Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Differences in family climate and family communication among

cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyber bullyevictims in adolescents

n MartínezeFerrer b, *, MaríaeJesús Cava a
Sofía Buelga a, Bele
a
n
Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Avenida Blasco Iba ~ ez, 13, 40010, Valencia, Spain
b
Department of Education and Social Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University Pablo de Olavide, Ctra. Utrera, km.1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain

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

Article history: Scientific studies on family factors related to the main cyberbullying roles are still scarce. The present
Received 31 January 2017 study analyzed family climate and parenteadolescent communication in the four roles involved in
Received in revised form cyberbullying: cybervictims, cyberbullies, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved adolescents. The study
8 July 2017
had two main objectives: (1) to analyze the differences in family climate (cohesion and conflict) and
Accepted 11 July 2017
Available online 11 July 2017
communication patterns with the mother and father (open, avoidance, and offensive) among the four
roles, controlling the variables sex and academic grade; and (2) to determine the predictive weight of
these family variables in the roles involved in cyberbullying. A battery of instruments was applied to
Keywords:
Family climate
1062 adolescents from 12 to 18 years old. The results revealed that the cyberbullyevictim profile had the
Parentechild communication lowest quality family climate and family communication patterns. In addition, family conflict predicted
Cyberbullyevictims the role of cyberbullies, and noneopen communication with the mother and avoidant communication
Cyberbullying with the father predicted the role of cybervictim. Finally, these family variables together (conflict and
Adolescence noneopen and avoidant communication) predicted the role of cyberbullyevictim.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction necessarily imply cyberbullying/victimization, but rather other

Cyberbullying is defined as aggressive, repetitive, and deliberate
behavior between peers, where one person or group uses electronic
devices (electronic communication technologies) to abuse a victim
who cannot easily defend him/herself (Aboujaoude, Savage,
Starcevic, & Salame, 2015; Giumetti & Kowalski, 2016). The prev-
alence of cybervictimization and perpetration ranges between
approximately 15% and 40% (Garaigordobil & MartínezeValderrey,
2016; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Tanrikulu
& Campbell, 2015; Tokunaga, 2010). In fact, studies on worlde-
wide cyberbullying trends have produced widely varying results
(rates as high as 72%, Juvoven & Gross, 2008, and as low as 6.5%,
Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), which makes it difficult to draw com-
parisons between surveys. This stark disparity may be attributed to
the different conceptual foundations and methodologies used in
these scientific studies (Buelga, Cava, Musitu, & Torralba, 2015;
Festl, Vogelgesang, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2017). Furthermore, it is
important to note that many of the reported behaviors do not
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Sofia.Buelga@uv.es (S. Buelga),
(B. MartínezeFerrer), maria.j.cava@uv.es (M. Cava).
events that do not comply with all the bullying criteria (Antoniadou
& Kokkinos, 2015).
It is still unclear whether cyberbullying/victimization is a sub-
type of traditional bullying (Olweus, 2013, following the criteria of
intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance), or a variant of
traditional bullying but with specific features (Slonje, Smith, &
Frisen, 2013), or a completely distinct phenomenon from tradi-
tional bullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009). Regarding
the latter position, Antoniadou and Kokkinos (2015) and Mishna,
KhouryeKassabri, Gadalla, and Daciuk (2012) propose that the
characteristics of the new information and communication tech-
nologies (potential anonymity, pseudonymity, asynchronous
communication, power, status equalization, and lack of supervi-
sion) make them a unique phenomenon that explains the high
prevalence of bullyevictims in cyberbullying/victimization. These
conditions make it possible for the victim to countereattack on the
Internet and display behaviors that s/he would not dare to perform
faceetoeface.
A large number of adolescents seem to be involved in both cyber
aggression and cyber victimization. However, compared to the
large amount of previous research focused on the cybervictim and
bmarfer2@upo.es cyberbully roles (see Kowalski et al., 2014), few studies have

