyberbullying is on the rise, with the effectiveness of interventions to meet this problem still requiring further development and exploration ( 83 ).

Considering the overlaps between cyberbullying and traditional offline bullying, future research can explore the unique risk and protective factors that are distinguishable from traditional bullying ( 86 ). To further reveal the variations, researchers can compare the outcomes of interventions conducted in cyberbullying and traditional bullying preventions simultaneously, and the same interventions only targeting cyberbullying ( 88 ). In addition, cyberbullying also reflects a series of other social issues, such as personal privacy and security, public opinion monitoring, multinational perpetration and group crimes. To address this problem, efforts from multiple disciplines and novel analytical methods in the digital era are required. As the Internet provides enormous opportunities to connect young people from all over the world, cyberbullying perpetrators may come from transnational networks. Hence, cyberbullying of children and adolescents, involving multiple countries, is worth further attention.

Our study has several limitations. First, national representative studies are scarce, while few studies from middle and low income countries were included in our research due to language restrictions. Many of the studies included were conducted in schools, communities, provinces, and cities in high income countries. Meanwhile, our review only focused on victimization and perpetration. Future studies should consider more perspectives, such as bystanders and those with the dual identity of victim/perpetrator, to comprehensively analyze the risk and protective factors of cyberbullying.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

SH, CZ, RE, and WZ conceived the study and developed the design. WZ analyzed the result and supervised the study. CZ and SH wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909/full#supplementary-material

1. Ang RP. Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 25:35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2006) 7:1–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. UNICEF ed. Children in a Digital World . New York, NY: UNICEF (2017).

Google Scholar

4. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents - a review. Educ Psychol Rev. (2015) 27:135–52. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7

5. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A. “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.014

6. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do . Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell (1993).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

7. Dooley JJ, Pyzalski J, Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. J Psychol. (2009) 217:182–8. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182

8. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2008) 49:376–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

9. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. (2014) 140:1073–137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618

10. León Vicente I. Cybervictimization by cyberbullying: children at risk and children as risk (dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain (2016).

11. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Identification, Prevention, and Response. (2020).

12. Jadambaa A, Thomas HJ, Scott JG, Graves N, Brain D, Pacella R. Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. (2019) 53:878–88. doi: 10.1177/0004867419846393

13. Pereira F, Matos M. Cyber-stalking victimization: what predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? Eur J Crim Policy Res. (2016) 22:253–70. doi: 10.1007/s10610-015-9285-7

14. Reed LA, Ward LM, Tolman RM, Lippman JR, Seabrook RC. The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. J Interpers Violence . (2018). doi: 10.1177/0886260518801933

15. Huang CL, Yang SC, Hsieh LS. The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming environment. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 106:104461. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104461

16. Raskauskas J, Huynh A. The process of coping with cyberbullying: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:118–25. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019

17. Bradshaw J, Crous G, Rees G, Turner N. Comparing children's experiences of schools-based bullying across countries. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2017) 80:171–80. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.060

18. Hutson E, Kelly S, Militello LK. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. (2018) 15:72–9. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12257

19. Larranaga E, Yubero S, Ovejero A, Navarro R. Loneliness, parent-child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 65:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015

20. van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. (2014) 168:435–42. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143

21. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001

22. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan Y-F, Moreno M. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: a multisite study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2015) 18:79–86. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0371

23. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S. A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence Abus. (2017) 18:523–31. doi: 10.1177/1524838016641668

24. Nocentini A, Calmaestra J, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Ortega R, Menesini E. Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and definition in three European Countries. Aust J Guid Couns. (2010) 20:129–42. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129

25. Willard NE. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress . Champaign: Research Press (2007).

26. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. Cyberbullying victimization in whatsapp classmate groups among Israeli Elementary, Middle, and High School Students. J Interpers Violence . (2019). doi: 10.1177/0886260519842860

27. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Ann Rev Psychol. (2002) 53:27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

28. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . (2011). Available online at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed January 17, 2021).

29. Alhajji M, Bass S, Dai T. Cyberbullying, mental health, and violence in adolescents and associations with sex and race: data from the 2015 youth risk behavior survey. Global Pediatr Health . (2019) 6:2333794X19868887. doi: 10.1177/2333794X19868887

30. Grinshteyn E, Yang YT. The association between electronic bullying and school absenteeism among high school students in the United States. J School Health. (2017) 87:142–9. doi: 10.1111/josh.12476

31. Mesch GS. Parent-child connections on social networking sites and cyberbullying. Youth Soc. (2018) 50:1145–62. doi: 10.1177/0044118X16659685

32. Sam J, Wisniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. How are social capital and parental mediation associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization among youth in the United States? In: Stephanidis C, editor. HCI International 2017 – Posters' Extended Abstracts Communications in Computer Information Science Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 638–644.

