Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Does cyberbullying overlap with school bullying when taking modality

of involvement into account?
Violaine Kubiszewski a,⇑, Roger Fontaine b, Catherine Potard c, Laurent Auzoult a
a
EA 3188, Psychology Laboratory and FR ‘‘EDUC’’, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
b
EA 2114, ‘‘Psychology of the Various Stages of Life (PAV)’’ Laboratory, François Rabelais University, Tours, France
c
EA 6291, ‘‘Cognition, Health & Socialization’’ Laboratory, University of Reims, France

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

Article history: Education professionals and researchers are concerned by school bullying and cyberbullying because of
its repercussions on students’ health and the school climate. However, only a few studies investigating
the impact of school versus cyberbullying have systematically explored whether student victims and per-
Keywords: petrators are involved in school bullying only, cyberbullying only, or both. The aim of the present study
Cyberbullying was thus to examine the possible overlap, as well as the similarities and/or differences, between these
School bullying two forms of bullying when taking modality of involvement into account. Individual interviews were
Media
conducted with 1422 junior high- and high-school students (girls = 43%, boys = 57%, mean age =
Externalizing behaviors
Internalizing problems
14.3 ± 2.7 years). Results showed that cyberbullying and school bullying overlapped very little. The
majority of students involved in cyberbullying were not simultaneously involved in school bullying.
Moreover, results indicated that psychosocial problems (psychological distress, social disintegration, gen-
eral aggression) varied according to the form of bullying. Victims of school bullying had greater internal-
izing problems than cybervictims, while school bullies were more aggressive than cyberbullies. Given the
sizable proportion of adolescents involved in bullying (school and cyber) and its significant relationship
with mental health, the issue warrants serious attention from school and public health authorities.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Four profiles can be identified in this kind of relationship: neutral,

1.1. School bullying and cyberbullying
Bullying is a pervasive form of aggressive behavior that has been
studied in many countries (Craig et al., 2009; Menesini et al., 2012)
and many different research areas, including psychology, medicine
and biology, etc. It is devastating for the school climate and more
especially for students’ wellbeing, leading it to be classified as a
major public-health problem in schools (Steffgen, Recchia, &
Viechtbauer, 2013; Turner, Exum, Brame, & Holt, 2013). Bullying
is an intentional strategy engaged in by one or more student(s),
who set up an asymmetrical relationship with a classmate based
on physical or psychological power. Olweus (1993) identified three
criteria to define bullying: 1) it is an aggressive behavior that is
intentional; 2) it is repetitive; and 3) it is an interpersonal relation
characterized by a systematic imbalance of power and domination.
⇑ Corresponding author at: EA 3188, Laboratoire de Psychologie, Université de
Franche-Comté, 30, rue Mégevand, 25 230 Besançon CEDEX, France. Tel.: +33 2 47
36 66 61.
E-mail address: violaine.kubiszewski@univ-fcomte.fr (V. Kubiszewski).
victim, bully, and bully-victim, this last profile referring to students
who are the victims of bullying and who bully classmates other
than their own aggressors. In schools, bullying can manifest itself
either in direct behaviors, be they physical (slapping, pushing,
etc.) or verbal (insults; etc.), or in indirect attacks (spreading
rumors about a student and/or organizing his/her social exclusion)
(Stassen-Berger, 2007).
Over the past few years, a new form of bullying has emerged
and caught the attention of researchers and education profession-
als. The huge advances in digital technology have given young peo-
ple new means of communicating, but also brought some
deleterious social interactions such as cyberbullying (Kowalski &
Limber, 2007). Most definitions of cyberbullying come from defini-
tions of school bullying. Thus, this conduct is often described as an
intentional aggressive behavior that takes place via new technolo-
gies, during which groups or individuals hurt classmates who can-
not easily defend themselves (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Law,
Shapka, & Olson, 2010; Slonje, Smith, & Frisén, 2013). Cyberbully-
ing events can occur via cellphones or computers, by means of text
messages, e-mails, online social networks (e.g., FacebookÒ,
TwitterÒ), chatrooms or blogs (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Like

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.049
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
50 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
the bullying that occurs in school, the following four profiles have
been identified: cyberneutral, cyberbully, cybervictim and cyber-
bully-victim.
Although there are many cyberbullying strategies around,
Cowie (2013) has identified some of the most frequently occurring
ones. Denigration, for instance, consists in posting false informa-
tion, gossip or rumors about a classmate on a blog or an online
social network in order to damage his/her reputation or friend-
ships. Entering the mailbox or the personal online space of a class-
mate and then usurping his/her identity to send or post material to
get that person into trouble or damage his/her reputation or
friendships is another strategy that is used. Repeatedly sending
mean, insulting or threatening messages is also an example of
cyberbullying.
Contrary to the consensus on the three criteria for defining
school bullying, there is no single clear and consistent definition
of cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2013). Moreover, many differ-
ent words are used in the literature to depict these online practices
besides the term cyberbullying, including online harassment (Wolak,
Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007), electronic bullying (Kowalski & Limber,
2007; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007), Internet harassment (Ybarra,
Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007; Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor,
2006) and e-bullying (Lam & Li, 2013). However, it should be noted
that some of the researchers who initially used these other notions,
now employ the word cyberbullying (e.g., Kowalski, Giumetti,
Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, &
Oppenheim, 2012).
The heterogeneity of the devices considered in studies of cyber-
bullying is another example of the divergence in definitions. Some
researchers have investigated behaviors via cellphones and/or
computers (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Ortega, Elipe, Mora-
Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007),
others have only taken one of these devices into account (Aricak
et al., 2008; Wolak et al., 2007).