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.017
0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
examined adolescents who are both victims and perpetrators in the
virtual environment (see Chang et al., 2013; CuadradoeGordillo &
Ferna
ndezeAntelo, 2014; Kokkinos, Antoniadou, & Markos, 2014).
In fact, some studies conclude that previous research has under-
estimated the proportion of perpetratorevictims in this area (Festl
et al., 2017; SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015).
In Spain, in spite of the rapid growth of the field of cyberbullying
and the increase in the number of articles published in the past
decade (e.g. Zych, OrtegaeRuiz, & MaríneLo
pez, 2016), research on
cyberbully/victims is still scarce. However, previous findings in this
cultural context have emphasized the relevance of cyberbul-
lyevictims. For instance, studies have shown that approximately
15e18% of Spanish adolescents have been classified as cyberbul-
lyevictims (CuadradoeGordillo & Ferna
ndezeAntelo, 2014;
Ga
mezeGuadix, Gini, & Calvete, 2015). Moreover, Romera, Cano,
GarcíaeFerna
ndez, and OrtegaeRuiz (2016) pointed out that
cyberbullyevictims make up the most frequent group. Likewise, in
another Mediterranean country, Kokkinos et al. (2014) observed
that the cyberbullyevictim was the most common participant role
among Greek students. Furthermore, in Canada, Mishna et al.
(2012) found that 25% of adolescents are cyberbullyevictims, the
predominant role found in their study. In the Czech Republic,
Bayraktar, Machackova, Dedkova, Cerna, and Sevcíkova
(2015)
found that almost 20% of the students involved in cyberbullying
abuse their peers and are abused by them. Moreover, in Germany,
Festl et al. (2017), using an innovative approach to cyberbullying
(Latent Transition Analysis), found a heavily victimized group (with
mild perpetration) and a very small class of heavy perpe-
tratorevictims with intensive and stable problematic behavior.
In spite of the relevance of this role and its implications for
adolescents’ adjustment (Kokkinos et al., 2014), little is known
about the sociodemographic characteristics of adolescents who are
both cyberbullies and cybervictims. Therefore, the current study
further explores the relationships among demographic character-
istics of adolescents involved as cyberbullyevictims.
In addition, research related to the risk and protection factors
associated with cyberbullying has focused on individual and social
variables, whereas studies that explore the importance of family
relationships are scarce and based on findings from traditional
bullying literature. In this regard, empirical evidence has focused
mainly on cyberbullies and cybervictims. The present study ex-
plores the role of family climate and parentechild communication
in adolescent cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and
noneinvolved adolescents.
1.1. Demographic characteristics of roles involved in cyberbullying
Most of the research on the prevalence of cyberbullying has
focused on cyberbullies and cybervictims. Results have consistently
shown that boys are more involved as cyberbullies (Katzer,
Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009; OrtegaeBaro
n, Buelga, Cava, &
Torralba, 2017; SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015) and girls as
cybervictims (Aboujaoude et al., 2015; Navarro, Serna, Martínez, &
RuizeOliva, 2013; Zych et al., 2016). However, findings from the few
studies that have analyzed the prevalence of cyberbullyevictims
are contradictory. Whereas Mishna et al. (2012) reported a larger
number of girls involved as cyberbullyevictims,
CuadradoeGordillo and Ferna
ndezeAntelo (2014) found a higher
percentage of boys, and Bayraktar, Machackova, Dedkova, Cerna,
 
and Sev
(2015) found no differences between the sexes.
cíkova
With regard to age, various studies have observed a greater
number of cyberbullying victims among pre-adolescents
(elementary school) (Kokkinos, Antoniadou, Dalara, Koufogazou,
& Papatziki, 2013; Mishna et al., 2012; Tanrikulu & Campbell,
2015). By contrast, older students (high school) seem to more
165
frequently perform the roles of cyberbully (Buelga, Iranzo, Cava, &
Torralba, 2015; Zych et al., 2016) and cyberbullyevictim (Festl et al.,
2017; Mishna et al., 2012). In their metaeanalysis on the interaction
between age and sex, Barlett and Coyne (2014) found significant
differences in cyberbullying. Girls use cyberbullying at younger
ages to inflict relational or indirect aggression, whereas boys in-
crease these behaviors during mideadolescence and late adoles-
cence. Along these lines, Festl et al. (2017) confirmed that girls were
commonly in the gossip group, whereas boys were more frequently
the (more direct) insulting perpetratorevictims.
1.2. Family risk and protection factors linked to the different roles
The classic digital gap between digital natives and immigrants
has been considerably reduced in recent years, but it still exists
between parents and their adolescent children (Kokkinos,
Antoniadou, Asdre, & Voulgaridou, 2016; Prote
geles, 2014). In
Spain, many parents still do not have enough technological
competence, and they find it difficult to understand their children's
fascination with having fun and interacting almost continuously on
the Internet (Buelga, 2016). Spain is the European country with the
highest proportions of Internet access via smartphone (European
Commission, 2015), which fosters adolescents' constant connec-
tion to the Internet. In fact, 70% of Spanish adolescents have a
smartphone at the age of 12 (Prote
geles, 2014), and 98% at the age
of 14 (Ditrendia Digital Marketing Trends, 2016). The almost
generalized availability of these devices in such a young population
reveals the importance of research designed to study the family
factors linked to the misuse of ICTs.
Nevertheless, the limited findings on family variables in cyber-
bullying contrast with the abundant literature available on tradi-
tional bullying (see Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Numerous
studies on traditional bullying have consistently shown the exis-
tence of family protection and risk factors associated with the roles
of bully and victim, such as family communication problems
(Griffin & Gross, 2004; MartínezeFerrer, Musitu, Murgui, &
Amador, 2009; Sa
nchez, Leo
n, MartínezeFerrer, & Moreno, 2015)
and maladaptive parenting (Georgiou, Ioannou, & Stavrinides,
2016; Hong & Espelage, 2012; Pontzer, 2010). Moreover, the
perception of a negative family climate, where there are commu-
nication problems, frequent conflicts, and low levels of involvement
(Cava, Musitu, & Murgui, 2007; Lereya et al., 2013;
MartínezeFerrer, Moreno, Amador, & Orford, 2011), has been