33. Hong JS, Kim DH, Thornberg R, Kang JH, Morgan JT. Correlates of direct and indirect forms of cyberbullying victimization involving South Korean adolescents: an ecological perspective. Comput Hum Behav. (2018) 87:327–36. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.010

34. Lee C, Shin N. Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2017) 68:352–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047

35. You S, Lim SA. Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: evidence from Korean middle school students. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 89:172–6. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.019

36. Holt TJ, Fitzgerald S, Bossler AM, Chee G, Ng E. Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of Singapore Youth. Int J Offend Ther Comp Criminol. (2016) 60:598–615. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14554852

37. Marret MJ, Choo WY. Factors associated with online victimisation among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2017) 7:e014959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014959

38. Tesler R, Nissanholtz-Gannot R, Zigdon A, Harel-Fisch Y. The association of cyber-bullying and adolescents in religious and secular schools in Israel. J Relig Health. (2019) 58:2095–109. doi: 10.1007/s10943-019-00938-z

39. Beran T, Mishna F, McInroy LB, Shariff S. Children's experiences of cyberbullying: a Canadian National Study. Child School. (2015) 37:207–14. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdv024

40. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. Available online at: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups [accessed January 25, 2021).

41. Marco JH, Tormo-Irun P. Cyber victimization is associated with eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:987. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00987

42. Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T. Cyberbullying victimization in adolescents as related to body esteem, social support, and social self-efficacy. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:28–43. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195331

43. Rao J, Wang H, Pang M, Yang J, Zhang J, Ye Y, et al. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou, China. Inj Prev. (2019) 25:13–9. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210

44. Lee C. Weak Commitment to School, Deviant Peers, and Cyberbullying Victimization-Strain in Adolescent Cyberbullying . (2017). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1937915933/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/30 (accessed June 17, 2020).

45. Lin MT. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwan children (dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin, TX, United States (2019).

46. Pieschl S, Porsch T. The complex relationship between cyberbullying and trust. Int J Dev Sci. (2017) 11:9–17. doi: 10.3233/DEV-160208

47. Brighi A, Menin D, Skrzypiec G, Guarini A. Young, bullying, and connected. Common pathways to cyberbullying and problematic internet use in adolescence. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1467. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01467

48. Festl R. Perpetrators on the internet: analyzing individual and structural explanation factors of cyberbullying in school context. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 59:237–48. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.017

49. Olumide AO, Adams P, Amodu OK. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyberbullying among in-school adolescents in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int J Adolesc Med Health. (2016) 28:183–91. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0009

50. Baldry AC, Sorrentino A, Farrington DP. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 96:302–7. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058

51. Garaigordobil M. Cyberbullying in adolescents and youth in the Basque Country: prevalence of cybervictims, cyberaggressors, and cyberobservers. J Youth Stud. (2015) 18:569–82. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2014.992324

52. Morin HK, Bradshaw CP, Kush JM. Adjustment outcomes of victims of cyberbullying: the role of personal and contextual factors. J School Psychol. (2018) 70:74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.002

53. Baraldsnes D. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the views of 5-12 grade pupils and teachers on cyberbullying prevention in Lithuanian Schools. Uinv J Educ Res. (2015) 3:949–59. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.031201

54. Razjouyan K, Mobarake AH, Sadr SS, Ardestani SMS, Yaseri M. The relationship between emotional intelligence and the different roles in cyberbullying among high school students in Tehran. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. (2018) 12:UNSP e11560. doi: 10.5812/ijpbs.11560

55. Alvarez-Garcia D, Carlos Nunez J, Garcia T, Barreiro-Collazo A. Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context. (2018) 10:79–88. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8

56. Horzum MB, Ayas T, Randler C, Dusunceli B. The effects of empathy and circadian preference on cyberbullying of adolescents in Turkey. Biol Rhythm Res . (2019). doi: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1603839

57. Carmen Martinez-Monteagudo M, Delgado B, Manuel Garcia-Fernandez J, Rubio E. Cyberbullying, aggressiveness, and emotional intelligence in adolescence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:5079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245079

58. Sasson H, Mesch G. The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:15–27. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330

59. Wang X, Lei L, Liu D, Hu H. Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 98:244–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.056

60. Simsek N, Sahin D, Evli M. Internet addiction, cyberbullying, and victimization relationship in adolescents a sample from Turkey. J Addict Nurs. (2019) 30:201–10. doi: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000296

61. McQuillan BE. Ecological Factors Associated with Middle School Students' Experiences of Cyberbullying . (2016). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1794167537/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/4 (accessed June 17, 2020).