These observations probably go some way to explaining the dis-
parity in the figures for cyberbullying prevalence. Estimated rates
of cyberbullying vary from 11% to more than 50% in studies consid-
ering cybervictimization, cyberperpetration, and both (Kowalski
et al., 2014).
Despite the disparities in estimated cyberbullying prevalence
around the world, one finding that appears to be common and con-
vergent is that involvement in bullying in cyberspace is associated
with psychosocial problems, problematic Internet use and poor
school performances (Gámez-Guadix, Orue, Smith, & Calvete,
2013; Kowalski & Limber, 2013).
In France, very few data are available concerning the number of
students involved in cyberbullying and the attendant psychosocial
difficulties. Even so, this form of aggressive behavior may well affect
many French adolescents, as in France, 95% of 9- to 16-year-olds use
the Internet at home (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Ólafsson,
2011), thus increasing the risk of being involved in cyberattacks
(Kwan & Skoric, 2013).
1.2. Divergent considerations
Currently, one of the main questions being explored in the sci-
entific literature concerns the degree of overlap between cyberbul-
lying and school bullying: do they constitute the same kind of
aggressive behavior, with cyberbullying being a modern and elec-
tronic form of school bullying? Or are they two forms of aggressive
behavior that need to be differentiated? Studies have yielded very
divergent results. Some of them suggest that cyberbullying is clo-
sely linked to school bullying, possibly constituting an extension
of it, whereas other studies indicate that cyberbullying does not
mirror school bullying. The arguments evoked in these studies cite
observed prevalence, as well as the psychosocial characteristics
associated with the various profiles in these two forms of bullying.
Studies suggesting that school bullying and cyberbullying con-
siderably overlap (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007; Smith et al., 2008; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) have
shown that victims in schools tend also to be victims in cyberspace,
and cyberbullies are often students who perpetrate bullying at
school. For example, in the study by Raskauskas and Stoltz
(2007), 94% of cyberbullies were also school bullies, and 85% of
cybervictims had a victim profile at school. One year later,
Juvonen and Gross (2008) published results revealing similar ten-
dencies: among the 1454 adolescents they sampled, 85% of those
involved in cyberbullying were also involved in school bullying.
These data led the authors of these articles to hypothesize that
cyberbullying is the cyberspace extension of school bullying. In
line with this hypothesis, other surveys have revealed that stu-
dents who are victims of school bullying also engage in cyberbul-
lying as bully, often attacking their school aggressors in
cyberspace (König, Gollwitzer, & Steffgen, 2010). The fact that
more than half of all cyberbullies or cyberbullies/victims are the
target of bullying in schools further supports the idea of extension
(Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).
Other arguments help to sustain the overlap hypotheses. Thus,
some studies have shown that students matching the different
school and cyberbullying profiles share similar psychosocial diffi-
culties. As an illustration, it appear that being a cybervictim and
being a victim of school bullying are both significant predictors
of social anxiety (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Moreover, both forms
of bullying lead to the same distress for victims (Smith et al.,
2008) and share interrelated predictors (Casas, Del Rey, &
Ortega-Ruiz, 2013).
However, all too few studies have carefully considered the
modalities of bullying involvement, that is, whether students
engage in school bullying only, cyberbullying only, or both
(Kowalski et al., 2014; Olweus, 2012). Research in this area of
investigation needs to control for the fact that a student involved
in cyberbullying could also be engaged in school bullying, but this
precaution is rarely taken. As a consequence, in many studies that
fail to control for involvement in both forms of bullying, the psy-
chosocial problems found to be associated with cyberbullying
could, in fact, be mainly linked to school bullying (or vice versa).
As stated by Olweus (2012), there is a need to find out the effects
of cyberbullying independently of the possible effects of school
bullying. However, this issue has not received ‘‘much systematic
and useful research attention so far’’ (Olweus, 2012).
Whereas some studies have shown a close relationship between
school bullying and cyberbullying, others led to differentiate these
two forms of aggressive behavior. Contradicting the prevalence
estimates mentioned above, Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007)
demonstrated that most victims of cyberbullying are not victims
at school. Similarly, Kowalski and Limber (2013) found that most
students involved in school bullying (77% of school victims, 74%
of school bullies and 52% of school bully-victims) are not con-
cerned by cyberbullying at all. Moreover, if cyberbullying were
indeed an extension of school bullying, then homeschooled young
people would be protected from cyberbullying. However, cybervic-
timization rates do not differ significantly between homeschooling
and public/private schooling (Ybarra, Diener-West, et al., 2007;
Ybarra, Espelage, et al., 2007).
This second consideration is also supported by research on the
difficulties associated with school bullying and cyberbullying.
Thus, Wang, Nansel, and Iannotti (2011) found a differential asso-
ciation of depression with each of these aggressive behaviors: in
school bullying, both victims and bully-victims had higher levels
of depression than bullies, whereas in cyberbullying, only cyber-
victims exhibited higher levels of depression, and to a far greater
 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
degree. Moreover, in a study by Ortega et al. (2009), victims were
revealed to be less emotionally affected in cases of cyberbullying
than in cases of school bullying. By contrast, Hay, Meldrum, and
Mann (2010) described higher levels of psychosocial problems in
cyberbullying than in school bullying. Again, it should be noted
that most of the studies yielding these kinds of results failed to
control for the co-occurrence of bullying and cyberbullying.
1.3. Singularity of cyberbullying
Above and beyond the above-mentioned divergences regarding
prevalence and psychosocial problems, cyberbullying can be dis-
tinguished from school bullying on many other dimensions.