vez,
related to victims of bullying and the role of bullyevictim (Este
Jime
nez, & Moreno, 2010; Hoetger, Hazen, & Brank, 2015).
Family factors also seem to be strongly related to cyberbullying
(Buelga, MartínezeFerrer, & Musitu, 2016; Kokkinos et al., 2016;
Navarro, Yubero, & Larran ~ aga, 2016). As Kokkinos et al. (2016)
suggested, family factors appear to be linked to cyberbullying/
victimization because, contrary to traditional bullying, the prob-
lems occur outside the school context and, therefore, can have a
weak connection to schoolerelated variables (i.e. involvement in
schoolwork, teacher support). Until now, the existing research on
cyberbullying has mainly addressed cyberbullies (see Baldry,
Farrington, & Sorrentino, 2015; Hemphill & Heerde, 2014), and
more recently, cybervictims (see Larran ~ aga, Yubero, Ovejero, &
Navarro, 2016; OrtegaeBaro
n, Buelga, & Cava, 2016; Van Dijk
et al., 2013) and cyberbullyevictims (Bayraktar et al., 2015;
Kokkinos et al., 2016; Romera et al., 2016).
Recent literature shows that family relationships characterized
by a positive family climate and open and empathic parentechild
communication act as protector factors against cybervictimization
and cyberperpetration (Buelga et al., 2016; Cross et al., 2015; Fanti,
Demetriou, & Hawa, 2012; Navarro, RuizeOliva, et al., 2015;
OrtegaeBaro
n et al., 2016). By contrast, cyberbullies present
166 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
dysfunctional family relationships characterized by poor emotional
attachment to their parents (Hemphill & Heerde, 2014; Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004), a negative perception of parental support (Fanti
et al., 2012), frequent family conflicts (Tanrikulu & Campbell,
2015), and negative communication patterns with their parents
(Elgar et al., 2014). Furthermore, as MartínezeHerves, Kramer, and
Hickey (2014) suggested, there is a significant positive correlation
between worse family functioning and time spent online and being
involved in cyberbullying, even after controlling for time spent
online.
Likewise, family relationships of cybervictims, although less
deteriorated than those of cyberbullies, have been found to be
negative, with avoidant and conflictive communication patterns
with their parents (Buelga et al., 2016; Larran~ aga et al., 2016; Van
Dijk et al., 2013). In this regard, Accordino and Accordino (2011)
reported that family cohesion was negatively associated with
cybervictimization. In fact, less family cohesion increases the
probability of being the target of electronic bullying (Buelga et al.,
2016; MakrieBotsari & Karagianni, 2014), and this experience of
cybervictimization is prolonged in time (Ga
mezeGuadix et al.,
2015; Van Dijk et al., 2013), due to the lack of social and family
resources of these adolescents. In addition, positive paren-
teadolescent communication is associated with parents’ engage-
ment in dialogue with adolescents about online risks, which is
linked to low involvement in cyberbullying/cybervictimization
(Mesch, 2009; Perren et al., 2012).
In the case of family relationships of cyberbullyevictims, the
empirical evidence available is still scarce. Previous studies on
traditional bullying have shown that bullyevictims, compared to
other roles, present not only psychological symptoms (Kokkinos
et al., 2014), but also behavioral and family adjustment problems
(Keelan, Schenk, McNally, & Fremouw, 2014; Lereya et al., 2013;
Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Specifically, findings show that
bullyevictims come from harsher family environments with more
adverse family backgrounds (Lereya et al., 2013). These results
coincide with those found recently by Bayraktar et al. (2015) in one
of the few existing studies on the family relationships of cyber-
bullyevictims. These authors found that cyberbullyevictims,
compared to cyberbullies, cybervictims, and noneinvolved ado-
lescents, have more psychosocial difficulties and worse parental
attachment. Moreover, a study carried out by Kokkinos et al. (2016)
showed that preeadolescents who perceive less harmonious
parenting (authoritarian and submissive parenting styles) are more
frequently involved as cyberbullies, cybervictims, and
cyberbullyevictims.
1.3. The present study
In the extant literature, few scientific studies have addressed the
family factors related to the main cyberbullying roles (bullies, vic-
tims) and included the profile of cyberbullyevictims. Thus, the
present study examined adolescents’ roles in cyberbullying. Taking
into account previous studies on bullying and cyberbullying (e.g.
SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), the following roles were ex-
pected to emerge: cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims,
and noneinvolved. From this perspective, the first objective of this
study was to identify and analyze the prevalence of the main roles
involved in cyberbullying (cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbul-
lyevictims, and noneinvolved adolescents), taking sex and aca-
demic grade (age) into account in the analysis.
Furthermore, previous findings pointed out that family variables
should be taken into account when examining adolescents’
involvement in both bullying and cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2016;
Festl et al., 2017; Kokkinos et al., 2016). However, little is known
about the role of family climate and parenteadolescent
communication in the different roles involved in cyberbullying
(cybervictims, cyberbullies, cyberbullyevictims, and non-
einvolved). In the present study, we analyzed differences in the
family climate (cohesion and conflict) and communication patterns
with the mother and father (open, avoidant, and offensive), con-
trolling the variables sex and academic grade. Based on previous
studies indicating that negative family relations are related to
involvement in bullying or cyberbullying as a perpetrator
(SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), we expected that cyberbullies
and cyberbullyevictims, compared to cybervictims and non-
einvolved adolescents, would obtain lower scores on family
climate and present more problematic communication patterns
with their parents. Finally, we analyzed the predictive weight of
these family variables in the roles involved in cyberbullying. Along
these lines, we hypothesized that family climate and negative
communication would have greater weight in predicting the role of
cyberbullyevictim. This study may contribute to specifically
advancing the knowledge about the family setting in the main roles
involved in cyberbullying and, more specifically, the profile of
cyberbullyevictims. In addition, this study will provide information
at the national level in Spain because there have been few studies
on cyberbullyevictims and, specifically, family factors related to
this role.
Therefore, based on the literature review, we propose the
following research hypotheses:
H1. Cyberbullyevictims, compared to cyberbullies, cybervictims,
and noneinvolved adolescents, will obtain lower scores on family
climate and present more problematic communication patterns
with their parents.
H2. Family climate and negative communication will have greater
weight in predicting the role of cyberbullyevictims.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were selected using randomized cluster sampling.
The unit (cluster) was the school epublic and semi public Sec-
ondary Schoolse in the Valencian region (Spain). The sample was
also stratified by academic grade. Thus, based on these criteria, four
schools (three public and one publiclyesubsidized private school)
were randomly selected in each of the 17 counties in the province of
Valencia, representing 68 schools in all. The sample size dwith a
sampling error of ±3.4%, a confidence level of 95%, and p ¼ q ¼ 0.5,
(N ¼ 190,773)d was estimated at 1061 students.
A total of 1068 adolescents participated in this study, six of
whom were excluded for responding systematically in the same
way to the scales. Finally, the sample was composed of 1062
adolescents (51.4% boys and 48.5% girls) between 12 and 18 years
old (M ¼ 14.5; SD ¼ 1.62) who were students at four public
secondary schools in the provinces of Valencia and Alicante. Of
these adolescents, 44.8% were enrolled in the first cycle of
Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE), (lower secondary), 39.5%