62. Rose CA, Tynes BM. Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization and mental health among U.S. adolescents. J Adolesc Health. (2015) 57:305–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.05.002

63. Stockdale LA, Coyne SM, Nelson DA, Erickson DH. Borderline personality disorder features, jealousy, and cyberbullying in adolescence. Pers Individ Differ. (2015) 83:148–53. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.003

64. Chen Q, Lo Camilla KM, Yuhong Z, Anne C, Ling CK, Patrick I. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. (2018) 77:180–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015

65. Landoll RR, La Greca AM, Lai BS, Chan SF, Herge WM. Cyber victimization by peers: prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. J Adolesc. (2015) 42:77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.002

66. Iranzo B, Buelga S, Cava M-J, Ortega-Baron J. Cyberbullying, psychosocial adjustment, and suicidal ideation in adolescence. Psychosoc Interv. (2019) 28:75–81. doi: 10.5093/pi2019a5

67. Buelga S, Cava MJ, Musitu G, Torralba E. Cyberbullying aggressors among Spanish secondary education students: an exploratory study. Interact Tech Smart Ed. (2015) 12:100–15. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-08-2014-0025

68. Katz I, Lemish D, Cohen R, Arden A. When parents are inconsistent: parenting style and adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. J Adolesc. (2019) 74:1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.006

69. Cénat JM, Blais M, Lavoie F, Caron P-O, Hébert M. Cyberbullying victimization and substance use among Quebec high schools students: the mediating role of psychological distress. Comp Hum Behav. (2018) 89:207–12. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.014

70. Hoareau N, Bages C, Allaire M, Guerrien A. The role of psychopathic traits and moral disengagement in cyberbullying among adolescents. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2019) 29:321–31. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2135

71. Khurana A, Bleakley A, Jordan A, Romer D. The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents' risk of online harassment. J Youth Adolesc. (2015) 44:1039–47. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4

72. Martínez I, Murgui S, Garcia OF, Garcia F. Parenting in the digital era: protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 90:84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036

73. Yusuf S, Salleh H, Bahaman A, Shamsul M, Ramli N, Ramli AN, et al. Parental attachment and cyberbullying experiences among Malaysian children. Pertanika J Scholarly Res Rev . (2018) 4:67–80.

74. Martinez-Ferrer B, Leon-Moreno C, Musitu-Ferrer D, Romero-Abrio A, Callejas-Jeronimo JE, Musitu-Ochoa G. Parental socialization, school adjustment and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4005. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16204005

75. Moreno–Ruiz D, Martínez–Ferrer B, García–Bacete F. Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 93:252–9. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.031

76. Ho SS, Chen L, Ng APY. Comparing cyberbullying perpetration on social media between primary and secondary school students. Comp Educ. (2017) 109:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.004

77. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Parenting practices as risk or preventive factors for adolescent involvement in cyberbullying: contribution of children and parent gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2664. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122664

78. Wright MF, Kamble SV, Soudi SP. Indian adolescents' cyber aggression involvement and cultural values: the moderation of peer attachment. Sch Psychol Int. (2015) 36:410–27. doi: 10.1177/0143034315584696

79. Holfeld B, Leadbeater BJ. Concurrent and longitudinal associations between early adolescents' experiences of school climate and cyber victimization. Comput Hum Behav. (2017) 76:321–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.037

80. Álvarez-García D, Núñez JC, González-Castro P, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R. The effect of parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: the mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1159. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01159

81. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Health. (2014) 55:602–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

82. Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr. (2015) 169:770. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944

83. Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:134–53. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

84. Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Adolesc Health. (2016) 58:125–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026

85. Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim J. Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. J Adolesc Health. (2012) 51:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

86. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:20–32. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009

87. Dilmac B, Yurt E, Aydin M, Kasarci I. Predictive relationship between humane values of adolescents cyberbullying and cyberbullying sensibility. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. (2016) 14:3–22. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.38.14123

88. Reed KP, Cooper RL, Nugent WR, Russell K. Cyberbullying: a literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. (2016) 26:37–45. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165

Keywords: cyberbullying, children, adolescents, globalization, risk factors, preventive measures

Citation: Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R and Zhang W (2021) Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Preventive Measures. Front. Public Health 9:634909. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909

Received: 29 November 2020; Accepted: 10 February 2021; Published: 11 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Zhu, Huang, Evans and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Wei Zhang, weizhanghust@hust.edu.cn

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• World Psychiatry
• v.22(1); 2023 Feb

Cyberbullying: next‐generation research

Elias aboujaoude.