Although many cyberattacks are similar to those perpetrated in
schools (threats, insults, etc.) some have no equivalent in school
bullying. This is the case for the creation of a virtual group target-
ing a schoolmate or the hacking of someone’s personal space.
Moreover, cyberbullying is not limited in either time or place
(Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). While
school bullying is often restricted to the time when the victim is
present in school, aggression via new technologies can occur at
any time of the day or night, and can pursue students into their
homes, and even into their bedrooms.
In schools, bullies can often be identified and, to a certain
extent, avoided. In cyberspace, attacks can be rendered anonymous
through the use of pseudonyms, causing considerable distress for
victims (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007; Mishna, Saini, &
Solomon, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Ybarra, Diener-West, et al.,
2007; Ybarra, Espelage, et al., 2007).
Instant and massive dissemination is another particular feature
of cyberbullying. Most episodes of school bullying occur in front of
only a few schoolmates (Olweus & Limber, 2010), whereas in
cyberspace, information and files can be spread quickly and remain
available for a long time, thereby increasing the number of poten-
tial bystanders (Kowalski et al., 2014; Li, 2007).
Lastly, unlike face-to-face relationships, the use of media such
as cellphones or computers lacks nonverbal communication
(Kowalski et al., 2014). Cyberbullies cannot visualize the emotional
state and pain they inflict on their victims. Many authors have sug-
gested that the lack of direct feedback, combined with the possibil-
ity of retaining one’s anonymity, prompts individuals to engage in
even more hostile and aggressive behaviors (Postmes, Spears, &
Lea, 1998). One of the variants of Milgram’s famous experiment
(1974) incidentally corroborates this notion. He showed that when
participants could not see or hear the suffering simulated by the
actor to whom they had to administer electric shocks, these mock
electric shocks more often reached a lethal intensity, compared
with situations in which the participants received emotional feed-
back. Cyberspace therefore fosters disinhibition, as neatly illus-
trated in a study by Aricak et al. (2008), who found that 59% of
students in their sample admitted to saying things online that they
would not say face to face.
1.4. Objective and hypotheses
Although several studies have already explored the overlap
between school bullying and cyberbullying, the results are often
divergent and need to be confirmed by further quantitative and
qualitative analyses. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, many studies
have investigated the problems associated with school bullying
and cyberbullying without controlling for the effect of being
involved in both forms of bullying.
The main aim of the present study was thus to measure the
degree of overlap between school bullying and cyberbullying
51
regarding prevalence, and identify the psychosocial problems asso-
ciated with each of these aggressive behaviors. To this end, we took
the precaution of controlling for simultaneous involvement in
school and cyberbullying, and carried out quantitative and more
qualitative analyses.
In the light of the literature mentioned in Section 1.3., showing
the singularity of cyberbullying at several different levels, we
hypothesized that it constitutes a different form of aggressive
behavior that needs to be distinguished from school bullying.
More precisely, we tested the following hypotheses:
H1. The majority of students involved in cyberbullying are not
simultaneously involved in school bullying;
H2. The psychosocial characteristics (internalizing problems and
externalizing behaviors) of students involved in cyberbullying dif-
fer from those of students involved in school bullying.
2. Methods
2.1. Procedure
Adolescents from three junior high schools and two high schools
in Tours (Indre et Loire, France) and its suburbs took part in this
study. All the students attending these five schools were invited
to take part (N = 1646). The occupation of the head of the household
was used to ascertain the adolescents’ social background, based on
the classification system used by the French authorities (High
income A, High income B, Average, and Disadvantaged) (Ministry of
National Education, 2011). The data for the students invited to take
part matched national averages: 17.2% in the High income A group
(national = 17.5%); 16.3% in the High income B group (national =
12.7%); 26.1% in the Average group (national = 27.0%); and 40.5%
in the Disadvantaged group (national = 42.7%).
As recommended in France (Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Chasseigne,
& Rusch, 2014), data were collected during individual, anonymous
interviews conducted by trained researchers who administered the
measures used in this study. Parents were informed and sent a pas-
sive consent form via their son/daughter. On prearranged dates,
those students who had agreed to take part were given a 30-min
appointment by the school staff and were met individually in
quiet, private rooms that had been made available for the present
study. Before each interview, the adolescents were told that their
participation was voluntary and that their responses would be kept
confidential. The protocol was submitted to and approved by the
school health services of the education district in the Indre-et-Loire
département (France) and by the schools’ governing board. Data
were collected two weeks after the start of the second term of
the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 school years.
Of the 1646 students, 187 did not take part for two main rea-
sons: parental or adolescent refusal, and absence of the student
on the day fixed for the interview. The final participation rate
was 88.6% (N = 1459). A few (n = 37) of the participants were not
sufficiently familiar with the French language, and their data were
therefore excluded from the analyses.
2.2. Sample
The final sample consisted of 1422 students (boys = 57%,
n = 808; girls = 43%, n = 614) in Grades Six to 12 of junior high
school and vocational high school (n = 257 in Gr 6, n = 219 in Gr
7, n = 227 in Gr 8, n = 233 in Gr 9, n = 165 in Gr 10, n = 171 in Gr
11 and n = 150 in Gr 12). Ages ranged from 10 to 18 years. Mean
age was 14.3 years (SD = 2.7).