were enrolled in the second cycle of CSE (upper secondary), and
15.7% were enrolled in Preeuniversity studies. Ethnicity distri-
bution was 86.3% Spanish, 1% African, 10% Latin American, 2.4%
European Union members, and 0.4% Asian, which was similar to
the national average (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport of
the Spanish Government, 2014). The size of the sample of ado-
lescents corresponded to the size of the group of students in
Compulsory and Upper Secondary Education in the Valencian
Community.
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Cybervictimization
The Adolescent Victimization through Mobile Phone and
Internet Scale (CYBVIC; Buelga, Cava, & Musitu, 2010) consists of 18
items rated on a 4epoint Likertetype scale ranging from 1 (never)
to 4 (always). The scale measures the adolescent's experience as a
victim of cyberbullying through the mobile phone and the Internet
in the past 12 months. The scale consists of two subscales: Mobile
Phone Victimization (e.g. “Someone called me and hung up”); and
Internet victimization (e.g. “Someone went into my private ac-
counts, and I couldn't do anything about it”). The CFA using the
maximum likelihood estimation method confirmed the fit of the
proposed measurement model, SBc2 ¼ 238.90, df ¼ 124, p < 0.001,
CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.91, RMSEA ¼ 0.03, 90% CI [0.024, 0.035], and the
internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.89).
2.2.2. Cyberbullying
The Cyberbullying Scale (CYBeAGRESS; Buelga & Pons, 2012)
consists of 10 items rated on a 5epoint Likertetype scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The items evaluate one's involve-
ment as the perpetrator in aggressive behaviors via the Internet
(e.g. “I have entered someone else's Messenger or private accounts
without him/her being able to do anything about it”) and Mobile
Phone (e.g. “I have insulted or ridiculed someone”) in the past 12
months. The CFA using the maximum likelihood estimation
method confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement model,
SBc2 ¼ 41.50, df ¼ 32, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, NNFI ¼ 0.98,
RMSEA ¼ 0.02, 90% CI [0.000, 0.030], and the internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.80).
2.2.3. Family climate
The Family Environment Scale (FES; Spanish adaptation by
Ferna
ndezeBallesteros & Sierra, 1989) is composed of 90 trueefalse
items measuring social and environmental characteristics of fam-
ilies. In the present study, the Relationship subscale was selected. It
consists of 27 items that measure the adolescent's perception of the
quality of his/her family relationships by assessing three domains:
Cohesion (e.g. “There is a strong feeling of togetherness in our
family”); Expressiveness (e.g. “Family members often keep their
feelings to themselves”); and Conflict (e.g., “We fight a lot in our
family”). The CFA using the maximum likelihood estimation
method confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement model,
SBc2 ¼ 559.67, df ¼ 32, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.92,
RMSEA ¼ 0.05, 90% CI [0.045, 0.054], and the internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha ¼ 0.84, 0.71, and 0.86 for cohesion, expressive-
ness, and conflict respectively).
2.2.4. Family communication
The ParenteAdolescent Communication Scale (PACS; Barnes &
Olson, 1982; Spanish adaptation by Este
vez, Musitu, & Herrero,
2005) is composed of 20 items rated on a 5epoint Likertetype
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The items measure the
adolescent's perception of the communication with his/her father
and mother separately. This scale has three subscales for the father
and three for the mother: Openness in Father/Mother Communi-
cation (e.g., “I can discuss my beliefs with my mother/father
without feeling restrained or embarrassed); Offensive Communi-
cation with Father/Mother (e.g. “S/he insults me when s/he is angry
with me”); and Avoidant Communication with Father/Mother (e.g.
“There are topics I avoid discussing with him/her”. The second or-
der CFA using the maximum likelihood estimation method
confirmed the fit of the proposed measurement model,
SBc2 ¼ 545.30, df ¼ 156, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.94, NNFI ¼ 0.92,
RMSEA ¼ 0.04, 90% CI [0.000, 0.030]. The Cronbach's alpha
167
reliability coefficients in this study were: 0.91 and 0.90 for open-
ness communication with the mother and father, respectively; 0.72
and 0.74 for Offensive communication with the father and mother,
respectively; and 0.66 and 0.67 for avoidance communication with
the father and mother, respectively.
2.3. Procedure
After initial contact with the principals of the selected schools,
an informative seminar was held for the teachers and administra-
tion to explain the research objectives and request the parent au-
thorizations. Next, a letter describing the study was sent to the
parents, instructing them to indicate in writing if they did not want
their child to participate in the study (only 1% of the parents did so).
Participants anonymously and voluntarily filled out the scales
during a regular class period (55 min). Trained researchers
administered the instruments to the adolescents during the school
day, informing them at all times that their participation in the study
was voluntary and anonymous. Regarding family communication,
adolescents were asked to respond with the person they perceived
as their mother or father during the past year in mind. If one parent
was deceased, we did not consider the information. Students could
refuse to answer if they found it difficult to do so. Their privacy was
guaranteed, reducing any possible social desirability effects. This
study was approved by The Ethics Committee of the University of
Valencia (Protocol Number: H1456762885511).
2.4. Statistical analyses
In order to examine the construct validity of the scale, Confir-
matory Factorial Analysis (CFA) using EQS (6.1) (Bentler, 1995) was
performed. We used the Maximum Likelihood estimation method
and the SatorraeBentler scaled chiesquare test for nonenormal
data (Yuan & Bentler, 2000). Moreover, we calculated the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the TuckereLewis Index (TLI),
where acceptable or good fit is indicated by values above 0.90 or
0.95, respectively. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) values of 0.05 or less indicate good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1998). Cronbach's alpha was also calculated. Factor load-
ings were assessed for statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level.
Next, statistical analyses were performed using the statistical
package SPSS, version 23, and missing values were handled using
the regression imputation method (Allison, 2001). First, descriptive
analyses were carried out to examine the frequency of cyberbul-
lying and cybervictimization behaviors. Family communication and
family climate were fairly normally distributed; however, both the
cyberbullying and cybervictimization scales were positively
skewed (2.30 for cyberbullying and 1.88 for cybervictimization
scales). This means that most adolescents did not exhibit high
levels of the variables related to cyberbullying involvement, which
is very common when analyzing maladjustment outcomes and, in
particular, cyberbullying (e.g. Vazsonyi, Machackova, Sevcikova,
Smahel, & Cerna, 2012). Next, Pearson correlation analysis was
conducted to analyze the relationships among the study variables.
Then, a cluster analysis was performed with the variables
“cybervictims” and “cyberbullies” to identify the emerging groups
according to the adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. On the
one hand, previous studies have found four groups, coinciding with
the roles found in traditional bullying ecyberbullies, cybervictims,
cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolvede (e.g., Olweus, 2013). On
the other hand, different profiles have been found when examining
cyberbullying latent trajectories (e.g. Festl et al., 2017). Conse-
quently, we conducted a cluster analysis to explore the groups that
would emerge as a natural cluster. Before performing the cluster
analysis, all the measures were standardized. In order to avoid
168 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