1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA, USA

Matthew W. Savage

2 School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego CA, USA

Cyberbullying, or the repetitive aggression carried out over elec­tronic platforms with an intent to harm, is probably as old as the Internet itself. Research interest in this behavior, variably named, is also relatively old, with the first publication on “cyberstalking” ap­pearing in the PubMed database in 1999.

Over two decades later, the broad contours of the problem are generally well understood, including its phenomenology, epidemiology, mental health dimensions, link to suicidality, and disproportionate effects on minorities and individuals with developmental disorders 1 . Much remains understudied, however. Here we call for a “next generation” of research addressing some important knowledge gaps, including those concerning self‐­cyberbullying, the bully‐victim phenomenon, the bystander role, the closing age‐based digital divide, cyberbullying subtypes and how they evolve with technology, the cultural specificities of cyberbullying, and especially the management of this behavior.

Defined as the anonymous online posting, sending or otherwise sharing of hurtful content about oneself, “self‐cyberbullying” or “digital self‐harm” has emerged as a new and troubling manifestation of cyberbullying. Rather than a fringe phenomenon, self‐cyberbullying is thought to affect up to 6% of middle‐ and high‐school students 2 . Is this a cry for help by someone who might attempt “real” self‐harm or even suicide if not urgently treated? Is it “attention‐seeking” in nature, meant to drive Internet traffic in a very congested social media landscape where it can be hard to get noticed and where “likes” are the currency of self‐worth? Research is needed to better characterize self‐cyberbullying, including how it relates to depression and offline self‐harm and suicide.

The bully‐victim phenomenon refers to the permeable boundaries between roles that can make it relatively easy for a cyberbullying victim to become a cyberbully and vice versa. Unlike traditional bullying, visible markers of strength are not a requirement in cyberbullying. Assuming the identity of the cyberbully is known, all that the victims need to attack back and become cyberbullies themselves is a digital platform and basic digital know‐how. Do cyberbullying victims feel in any way “empowered” by this permeability, as some do express in clinical settings? And does knowledge that perpetrators can be attacked back have any deterrent effect on them, or is the bi‐directional violence that can ensue an unmitigated race to the bottom that further impairs well‐being?

What of the bystander role? Depending on the platform, the audience witnessing a cyberbullying attack can potentially be limitless – attacks that go viral are an extreme example of this. While this can magnify the humiliation inflicted on the victim, it also introduces the possibility of enlisting bystanders to protect victims and push back against perpetrators. Research examining how to leverage bystanders as part of anti‐cyberbullying interventions would have significant management and public health utility.

Recent scholarship has brought attention to cyberbullying beyond the young age group. What had been called the “digital divide”, which in this context refers to the notion that children and adolescents are more active online and therefore at higher risk, has narrowed to the point where a significant risk of cyberbully­ing now appears to exist among college students and perhaps adults overall. Cyberbullying is no longer a middle‐ and high‐school problem, as suggested by a 30‐country United Nations‐sponsored survey that recruited nearly 170,000 youth up to 24 years of age and found that 33% of them had been victims of that behavior 3 . To better protect against cyberbullying and implement age‐appropriate interventions, new research should better delineate the upper limits of the high‐risk cyberbullying age bracket, if they exist.

There is also insufficient research into the culturally‐specific dimensions of cyberbullying. Co‐authoring analyses reveal that the most influential cyberbullying scholarship comes from the US, and that the top 5 universities in publication productivity are in the European Union 4 . Given the different relationship to violence across cultures and the diverging definitions of, and reactions to, trauma worldwide, a broader culturally‐centered research perspective is essential for a more thorough understanding of cyberbullying's global impact.