52 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. School bullying
The revised Bully/Victim Questionnaire (rBVQ; Solberg &
Olweus, 2003) is a reliable and valid self-report measure of bully-
ing in France (Kubiszewski et al., 2014) that assesses the partici-
pants’ experience of bullying at school. A detailed definition of
bullying (see Solberg & Olweus, 2003) is read aloud to the partici-
pant by the investigator. Students are asked to think of bullying
events that have occurred at school in the last 2-3 months. The
rBVQ comes in two parts: the first part has seven questions about
situations experienced as a victim, and the second has seven ques-
tions about situations experienced as a bully. The response alterna-
tives are: ‘‘I haven’t bullied/been bullied by other students’’, ‘‘I have
bullied/been bullied by other students only once or twice’’,
‘‘. . .. . .2-3 times a month’’, ‘‘. . .. . .about once a week’’, and
‘‘. . .. . .several times a week’’. As recommended (Solberg &
Olweus, 2003), we considered that an adolescent was involved in
bullying if she/he answered ‘‘2-3 times a month’’ or more. Students
who reported that they had both been bullied and had bullied
other students 2-3 times a month or more were identified as bul-
lies/victims, those who reported that they had solely been bullied
were classified as victims, those who had solely bullied were clas-
sified as bullies, and those who were neither victims nor bullies
were considered to be neutral.
2.3.2. Cyberbullying
The cyberbullying questionnaire we used contained the items of
the Electronic Bullying Questionnaire by Kowalski and Limber
(2007), and was partly modeled on the rBVQ. This second question-
naire assessed the occurrence of aggressive behaviors such as
insults, teasing, exclusion, hacking or depreciation that can occur
on the Internet or via a cellphone. Each student was classified as
a cybervictim, cyberbully, cyberbully-victim or cyberneutral. In accor-
dance with many studies, and the recommendations of some
authors (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Juvonen & Gross, 2008;
Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007; Vieno, Gini, & Santinello,
2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) the cut-of ‘‘only one or twice’’
was used to define an attack as cyberbullying. The choice of this
cut-off point was justified by two arguments. The first one con-
cerns possible prolonged exposure to a single attack. In cyberbully-
ing, attacks can remain online or in the cellphone for quite a while,
and can be consulted frequently and at different times by the vic-
tims, as well as by their schoolmates (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross,
2009; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Slonje et al., 2013). The other
argument concerns the numbers of cyberbystanders, which can
gradually increase if the single attack remains online, thus increas-
ing and prolonging the victim’s distress (Dooley et al., 2009).
2.3.3. Psychosocial problems
2.3.3.1. Internalizing problems (perceived social disintegration, psy-
chological distress). Perceived social disintegration was measured
using six items developed by Solberg and Olweus (2003) (e.g.,
‘‘You feel less well liked than other students in your class’’). There
were six possible responses to these statements: Doesn’t apply at
all, Doesn’t really apply, Applies somewhat, Applies fairly well, Applies
well, and Applies exactly. A high score indicated a high level of self-
perceived social disintegration. Cronbach’s alpha for this variable
was .76.
Students’ psychological distress (depression tendencies and low
self-esteem) was assessed by means of 11 items taken from two
scales by Alsaker and Olweus (Alsaker, Dundas, & Olweus, 1991;
Alsaker & Olweus, 1986) (e.g., ‘‘I am often sad without seeing any
reason for it’’). The response options were the same as for the per-
ceived social disintegration measure. Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale was .86.
2.3.3.2. Externalizing behaviors (aggression, antisocial behavior). The
aggression scale we used was developed by Solberg and Olweus
(2003) (a = .84). There were 6 items (e.g., ‘‘If I disagree with a
boy or a girl my age, I easily get angry and yell at him or her’’).
The response options were the same as before, with a high score
indicating a high level of aggression.
Next, adolescents were asked eight questions developed by
Bendixen and Olweus (1999) to assess antisocial behavior (e.g.,
‘‘Have you ever scribbled on the school building?’’ or ‘‘Have you
ever skipped school a whole day?’’). The response options were:
Seldom or never, Sometimes, Fairly often, Often, and Very often. High
scores indicated high levels of antisocial behavior. The reliability of
the total scale was .84.
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Prevalence of cyberbullying and comparisons with school
bullying
The overlap between school bullying and cyberbullying was
assessed by analyzing the prevalence of students who were simul-
taneously involved in both. Then, to test the hypothesis that these
two forms of bullying concern different students, we looked at
whether the majority of students involved in cyberbullying were
neutral in school bullying.
2.4.2. Comparison of psychosocial problems associated with
cyberbullying and school bullying, taking modality of involvement into
account
Previous studies had failed to consider whether some students
simultaneously engage in school and cyberbullying. In order to
overcome this major limitation, we therefore created new groups
of students, according to the different modalities of involvement
(i.e., noninvolved, involvement in school bullying, cyberbullying,
or both). This allowed comparing the psychosocial problems asso-
ciated with each form of bullying. To make the analyses clearer,
adolescents who were engaged in both school and cyberbullying,
but with a different profile in each, were excluded from the analy-
ses (Table 1).
An exploratory approach using multiple correspondence analy-
sis (MCA) enabled to bring to light the relationships between the
different response categories for the variables explored in this
study. It was thus possible to submit the data to an overall qualita-
tive analysis that simultaneously included the following variable
response categories:
For the bullying profile and modality of involvement variable
(cf. Table 1), the response categories were noninvolved, school
victim, cybervictim, cyber & school-victim, school bully, cyber-
bully, cyber & school bully, school bully-victim, cyberbully-vic-
tim, and cyber & school bully-victim.
Data on the four psychosocial problems considered in this study
were recoded to obtain dichotomous variables: absence of the
problem (mean scores < 90th percentile) or presence of the
problem (mean scores P 90th percentile). Thus, for each of the
four psychosocial variables (perceived social disintegration, psy-
chological distress, aggression, and antisocial behavior), the
response categories were presence of the difficulty (+) and
absence of the difficulty ( ).