clusters with few adolescents, we assigned adolescents scoring
below 2.5 standard deviations on these measures a value of 2.5,
and adolescents scoring over 2.5 standard deviations a value of 2.5.
Next, hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using Ward's
method, with squared Euclidean distances as the similarity mea-
sure. To determine the optimal number of clusters, we examined
the percentage change in the agglomeration coefficients, and we
analyzed the dendrogram. Second, a kemean cluster analysis was
carried out to classify adolescents into four groups (cyberbullies,
cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved). Due to the
nature of cyberbullying, repetition may be hard to assess. As sug-
gested in previous studies (see Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross,
2010), no established cuteoffs for being a cyberbully or cybervic-
tim were calculated.
Next, several ANCOVAs were conducted to examine the differ-
ences among the cluster groups on the selected family setting
variables, such as openness in communication with Father/Mother,
communication problems with Father/Mother, cohesion, expres-
siveness, and conflict, using gender and academic grade level as
covariates. Postehoc tests were applied using the Bonferroni pro-
cedure to determine which variables showed differences between
the groups. Etaesquared was used as an effectesize measure
accompanying the ANCOVA analysis.
Finally, a multinomial regression analysis was carried out to
determine the impact of family variables, gender, and academic
grade on the cluster groups. Odds ratios with a 95% confidence
interval were computed through regression analysis to establish
which variables were more associated with cyberbullies, cyber-
victims, and cyberbullyevictims.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analyses
3.1.1. Frequency of cyberbullying and cybervictimization behaviors
In the case of Cyberbullying, results showed that insulting or
ridiculing someone was the most frequent Cyberbullying behavior
(M ¼ 1.54, SD ¼ 0.74), whereas forcing someone to do things he/she
did not want to do by using threats was the least frequent Cyber-
bullying behavior (M ¼ 1.11, SD ¼ 0.39). As for Cybervictimization,
results indicated that receiving missed calls through mobile devices
(M ¼ 1.54, SD ¼ 0.74) was the most frequently reported Cybervic-
timization, whereas the least frequent behavior was “being forced
to do things I did not want to do by using threats” (M ¼ 1.07,
SD ¼ 0.28). Even when the most frequently reported behaviors
occurred almost never and a few times (one or twice), we included
all the students in further analyses because any cyberaggression is
potentially as harmful as repeated aggressive acts of violence
(Modecki, Barber, & Vernon, 2013; Runions, Bak, & Cross, 2016).
3.1.2. Correlations among cyberbullying, cybervictimization, family
climate, and parentechild communication
Before performing the cluster analysis, we first computed a
zeroeorder correlation among all the variables. As Table 1 shows,
cyberbullying and cybervictimization were significantly and posi-
tively related to family conflict, offensive communication with fa-
ther and mother, and avoidant communication with mother and
father. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization were negatively
associated with cohesion, expressiveness, and open communica-
tion with the father and mother. Finally, family conflict was also
positively correlated with cyberbullying, but not with
cybervictimization.
3.2. Cluster analysis
We performed a cluster analysis in two phases. First, we con-
ducted a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method with
squared Euclidean Distance to determine the initial number of
clusters. The solution and the hierarchical cluster dendograms
indicated a fourecluster solution supported by theoretical bullying
and cyberbullying groups. Second, a kemeans cluster analysis was
carried out to classify the participants into four groups. Based on
the adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying and cybervictim-
ization, four clusters emerged: noneinvolved (N ¼ 465; 43.78%),
cyberbullies (N ¼ 300; 28.24%), cybervictims (N ¼ 99; 9.32%), and
cyberbullyevictims (N ¼ 198; 18.64%). These groups coincided with
previous studies in Spanish contexts (see CuadradoeGordillo &
Fern
andezeAntelo, 2014; G
amezeGuadix et al., 2015).
Next, we examined whether the groups were similar in terms of
demographic variables. As Table 2 shows, the groups were equiv-
alent in terms of academic grade and type of family. Regarding
gender, significant differences were found between clusters. Boys
were overrepresented in the cluster groups of noneinvolved ado-
lescents and cyberbullies, whereas girls were overrepresented in
the cyberbullyevictim group. Finally, the percentages of boys and
girls were similar in the cybervictim group.
3.3. Differences in family relationships according to adolescents’
involvement in cyberbullying
Several Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA) were carried out to
test the differences among the cluster groups of noneinvolved
adolescents, cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims in
their family relationships efamily climate and parenteadolescent