As we “zoom out” and investigate across cultures, we should also “zoom in” on the specific cyberbullying behavior. Are all cy­berbullying attacks similar in terms of prevalence, perpetrator and victim profiles, short‐ and long‐term consequences, and manage­­ment strategies? Several forms of cyberbullying have been iden­tified 5 , but their similarities and differences require elucidation, es­­­pecially as technology continues to change and new forms emerge. Therefore, future research should compare diverse behaviors, such as cyberstalking, “excluding” (deliberately leaving someone out), “doxing” (revealing sensitive information about the victim), “fraping” (using the victim's social media account to post inappropriate content under the victim's name), “masquerading” (creating a fake identity with which to attack the victim), “flaming” (posting insults against the victim), and sex‐based cyberbullying through the non‐consensual sending of sexual text messages or imagery. To better understand and address cyberbullying, we must explore its existing subtypes – some of which have only been described in blogs – and, as technology evolves, its emerging forms.

Most urgently, the lack of agreement upon “best practices” for the management of cyberbullying must be remedied. Expanding access to psychiatric and psychological care – given the mental health dimension of cyberbullying – is imperative, as is a better understanding of school‐based interventions, which remain the most popular management approach.

Data from school‐based studies suggest that programs which adopt a broad, ecological approach to the school‐wide climate and which include specific actions at the student, teacher and family levels are more effective than those delivered solely through classroom curricula or social skills trainings 6 . However, the best meta‐analytic evidence for school‐based programs demonstrates mostly short‐term effects 7 , while long‐term data suggest small benefits 8 . Further, success appears more likely when programs target cyberbullying specifically as opposed to general violence prevention 7 , and when they are delivered by technology‐savvy content experts as opposed to teachers 8 . Evidence also suggests that programs are most successful when they provide informational support through interactive modalities (e.g., peer tutoring, role playing, group discussion), and when they nurture stakeholder agency (e.g., offer quality teacher training programs, engage parents in program implementation) 9 .

Future research into cyberbullying management should expand on these findings and examine how management interfa­ces with the legislative process and with law enforcement when it comes to illegal behavior, including privacy breeches and serious threats.

Much has been learned about cyberbullying, but much remains to be explored. The knowledge gaps are all the more challenging given that Internet‐related technologies evolve at a breakneck pace and in a way that reveals new exploitable vulnerabilities. A­long with the previously cited statistic that no less than 33% of young people worldwide have been victimized 3 , this should give the field added urgency to “keep up” and investigate some under‐studied areas that are critical to a more nuanced understanding of cyberbullying and its effective management.

78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best cyber bullying topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 interesting topics to write about cyber bullying, 👍 good essay topics on cyber bullying, ❓ questions about cyberbullying research.