Then, ANOVAs were used to conduct a quantitative analysis of
internalizing problems and externalizing behaviors associated
with each form of bullying. Students involved in school bullying,
cyberbullying, or both were compared with each other, as well as
with the noninvolved group, by means of Tukey’s HSD post hoc
test. This post hoc test is particularly suitable when large numbers
 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
Table 1
Modalities of involvement in school and cyberbullying.
Profiles in school bullying
Neutral
Profiles in cyberbullying
Cyberneutral Noninvolved
Cybervictim Cybervictim
Cyberbully Cyberbully
Cyberbully-victim Cyberbully-victim
Note. ‘‘/’’ indicates combinations excluded from the analysis because they concerned so few adolescents (n = 5–17) and because we wanted the data to be as clear as possible.
It is common for these combinations to be represented by only a few participants (see also Kowalski & Limber, 2013).
of 2  2 comparisons are undertaken as it reduces the risk of com-
mitting Type-1 errors (Howell, 2008).
All the analyses were performed with STATISTICA Version 10.
Regarding sample size, statistical significance was set at p < 0.001.
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence of cyberbullying and comparisons with school bullying
In the sample, 366 students (26%) reported being involved in
school bullying: 211 of them were victims (15% of the sample),
109 were bullies (8% of the sample) and 46 were bullies/victims
(3% of the sample).
Regarding cyberbullying, 386 (27%) students reported being
involved in this kind of activity in cyberspace: 249 of them (18%)
were cybervictims, 59 (4%) were cyberbullies and 76 (5%) were
cyberbully-victims.
Concerning the question of profile stability across cyber and
school bullying, results showed that these two forms of bullying
overlapped very little. Overall, less than a quarter of students had
the same profile in both cyber and school bullying: 13% (n = 10)
of cyberbully-victims were also bullies/victims at school, 22%
(n = 13) of cyberbullies were also school bullies; and 26% (n = 66)
of cybervictims were also victims at school. Moreover, in the
majority of cases, adolescents involved in cyberbullying were not
the same as those involved in school bullying: 62% (n = 155) of
cybervictims, 60% (n = 36) of cyberbullies and 51% (n = 59) of
cyberbully-victims had a neutral profile in school bullying.
3.2. Comparison of psychosocial problems associated with
cyberbullying and school bullying, taking modality of involvement into
account
As the students involved in cyberbullying were, in most cases,
not the same as those involved in school bullying, in order to gain
a more accurate picture of the potential differences between cyber
and school bullying in terms of attendant psychosocial problems,
we divided the students into four groups according to their modal-
ity of involvement: noninvolved, cyberbullying only, school bully-
ing only, or both (cyber & school) (Table 1).
Three main dimensions were highlighted by the MCA, corre-
sponding to 32.6% of the explained inertia1: 13.3% of the inertia
was explained by Dimension 1, 11.3% by Dimension 2 and 7.99%
by Dimension 3 (Fig. 1).
Results presented in Fig. 1A show that Dimension 1 contrasted
noninvolved students with those involved in bullying. Psychosocial
problems were grouped with the students involved in bullying.
Thus, all the profiles of the students involved in school bullying,
1
Greenacre (2010) recommends only retaining dimensions with eigenvalues > 1/Q,
where Q is the number of variables. As five variables were studied, we retained
dimensions with eigenvalues above 0.2.
53
Victim Bully Bully-victim
School victim School bully School bully-/victim
Cyber & school victim / /
/ Cyber & school bully /
/ / Cyber & school bully-victim
cyberbullying or both were associated with psychosocial problems
(right side of Fig. 1A), unlike the noninvolved student profile (left
side of Fig. 1A). Regarding involvement in cyberbullying only,
although cyberbullies stood out on this dimension, the other two
profiles (cybervictim and cyberbully/victim) did not2 (Fig. 1A).
Dimension 2 differentiated between school and cyber & school
victims at one end, characterized by internalizing problems (social
disintegration and psychological distress), and school, cyber- and
cyber & school bullies, and school bully-victims at the other end,
all characterized by externalizing behaviors (aggression and anti-
social behaviors). Cybervictims and cyberbully-victims were not
differentiated on the axis, nor were noninvolved students (Fig. 1B).
Dimension 3 distinguished between the two externalizing
behaviors considered in this study. Aggression was associated with
school bullies, cyber & school bully-victims, and cyber & school vic-
tims. By contrast, antisocial behavior was linked to bullies and
bully-victims in the cyber and cyber & school modalities.
Dimension 2 of the MCA revealed an association between exter-
nalizing behaviors, bullies and bully-victims, and an association
between internalizing problems and victims. As a consequence,
in the quantitative analysis (Table 2) intended to explore psycho-
social problems as a function of modality of involvement, we only
considered internalizing problems for victims and externalizing
behaviors for bullies and bully-victims.
Results in Table 2 show that school victims and those who were
subjected to both forms of aggression (cyber & school) had signif-
icantly higher levels of perceived social disintegration than cyber-
victims (Cohen’s d = 0.75) and noninvolved students (Cohen’s
d = 0.95), who did not differ significantly from each other. Concern-
ing psychological distress, school and cyber & school victims had
significantly higher scores (Cohen’s d = 0.6; 0.96; 1.22; 0.86). Once
again, cybervictims and noninvolved students did not differ signif-
icantly from each other on this psychosocial problem.