Table 1
Pearson correlations among the variables in the study, mean and standard deviations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Cyberbullying 1
2. Cybervictimization 0.27** 1
3. Cohesion 0.16** 0.14** 1
4. Expresiveness 0.08** 0.09** 0.41** 1
5. Conflict 0.21** 0.05 0.49** 0.14** 1
6. OpenC Mother 0.17** 0.23* 0.37** 0.36** 0.22** 1
7. OffC Mother 0.15** 0.11** 0.25** 0.13** 0.24** 0.21** 1
8. AvoidC Mother 0.13** 0.11** 0.14** 0.19** 0.07* 0.04 0.34** 1
9. OpenC Father 0.15** 0.15* 0.40** 0.37** 0.28** 0.56** 0.22** 0.10 1
10. OffC Father 0.15** 0.13** 0.28** 0.11** 0.29** 0.18** 0.62** 0.25** 0.35** 1
11. AvoidC Father 0.12** 0.16** 0.14** 0.14** 0.07* 0.00 0.21** 0.65** 0.11** 0.25** 1

M (SD) 1.05 (1.16) 0.60 (0.98) 1.78 (0.21) 1.58 (0.20) 1.32 (0.18) 3.75 (0.93) 1.82 (0.85) 2.90 (0.72) 3.47 (0.89) 1.80 (0.77) 2.98 (0.72)

Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; OpenC: Open Communication; OffC: Offensive Communication; AvoidC: Avoidant Communication.
*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173 169

Table 2
Sociodemographic variables.

Variables Total Sample Cluster groups c2

Non-involved Cyber bullies Cyber victims Cyber bully-victims
(N ¼ 465) (N ¼ 300) (N ¼ 99) (N ¼ 198)

Gender c2 (3) ¼ 12.11*

Boys 547 (52%) 248 (53%) 170 (57%) 46 (47%) 83 (42%)
Girls 515 (48%) 217 (47%) 130 (43%) 53 (54%) 115 (58%)
Academic Grade c2 (7) ¼ 9.01ns
First cycle CSE 475 (45%) 215 (46%) 120 (40%) 55 (56%) 85 (43%)
Second cycle CSE 420 (39%) 182 (39%) 130 (43%) 31 (31%) 77 (39%)
Pre-university 167 (16%) 68 (15%) 50 (17%) 13 (13%) 36 (18%)
Parent status c2 (6) ¼ 6.28ns
Living with both parents 814 (77%) 365 (79%) 227 (76%) 72 (73%) 150 (76%)
Living with one parent 248 (23%) 100 (22%) 73 (24%) 27 (27%) 48 (24%)

Note: ns: non significant; CSE: Compulsory Secondary Education.

*
p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

communicatione using gender and academic grade as covariates.
As Table 3 shows, there were significant differences among the
cluster groups for all the family variables. Cyberbullyevictims
scored significantly higher on family conflict than cybervictims and
noneinvolved students. Cyberbullyevictims also had significantly
higher scores than the other groups on offensive communication
with the mother and father, higher scores than the noneinvolved
group on avoidant communication with the mother and father, and
higher scores than cyberbullies on avoidant communication with
the father. On the other hand, cyberbullyevictims scored the lowest
on family cohesion and expressiveness. The noneinvolved group
reported the highest levels of open communication with the
mother and father.
3.4. Family predictors of involvement in cyberbullying
Multinomial regression was performed to determine the effects
of gender, academic grade, family climate (cohesion, expressive-
ness, and conflict), and family communication (openness and
offensiveness with mother and father) on the involvement roles in
cyberbullying (noneinvolved, cyberbullies, cybervictims, and
cyberbullyevictims). The interaction between gender and aca-
demic grade was also examined. The noneinvolved group served as
the reference group. Results showed that the regression model was
statistically significant, c2(42) ¼ 175.79, p < 0.001, e2LL ¼ 2485.69,
Nagelkerke R2 ¼ 0.17. As Table 4 reveals, adolescents in families
with higher levels of conflict were 8.42 times more likely to become
cyberbullies than the noneinvolved group. Furthermore, boys were
more likely to be cyberbullies (Exp(B) ¼ 2.37), compared to the
noneinvolved group. However, in lower secondary, boys are less
likely to be cyberbullies than girls. Adolescents who reported high
levels of avoidant communication with the father and lower levels
of open communication with the mother were more likely to be
cybervictims (Exp(B) ¼ 1.64 for open communication with the fa-
ther and 0.61 for open communication with the mother) and
cyberbullyevictims (Exp(B) ¼ 1.77 for open communication with
the father and 0.41 for open communication with the mother).
Cyberbullyevictims were also more likely to report higher levels of
family conflict (Exp(B) ¼ 2.67) than noneinvolved students.
4. Discussion
There is very little literature about the family factors linked to
the different roles involved in cyberbullying and, specifically, the
profile of cyberbullyevictim. Therefore, the main purpose of this
study was to advance the knowledge in this research area by
studying the relationships between some important family vari-
ables and the roles of cyberbully, cybervictim, cyberbullyevictim,
and noneinvolved.
The first aim of our study was to analyze the prevalence of
cyberbullies, cybervictims, cyberbullyevictims, and noneinvolved
adolescents in a Spanish sample by examining gender and age. Our
data revealed that more than half of the adolescents in the study
are involved in cyberbullying, and 28.4% of the involved adoles-
cents are cyberbullies, followed by cyberbullyevictims (18.64%)
and cybervictims (9.3%). The high prevalence of cyberbullies found
in our study agrees with results obtained by Calvete et al. (2010),
who found that 44 percent of Spanish adolescents had engaged in