• Cyber Bullying Issue Therefore, the goal of this paper is to analyse who the victims of cyber bullying are and the influence it has on them.
• Is Cyber Bullying Against Teenagers More Detrimental Than Face-To-Face Bullying? Social networking has also contributed greatly to the issue of cyber bullying especially in making it more harmful as compared to face-to-face bullying.
• Cyber Bullying and Positivist Theory of Crime Learning theory approaches to the explanation of criminal behavior have been associated with one of the major sociological theories of crime, the differential association theory.
• Cyber Bullying Reduction Program Table of Activities Activity Significance Assembling parents/guardians, students and teachers to announce and explain the program in the institution To enlighten parents/guardians, students and teachers about the rules and regulation enacted due to the threat […]
• Cyber Bullying Prevention in Learning Institutions: Systematic Approach To start with, the students are provided with ways of reporting their concern to the educational institution, and when the staff members of the institution receive the report, they evaluate the information together with the […]
• Discouraging and Eliminating Cyber Bullying Resources Role of the resource/input Statement forms To facilitate information transfer to the staff Counseling Personnel To arm students against the problem Bullying report system To create efficient internet enhance report system Regulation implementation documents […]
• Cyber Bullying and Its Forms The difference between the conventional way of bullying and cyber bullying is that in conventional bullying, there is contact between the bully and the victim.
• Ethics in Technology: Cyber Crimes Furthermore, the defendant altered the data, which compromised the integrity of the information to the detriment of the organizations involved. In this litigation, Aleksey Vladimirovich Ivanov was the defendant while the American government was the […]
• Cyber Bullying as a Virtual Menace The use of information and communication technologies to support a deliberate and most of the time repeated hostile behavior by an individual or groups of people with the sole intention of harming others, one is […]
• Ethical Case: Facebook Gossip or Cyberbullying? The best option to Paige is to apologize publicly and withdraw her comments. The final stage is to act and reflect the outcome of the choice made.
• Freedom Of Speech In The Era Of Cyber Bullying
• The Negative Impacts of Technology on Social Skills: Anxiety, Awkward Conversations, Cyber Bullying, and Lack of Awareness
• Different Consequences of Cyber Bullying in School
• The Study Of Cyber Bullying Victimization On Children Who Are Addicted To The Internet
• The Causes and Harmful Effects of Cyber Bullying
• Why Do Cyber Bullying Laws Need to Be Enforced
• Unsecured Privacy Settings, Cyber Bullying, And Facebook Crime
• Bullying Carried too Far: Cyber Bullying and Violent Bullying
• Cyber Bullying: Misuse of Information and Communications Technology
• Cyber Bullying and Why Parents Need to Monitor Their Children’s Activity
• The Detrimental Effects of Cyber Bullying
• Cyber Bullying, Its Forms, Impact, and Relationship to Juvenile Delinquency
• How Cyber Bullying Affects Our Lives Negatively
• The Effects Of Cyber Bullying On Substance Use And Mental Health
• Cyberbullying : Causes And Dangers Of Cyber Bullying
• The Effects Of Cyber Bullying On The Mental Health Of Middle School Aged Youth
• Is Cyber Bullying Morally Justifiable
• Cyber Bullying And Its Effect On Our Youth
• An Analysis of Cyber Bullying in Today’s World
• Cyber Bullying And Its Effect On The Lives Of The American
• Bullying And The Potential Motives Behind Cyber Bullying
• Cyber Bullying And Its Various Forms
• Bullying In The Digital Age: Electronic Or Cyber Bullying
• Information Technology – Role of Social Networking Cites in Cyber Bullying
• Cyber Bullying : A Consistent Problem For Young People
• Cause And Effect Of Cyber Bullying
• Cyber Bullying, Creating a Culture of Respect
• Cyber Bullying And Its Effect On Adolescents
• Prevention And Intervention Of Cyber Bullying
• Investigating Cyber Bullying Using Social Media
• Cyber Bullying Affects People ‘s Lives More Than One Might Think
• The Cyber Crime and the Cyber Bullying
• The Cause of Cyber Bullying and the Effect of the Mental Development of Teenagers
• Cyber Bullying: An Uncontrollable Epidemic
• The Psychological Impact of Cyber Bullying
• The Eternal Effects Of Cyber Bullying
• Cyber Bullying : Bullying Through Technology
• Why Does Online Anonymity Increase Cyberbullying Among Teenagers?
• Are Laws Effective Strategy Address Issue Cyberbullying?
• Are Schools Doing Enough About Cyberbullying?
• What Are the Causes of Cyberbullying?
• What Is the Prevention of Cyberbullying?
• Is Cyberbullying Related to a Lack of Empathy and Social-Emotional Problems?
• How Often Do Celebrities Suffer From Cyberbullying?
• What Are the Characteristics of Cyberbullying Among Students?
• How Does Social Integration of Children Help to Combat Cyberbullying?
• What Is the Correlation Between Suicide Rates and Cyberbullying?
• How Does Cyberbullying Affect Society?
• What Is the Correlation Between Depression, Bullying and Cyberbullying?
• Are There Gender Differences in Cyberbullying?
• What Is the Criminal Penalty for Cyberbullying?
• What International Associations Prevent Cyberbullying?
• What Is the Role of Affective and Cognitive Empathy in Cyberbullying?
• What Are the Solutions to Cyberbullying?
• Can Cyberbullying Be Called Cyber Crime?
• What Is the Role of Teachers in Preventing Cyberbullying?
• Can Internet Privacy Be Enough to Prevent Cyberbullying?
• How Does Cyberbullying Affect Children?
• How Many American Teenagers Are Cyberbullied?
• How Does Cyberbullying Affect Mental Health?
• How Is Cyberbullying Different From Physical Bullying?
• Is Cyberbullying an Example of Psychological Abuse?
• Can School Policies Reduce Cyberbullying?
• How Does Cyberbullying Affect Teenagers’ Self-Esteem?
• What Are the Consequences of Cyberbullying?
• Has the Proliferation of Social Media Led to an Increase in Cyberbullying?
• Is Cyberbullying Less Criminal Than Traditional Bullying?
• Cyber Security Topics
• Cyberspace Topics
• Crime Ideas
• Mental Health Essay Ideas
• Fake News Research Ideas
• Internet Research Ideas
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• Online Community Essay Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cyber-bullying-essay-examples/

"78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cyber-bullying-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cyber-bullying-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cyber-bullying-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "78 Cyber Bullying Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/cyber-bullying-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Frequently Asked Questions on Cyber Bullying

What is cyberbullying, how are people cyberbullied, why do people cyberbully others, do cyberbullying victims and perpetrators fit any stereotypical profile, how do people react to cyber bullying.