For bullies, analyses show that those who are engaged in school
and in cyber & school bullying had significantly higher aggression
scores than cyberbullies (Cohen’s d = 0.72 and 1.02) and nonin-
volved students (Cohen’s d = 1.26 and 1.61), who did not differ sig-
nificantly from each other. Concerning antisocial behaviors, cyber
& school bullies had the highest scores, and noninvolved students
the lowest ones. Contrary to the results for aggression, cyber- and
school bullies did not differ from each other on the level of antiso-
cial behavior.
Then, school and cyber & school bullies/victims had higher
aggression scores than cyber bullies/victims (Cohen’s d = 1.18 and
1.36) and noninvolved students (Cohen’s d = 1.60 and 1.71). The
level of antisocial behavior was higher for ‘‘cyber & school’’
bully-victims than for cyberbully-victims (Cohen’s d = 0.81). None-
theless, school bully-victims did not differ from either cyber- or
cyber & school bully-victims on levels of antisocial behavior.
2
A response category with coordinates of less than 0.5 on one axis was not
discriminated on the dimension associated with this axis (Husson, Lê, & Pagès, 2009).
54 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57

Fig. 1. Exploratory analyses with multiple correspondence analyses of profiles and modalities of bullying involvement, as well as psychosocial problems (perceived social
disintegration, psychological distress, aggressiveness and antisocial behavior). j Psychosocial problems (+=presence; = absence), s profiles of students involved in
cyberbullying only, d profiles of students involved in school bullying only and e similar profiles in school bullying and cyberbullying.

4. Discussion 4.1. Prevalence of cyberbullying and comparisons with school bullying

The abundant literature on cyberbullying published in the past
few years highlights the importance of improving our knowledge
of this aggressive behavior and its underlying processes. In this
context, the aim of the present study was to examine the two
forms of bullying that researchers have been focusing their atten-
tion on, namely school bullying and cyberbullying. More specifi-
cally, its purpose was to determine whether these two kinds of
aggression are comparable, or if they should instead be viewed
separately, owing to substantial differences. To answer this ques-
tion, prevalence of these two forms of bullying and their related
psychosocial problems were examined.
This study suggests that cyberbullying represents just as much a
public health problem as school bullying. Results showed that com-
parably elevated proportions of students were involved in each of
these forms of bullying: more than one in four. One possible expla-
nation for this result could be that cyberbullying is an extension of
school bullying (Fontaine, 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008). However,
results did not confirm this notion, as more than half of the students
involved in cyberbullying were neutral at school.
The distribution of students according to their different cyber-
bullying and school-bullying profiles is another aspect of the pres-
ent study that led to distinguish between these two forms of
 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
Table 2
Mean scores (standard deviation) on internalizing problems and externalizing behaviors as a function of bullying involvement modality for victims, bullies, bully-victims and
noninvolved students.
Non-involveda Cyber b
Internalizing problems in victims: (n = 827) (n = 154)
Perceived social disintegration 1.67 (.69) 1.84 (.68)
Psychological distress 1.91 (.73) 2.22 (.82)
Externalizing behaviors in bullies: (n = 827) (n = 35)
Aggressiveness 1.42 (0.47) 1.73 (0.63)
Antisocial behavior 1.36 (0.37) 1.71 (0.53)
Externalizing behaviors in bully-victims: (n = 827) (n = 39)
Aggressiveness 1.42 (.47) 1.72 (.53)
Antisocial behavior 1.36 (.37) 1.68 (.53)
Note.
a
Noninvolved = students involved neither in cyberbullying nor in school bullying.
b
Cyber only = students involved in cyberbullying but not school bullying.
c
School only = students involved in school bullying but not cyberbullying.
d
Cyber & school = students involved in both cyberbullying and school bullying.
***
p < 0.001.
aggression. Even though total prevalence and victim prevalence
were comparable for both forms of bullying, more students saw
themselves as bully-victims in cyberbullying than in school bully-
ing. This result is similar to the findings of many other studies, in
which the proportion of students claiming to be cyberbully-victims
has been found to be close to or higher than the proportion of
cyberbullies (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007; Vieno et al.,
2011; Wang et al., 2009). A parallel can be drawn between these
data and the discourse of students invited to take part in focus
groups on cyberbullying perceptions: for them, the disinhibition
generated by cyberspace and by the opportunity to remain anony-
mous encourages even students perceived of as shy or vulnerable
at school to persecute their schoolmates (Mishna et al., 2009;
Smith et al., 2008). However, this ease of aggression does not pro-
tect them from cyberaggression, which could explain the higher
rate of cyberbully-victims compared with the rate of school
bully-victims.
The first part of our results indicated that students involved in
cyberbullying and students involved in school bullying mostly
belonged to different groups. On the whole, the results of our anal-
yses led to infer that cyberbullying is not an extension of school
bullying, but instead provides other students with new opportuni-
ties to become bullies.
Moreover, this study yielded data on the prevalence of cyber-
bullying and school bullying among French adolescents that were
lacking in the scientific literature.
4.2. Comparison of psychosocial problems associated with
cyberbullying and school bullying, taking modality of involvement into
account
A second way of investigating the possible overlap of these two
forms of bullying was to determine whether the adolescents with
the different cyberbullying profiles had the same psychosocial
characteristics as their school-bullying counterparts.