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and differences on family climate and parent-child communication among non-involved, cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbully-victims.

Variables Cluster groups F(3, 1062) h2 Post hoc comparison

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Non-involved Cyber bully Cyber victim Cyber bully-victim

Cohesion 1.81 (0.19) 1.78 (0.02) 1.79 (0.20) 1.71 (0.23) 10.61*** 0.03 1>2>4
3>4
Expressiveness 1.60 (0.01) 1.58 (0.01) 1.59 (0.02) 1.53 (0.01) 5.00** 0.01 1, 2, 3 > 4
Conflict 1.28 (0.01) 1.35 (0.01) 1.29 (0.02) 1.36 (0.01) 13.76*** 0.04 2, 4 > 1, 3
OpenC Mother 3.96 (0.04) 3.76 (0.05) 3.58 (0.09) 3.31 (0.06) 24.86*** 0.07 1>2>4
1>3
OffC Mother 1.72 (0.04) 1.86 (0.05) 1.77 (0.09) 2.06 (0.06) 7.85*** 0.02 4 > 1, 2, 3
AvoidC Mother 2.81 (0.75) 2.93 (0.71) 2.87 (0.69) 3.10 (0.64) 7.48*** 02 4>1
OpenC Father 3.64 (0.04) 3.41 (0.05) 3.39 (0.09) 3.22 (0.06) 12.03*** 03 1 > 2, 3, 4
OffC Father 1.69 (0.04) 1.83 (0.04) 1.79 (0.08) 2.05 (0.05) 10.24*** 0.03 4 > 1, 2, 3
AvoidC Father 2.87 (0.77) 2.98 (0.71) 3.04 (0.69) 3.22 (0.64) 7.48*** 0.02 4,3 > 1, 2

Note: OpenC: Open Communication; OffC: Offensive Communication; AvoidC: Avoidant Communication.
a ¼ 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
170 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173