• How do I respond and prevent to cyberbullying?

How can I prevent cyberbullying and stay cyber-safe?

If a parent suspects their child is a cyberbully, what should they do.

• Do cyber bullying victims and perpetrators fit any stereotypical profile?

Online bullying, or cyberbullying, occurs frequently to teens using the Internet, cell phones or other devices. These teens often experience texts or images intended to hurt or embarrass them. Almost half of all American teens are victims of cyber bullying. Whether you’ve been a victim of cyberbullying or know someone who has been cyberbullied, there are steps you and your friends can take to stop cyberbullying and stay cyber-safe.

Cyberbullying occurs when an individual uses the Internet or another form of technology to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner. In some cases a person may pretend that they are another person online to trick others. They could spread lies and rumors about victims, trick people into revealing personal information, send or forward mean text messages, and post pictures of victims without their consent.

Is bullying the same as cyberbullying? What makes them different?

While bullying occurs as a face-to-face confrontation, cyberbullying occurs online and involves the use of technologies. Cyberbullying can be even more vicious than bullying since cyberbullying can occur repeatedly in front of a massive online audience, with the cyberbully’s identity unknown, while the victim feels helpless because the attacks can come from several different online sources day in and day out.

People who cyberbully others are often driven by feelings of anger, revenge, and frustration. In many cases, cyberbullies were once victims of bullying who weren’t guided in the proper direction. However, the power-hungry are the most nefarious; they cyberbully with the pure intent of tormenting others or bolstering their ego. Luckily, most cyberbullies do not fall into that category. In a recent poll, 81% of cyberbullies have stated that they cyberbully others because they think it’s “funny”. Many others don’t cyberbully others on purpose. It occurs by accident and the “cyberbully” either sends a message to the wrong recipient or act impulsively without realizing the consequences, thinking it’s not a big deal. Because their motives differ, the solutions and responses to each type of cyberbullying incident has to differ as well. Kids cyberbully primarily to replace the social skills that they were supposed to develop in grade school, middle school, and high school. As children go through their developmental stages, they should be finding ways of working out problems with their peers and getting along with other people, which includes learning how to read social situations, make friends, and understand their social environment. Bullies however, use aggression, violence, and verbal abuse to supplant these skills. They don’t have to learn how to work things out because they solve their problems through harassment and intimidation. Cyberbullies, in addition to using cruel methods, hide behind the anonymity of a computer or cell phone, and over time, bullying becomes a natural response to any situation where they feel socially awkward, insecure, frightened, or embarrassed.

Neither victims nor perpetrators fit into any stereotypical profile. The “good kids”, the “quiet kids”, as well as “troublesome kids” can be either bullies or victims. Due to the fact that online communication allows bullies to remain anonymous, people often become more emboldened and vicious in their attacks than they would be in a face-to-face encounter. Many cyberbullies have admitted that they wouldn’t have made the same choices if their identities had been known.

There are two types of reactions. People either react positively or negatively. Positive victim reaction involves blocking communication with the cyberbully, deleting messages without reading them, talking to a friend about the bullying, or reporting the problem to an internet service provider or website monitor. Negative victim reaction involves seeking revenge on the bully, avoiding friends and activities, and even cyberbullying others.

How do I respond and to cyberbullying?

In some scenarios, cyberbullying can be ignored if the case is an unthreatening act, a prank, or a mild tease. The bully may get bored waiting and moves on. Cyberbullies actually want you to respond to them so they can expose your response to their audience. Yet we strongly urge you to take preventive measures against cyberbullying, which can be done by restricting the people who can communicate with you. Restrict others from being able to freely add you to their buddy list. If someone seems aggressive or makes you uncomfortable and doesn’t respond to verbal pleas or formal warnings, he or she should be blocked. You can even warn the sender by reporting the cyberbullying case to an Internet monitor service or a website monitor. In serious cases, you can report incidents to the police if someone threatens you physically. If you feel that you or someone you know is in danger, contact the police immediately and cut off contact with this person or user. Stay offline if you cannot avoid this person.