The MCA initially revealed an association between externalizing
behaviors and all modalities of involvement as perpetrators (cyber-
bullying, school bullying, or both cyber & school bullying). How-
ever, Dimension 3 of the MCA, together with the results of the
quantitative analyses, appeared to nuance this association. Cyber-
bullies appeared to be less aggressive than school bullies, but with
comparable levels of antisocial behavior. Unlike face-to-face
exchanges, the use of a computer or cellphone is devoid of the non-
verbal communication that is supposed to convey the interlocu-
tor’s emotional state. Many authors have suggested that the lack
of direct emotional feedback, combined with the possibility of
remaining anonymous, engenders hostile behaviors based on
55
Schoolc Cyber & schoold F [g2] Tukey’s HSD
(n = 127) (n = 66) (3,1170)
2.40 (1.03) 2.52 (1.09) 54.90*** [0.12] a, b < c, d
2.79 (1.06) 3.06 (1.09) 78.05*** [0.17] a < b < c, d
(n = 64) (n = 13) (3,935)
2.26 (0.82) 2.45 (0.77) 71.22*** [0.19] a < b < c, d
1.72 (0.50) 2.38 (1.02) 48.09*** [0.13] a < b, c < d
(n = 20) (n = 10) (3,892)
2.64 (.97) 2.98 (1.20) 73.29*** [0.20] a < b < c, d
1.93 (.58) 2.16 (.65) 35.27*** [0.11] a < b ~ c; b < d; c ~ d
decreased inhibition (Livingstone et al., 2011; Postmes et al.,
1998). This dehumanization is a possible explanation for our result
showing that cyberbullies are less aggressive - but not less antiso-
cial - than school bullies. Some adolescents who would not display
aggressive behavior in face-to-face interactions may feel suffi-
ciently unconstrained by social norms to indulge in these behav-
iors in cyberspace. This postulate is moreover reinforced by the
results of research demonstrating that young people who perpe-
trate cyberbullying feel less guilty and have less of a bad con-
science than the perpetrators of school bullying (Wachs, 2012).
The victims of bullying at school or in cyberspace were clearly
differentiated. In the MCA, the cybervictim modality was not dif-
ferentiated on any of the three dimensions considered, whereas
the school victim modality made an important contribution on
two dimensions. Moreover, quantitative analyses showed that
cybervictims were no different from noninvolved students for
perceived social disintegration, and exhibited lower levels of this
internalizing problem than school victims. Previous studies had
led to the conclusion that many students know how to end or
restrict cyberbullying, by blocking or printing out the cyberbully’s
messages, restricting access to their personal spaces on online
social networking sites, and so on (Agatston, Kowalski, &
Limber, 2007; Fenaughty & Harré, 2013). The EU KIDS ONLINE
survey published in 2011 seemed to confirm this conclusion, as
more than half of the students assessed had the skills needed
to protect themselves on the Internet (Livingstone et al., 2011).
We can hypothesize that knowledge of these different strategies,
added to the fact that cyberbullying does not systematically occur
directly in front of schoolmates in the playground, could explain
the differences observed between victims in cyberspace only
and victims at school only, regarding perceived social
disintegration.
In our sample, cybervictims also had lower levels of psycholog-
ical distress than school victims, again lending weight to the idea
that cyberbullying and school bullying are different phenomena.
This result is in agreement with a number other studies (Jose,
Kljakovic, Scheib, & Notter, 2012; Livingstone et al., 2011; Ortega
et al., 2009; Ybarra et al., 2006). For example, research by José
et al. (2012) suggested that cyberbullying is less devastating on
an emotional level than school bullying. Moreover, a study by
Ybarra et al. (2006) indicated that more than half of the victims
of cyberbullying were not emotionally impacted by this kind of
aggression. For the authors, attacks that occur at school are more
difficult to avoid than those that occur in cyberspace, and thus dis-
turb young people more. It may be easier for students to stop this
kind of abusive relationship in cyberspace, using their knowledge
of the many strategies mentioned above.
56 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
Nevertheless, it should be noted that, in the present study,
cybervictims had higher levels of psychological distress than non-
involved students. Despite the concrete protection measures that
can be implemented by adolescents, cyberbullying remains an
unpleasant and destabilizing experience for victims.
Finally, results regarding students involved in both school and
cyberbullying, and who had the same profile in each modality,
showed that their levels of psychosocial difficulties were compara-
ble to those of students involved in school bullying only. Thus, for a
minority of students (about one adolescent in 20 in our sample),
there is an overlap between cyberbullying and school bullying,
accompanied by weakened psychological adjustment.
The present study’s main limitations stemmed from its reliance
on self-report methodology, which can be subject to a social desir-
ability bias when aggressive behaviors are addressed. Furthermore,
longitudinal research might be useful for testing the robustness of
these results. The present study also failed to take some combina-
tions of bullying involvement into account (e.g., students who are
victims in school bullying and perpetrators in cyberbullying),
because of the small numbers of students who reported these com-
binations, plus our desire to be clear. Thus, in future studies, larger
samples will be needed to consider the data of students involved in
both school and cyberbullying but with different profiles. Besides,
above and beyond data on involvement in school and/or cyberbul-
lying, young people’s perceptions of the gravity of these attacks
should be investigated, as they may moderate the association
between the two kinds of bullying (in cyberspace and at school)
and psychosocial problems in different ways. Finally, this was a
person-centered study, and it dealt with students’ cyber and/or
school bullying profiles at a given point in time. In future studies,
a longitudinal approach or structural equation modeling would
provide a rather broader view, by describing the relationship inde-
pendently of the person classification. This would be useful for
gaining a more dynamic view of possible changes in the students’
profiles in these two forms of bullying, or for obtaining more com-
plex interactive models of the factors associated with bullying and
cyberbullying. It would also enable to test moderating and mediat-
ing models of school and cyberbullying.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study lead to the conclusion that cyberbully-
ing is a form of aggressive behavior that is quite distinct from
school bullying. These two forms were differentiated both from
the perspective of prevalence and from the perspective of the psy-
chosocial problems associated with the different profiles. In other
words, not only were different students involved in each of these
forms of bullying, but they also had distinct characteristics.