You can refuse to pass along cyberbullying messages. Tell friends to stop cyberbullying, block communication with cyberbullies, and report cyberbullying to a trusted adult. To stay cyber-safe, never post or share your personal information online or your friends’ personal information (this includes your full name, address, telephone number, school name, parents’ names or credit card number). Never share your Internet passwords with anyone and never meet face-to-face with someone you only met online.

The parent can start by teaching the child about social responsibility. Have the child imagine the situation in reverse. Cyberbullying can spiral to a massive level, even though cyberbullies may have just sent a post or text that initially started off as a joke. It is also important to teach this same lesson to cyberbullying victims, because many victims in turn can become cyberbullies themselves.

Television and pop culture have painted an image in our minds of what a bully and a victim should look like. The bully is the tough, muscular teenager that threatens to beat up the scrawny kid with the duct-taped glasses unless he hands over his lunch money. However, the truth is that neither the victims nor the perpetrators of cyber bullying fit into any stereotypical profile. Even though kids are often targeted because of their appearance and the way they speak or dress, there is no way to characterize a victim, since virtually anyone can become a target. Similarly, cyberbullies cannot be identified by a specific stereotype. However, what researchers have found is that bullies are often insecure and emotionally immature individuals who compensate for their weaknesses and lack of confidence with aggression. Bullies have no regard for other people’s boundaries and never consider the potential consequences of their actions. They feel empowered by targeting others and draw strength from their victims’ misery.

Get in Touch. Get Involved.

ETCB is a rapidly expanding organization, and as such we welcome questions about the company and most importantly, about cyber bullying. Whether you are personally being cyberbullied or you know someone who is being cyberbullied, please feel free to contact us in the form below and we will be sure to provide further assistance. Also, if you are in need of any further information about our organization, such as how can you participate or how can you make a difference, leave a message below and ETCB will respond as soon as possible.

60 W 38th St, Floor 2 New York, NY 10018

1-772-202-etcb (3822).

Email Address

Popular Searches

Your previous searches, recently visited pages.

Content added to Red Folder

Removed from Red Folder

5 Questions with a Research & Data Services Lead on Returning to the Workforce

September 13, 2024

Khoan Cheung, Lead of Research & Data Services at Bain & Company, shares insights on rejoining the workforce after a six-year hiatus. In this Q&A, discover how she successfully navigated her return and found renewed purpose in her role at Bain.

1. Can you describe your background?

Culturally, I am Chinese, and my nationality is British. I was three years old when I immigrated to the UK. My parents, grandparents, 2-year-old sister, newborn baby brother, and I had come from a refugee camp in Hong Kong.

Our family is Cantonese-speaking, but we lived in Vietnam where we had a lovely life. Unfortunately, the war forced us to leave Vietnam, but were lucky to be offered asylum in the UK where we lived in Accrington and later moved to Manchester. 

2. How did you begin your career?

I am wholeheartedly a business researcher. My professional journey started with earning a bachelor’s in information science and working in investment banking. After 8 years in the banking sector, I moved into consulting and joined Oliver Wyman where I worked for 9 years.

By then I had my third baby and at that time I reached a point where I needed some time off from work for my mental health whilst dealing with losing my mother. I never planned on taking a 6-year break.

3. What did you do during your time off?

My mother loved pandan cakes which are light, fluffy, sponge cakes, that are colored green and flavored by the juices from the pandan leaf. It is also known as pandan chiffon. We tried loads from the market and felt they were quite synthetic. I decided to master the skill myself, and after two years of experimentation, I landed on the perfect recipe.

I also developed recipes for other cakes. Initially, I baked in honor of my mother, and for my children, and friends. I started getting cake orders through word-of-mouth, and it all snowballed from there. I ran my own little cake business for a couple of years. However, the business closed because of the global pandemic in 2020.

4. How did you rediscover your place Bain?

In 2022, my ex-colleague contacted me about an opportunity at Bain. I immediately thought, ‘This is my sign to get back to consulting’. After 6 years out of the workforce, I worried about how much had changed. However, I successfully reintegrated and feel at home at Bain. I can confidently and proudly say that I am a Bainie.

5. What do you like to do outside of work?

I still enjoy baking; it helps me relax and cope with stress. I have tried my hand at various recipes and most recently, started with sushi making. Now that I am not baking and cooking for a living, I enjoy it more.

Lean more about the Research & Data Services team at Bain.

Explore careers at Bain to start your own path of growth and development.

Discover More

• See how careers grow at Bain
• Meet our people
• How learning works at Bain