These conclusions could contribute to the design of preventive
interventions in schools. Given the difference between school
and cyberbullying, it is difficult to conceive that actions intended
to reduce school bullying could be as efficient in preventing cyber-
bullying. Because of the undeniable presence of cyberbullying and
the number of young people concerned, students, together with
their parents and teachers, should be regularly informed of the
existence of this practice and any changes it undergoes. Having
the means to protect oneself and to deal with school or cyberbul-
lying are other aspects that need to be tackled, given the psychoso-
cial problems that can be generated. Despite the differences
between these two kinds of bullying, they need to be combatted
simultaneously, through a combination of targeted actions.
References
Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber
bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S59–S60.
Alsaker, F. D., Dundas, I., & Olweus, D. (1991). A growth curve approach to the study of
parental relations and depression in adolescence. Seattle, USA: Biannual Meetings
of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Alsaker, F. D., & Olweus, D. (1986). Assessment of global negative self-evaluations
and perceived stability of self in Norwegian preadolescents and adolescents. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 6(3), 269–278.
Aricak, T., Siyahhan, S., Uzunhasanoglu, A., Saribeyoglu, S., Ciplak, S., Yilmaz, N.,
et al. (2008). Cyberbullying among Turkish adolescents. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 11(3), 253–261.
Bendixen, M., & Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early
adolescence and adolescence: Psychometric properties and substantive
findings. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9(4), 323–354.
Casas, J. A., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying:
Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 580–587.
Cowie, H. (2013). Cyberbullying and its impact on young people’s emotional health
and well-being. The Psychiatrist, 37(5), 167–170.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-
Morton, B., et al. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization
among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(2),
216–224.
Dooley, J. J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face
bullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188.
Fenaughty, J., & Harré, N. (2013). Factors associated with young people’s successful
resolution of distressing electronic harassment. Computers & Education, 61,
242–250.
Fontaine, R. (2009). Violence et intimidation scolaire: Le bullying. In Les conduites
agressives chez l’enfant: Perspectives développementales et psychosociales
(pp. 57–82). Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Gámez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P. K., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and
reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and
problematic internet use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,
53(4), 446–452.
Greenacre, M. (2010). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). New York:
Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
Hay, C., Meldrum, R., & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying, and
deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 26(2), 130–147.
Howell, D. C. (2008). Méthodes statistiques en sciences humaines. Paris: De Boeck
Université.
Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. (2009). Analyse de données avec R. Didact Statistique.
Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Jose, P. E., Kljakovic, M., Scheib, E., & Notter, O. (2012). The joint development of
traditional bullying and victimization with cyber bullying and victimization in
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(2), 301–309.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying
experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505.
König, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Steffgen, G. (2010). Cyberbullying as an act of revenge?
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 210–224.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying
in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research
among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school
students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22–S30.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic
correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health,
53(1), S13–S20.
Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Chasseigne, G., & Rusch, E. (2014). Évaluation du
bullying scolaire chez les adolescents français: Validité de l’adaptation française
du questionnaire Agresseur/Victime révisé d’Olweus (1996). Annales Médico-
Psychologiques, 172(4), 261–267.
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 16–25.
Lam, L. T., & Li, Y. (2013). The validation of the E-Victimisation Scale (E-VS) and the
E-Bullying Scale (E-BS) for adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1),
3–7.
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., & Olson, B. F. (2010). To control or not to control? Parenting
behaviours and adolescent online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(6), 1651–1656.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777–1791.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the
internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings and policy
implications from the EU KIDS ONLINE survey of 9–16 year olds and their
parents in 25 countries. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., et al.
(2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six
European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9),
455–463.
Milgram, S. (1974). Soumission à l’autorité. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.
Ministère de l’Education Nationale (2011). Repères et références statistiques sur les
enseignements, la formation et la recherche. Retrieved from <http://
media.education.gouv.fr/file/2011/01/4/DEPP-RERS-2011_190014.pdf>.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and
youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review,
31(12), 1222–1228.
 V. Kubiszewski et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 43 (2015) 49–57
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon? European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9, 520–538.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination
of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
80(1), 124–134.
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega, E. (2009). The
emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal
of Psychology, 217(4), 197–204.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Implications
for empirical research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(4), 431–432.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries?
SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research,
25(6), 689–715.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic
bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564–575.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and
strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32.
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239–268.
Stassen-Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten?
Developmental Review, 27(1), 90–126.
Steffgen, G., Recchia, S., & Viechtbauer, W. (2013). The link between school climate
and violence in school: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
18(2), 300–309.
Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization and
adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 41(1), 53–59.
57
Vieno, A., Gini, G., & Santinello, M. (2011). Different forms of bullying and their
association to smoking and drinking behavior in Italian adolescents. Journal of
School Health, 81(7), 393–399.
Wachs, S. (2012). Moral disengagement and emotional and social difficulties in
bullying and cyberbullying: Differences by participant role. Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 347–360.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in
the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45(4), 368–375.
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying:
Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4),
415–417.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute
bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only
contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S51–S58.
Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2012). Defining and
measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53–58.
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in Internet
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42–S50.
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-occurrence of Internet
harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration:
Associations with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6),
S31–S41.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and
targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308–1316.
Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Examining
characteristics and associated distress related to Internet harassment:
Findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118(4),
e1169–e1177.