Table 4 less frequent (Este
vez et al., 2010; Navarro, Larran~ aga, & Yubero,
Multinomial logistic regression model predicting gender, academic degree, family 2015; Olweus, 2001).
climate, and parent-adolescent communication among cyberbullies, cybervictims,
and cyberbully-victims.
These social and technological circumstances can explain the
high percentage of cyberbullyevictims and cyberbullies found in
Groupa Effect b SE Wald Exp(B) the present study, coinciding with previous studies
Cyberbullies Intercept 4.58 1.38 11.02 **
(CuadradoeGordillo & Ferna
ndezeAntelo, 2014; Ga
mezeGuadix
Genderb 0.86 0.40 4.76* 2.37 et al., 2015). In fact, Romera et al. (2016) observed that the
ADc1 0.46 0.35 1.79 1.59
cyberbullyevictim was the prevalent role in the involvement in
AD2 0.28 0.35 0.66 1.33
Gender x AD1 1.21 0.46 6.88** 0.30 cybernetic violence. Moreover, authors such as Festl et al. (2017)
Gender x AD2 0.50 0.46 1.15 0.61 and SchultzeeKrumbholz et al. (2015) concluded that the pro-
Cohesion 0.55 0.48 1.31 1.73 portion of perpetratorevictims has been underestimated in prior
Expresiveness 0.21 0.44 0.22 1.23
research.
Conflict 2.13 0.50 18.50*** 8.43
OpenC Mother 0.15 0.11 1.79 0.86
Furthermore, regarding the relationship of gender and the roles,
OpenC Father 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.99 the results showed a larger percentage of boys in the group of
AvoidC Mother 0.08 0.15 0.27 1.08 cyberbullies and more girls among the cybervictims and cyber-
AvoidC Father 0.13 0.15 0.79 1.14 bullyevictims. These gender differences agree with results ob-
Cybervictims Intercept 1.08 2.00 0.29
tained in previous studies showing that boys participate more as
Genderb 0.30 0.62 0.23 1.34
ADc1 0.58 0.50 1.32 1.78 cyberbullies (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Fanti et al., 2012; Garaigordobil,
AD2 0.12 0.52 0.05 1.13 2016; SchultzeeKrumbholz et al., 2015), and girls as cybervictims
Gender x AD1 0.79 0.69 1.31 1.13 (Larran ~ aga et al., 2016; Mishna et al., 2012; Zych et al., 2016).
Gender x AD2 0.66 0.73 0.82 0.45 Regarding the role of cyberbullyevictims, our results coincide with
Cohesion 0.01 0.71 0.00 1.01
Expresiveness 0.67 0.65 1.05 1.95
those found by Hinduja and Patchin (2012) and
Conflict 0.32 0.74 0.19 0.52 SchultzeeKrumbholz et al. (2015), who find a higher prevalence in
OpenC Mother 0.49 0.15 10.76** 0.61 girls. However, other authors have observed no differences be-
OpenC Father 0.10 0.17 0.34 0.91 tween the sexes (Bayraktar et al., 2015), or they have even shown a
AvoidC Mother 0.18 0.21 0.70 0.84
greater participation of girls in this dual role (CuadradoeGordillo &
AvoidC Father 0.49 0.22 5.15* 1.64
Cyberbully-victims Intercept 1.50 1.52 0.97 Fern
andezeAntelo, 2014). Consequently, this interesting question
Genderb 0.35 0.45 0.61 0.70 requires more scientific studies to shed light on the inconsistent
ADc1 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.94 results found in the research on this dual role.
AD2 0.30 0.36 0.71 0.74 Regarding the main objective of our study, the results show that
Gender x AD1 0.40 0.53 0.58 6.67
Gender x AD2 0.17 0.54 0.11 1.19
the family context plays an important role in cyberbullying
Cohesion 0.29 0.52 0.31 0.75 behavior and, particularly, in cyberbullyevictims. Our data reveal
Expresiveness 0.14 0.51 0.08 1.15 that this latter group perceives a negative family climate and has
Conflict 0.99 0.57 3.01* 2.68 poor parentechild communication. Specifically, this profile per-
OpenC Mother 0.70 0.12 33.87*** 0.50
ceives less cohesion and family expressiveness in their family
OpenC Father 0.03 0.14 0.03 1.03
AvoidC Mother 0.10 0.17 0.35 1.11 climate than the other roles. In addition, in their communication
AvoidC Father 0.57 0.18 10.31** 1.77 patterns, cyberbullyevictims present communication difficulties
*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
with the mother, as they perceive the communication to be
Note: offensive, closed, and not very empathic, and with the father, as
a
Non-involved was used as the normative group. they perceive the communication to be offensive and that talking
b
Gender (1): Males. about certain controversial topics is avoided. These data support
c
AD: Academic Degree; 1: First cycle; 2: Second cycle.
our first hypothesis and agree with previous studies reporting that
cyberbullyevictims present the most conflictive profile, with the
some type of cyberbullying. One possible explanation for this high greatest number of family problems and the worst parental ties
incidence of cyberbullies in Spain is the almost generalized use of (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Kokkinos et al., 2016). These findings also
smartphones in the young population; 98% of 14eyeareold Spanish agree with traditional bullying, where the bullyevictims, compared
adolescents have a smartphone (Ditrendia Digital Marketing to the other roles, show the worst psychological and family
Trends, 2016). This situation is combined with the fact that the adjustment (Duggins, Kuperminc, Henrich, SmallseGlover, &
virtual world has specific characteristics that seem to contribute to Perilla, 2016; Kokkinos et al., 2014; Lereya et al., 2013).
a greater expression of violent behaviors (Buelga et al., 2015; Moreover, as expected, apart from the cyberbullyevictims,
Kowalski et al., 2014; Zych et al., 2016). another role that presents family problems is that of cyberbullies,
Thus, disinhibition, deeindividuation, invisibility, and ano- who obtained high scores on family conflict. In previous studies,
nymity in Internet (Dehue, Bolmon, & Vollink, 2008; Kokkinos similar results were observed for the family environment of
et al., 2014; Schultze et al., 2015) may also explain the greater cyberbullies, suggesting the existence of a negative family climate
involvement of Spanish adolescents in cyberaggression behaviors, with frequent discussions (Fanti et al., 2012; Hemphill & Heerde,
both as cyberbullies and as cyberbullyevictims. Therefore, as 2014; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015) and offensive communication
with their parents (Buelga et al., 2016; Elgar et al., 2014; Larran~ aga
Kokkinos et al. (2014) suggests, it is possible that, due to the online
disinhibition effect, cybervictims may be empowered to engage in et al., 2016). However, cybervictims, compared to the two previous
retaliatory attacks online. The Internet allows adolescents to hide roles, present more welleadjusted and less problematic family
their identity, which can explain the fact that this dual role is much relationships. Thus, specifically, unlike cyberbullyevictims, cyber-
more common in the virtual environment than in traditional victims rate their family climate (cohesion, expressiveness, and
bullying (Aboujaoude et al., 2015; CuadradoeGordillo & conflict) more positively, and they present less offensive commu-
Ferna
ndezeAntelo, 2014; Ga
mezeGuadix et al., 2015; nication with their parents.
Garaigordobil & MartínezeValderrey, 2016), where this profile is Certainly, these family variables, family climate and family
communication, have considerable weight in all these roles. Along
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
these lines, the multinomial regression analysis performed in our
study provides interesting results about the predictive weight of
these family variables in the analyzed roles. Thus, the data suggest
that adolescents who perceive less open communication with their
mother and more avoidant communication with their father are
more likely to become victimized. These findings agree with those
obtained previously, and they are congruent with studies that have
consistently shown that positive, open, and fluid communication
with parents is associated with less cybervictimization (Appel,
Stiglbauer, Batinic, & Holtz, 2014; Buelga et al., 2016; Cross et al.,
2015; Fanti et al., 2012; Navarro, Larran ~ aga, et al., 2015;
OrtegaeBaro
n et al., 2016). Our results also coincide with the
study by Larran ~ aga et al. (2016), who show that cybervictims pre-
sent avoidant communication patterns with their parents. This
absence and avoidance of communication with parents contributes
to prolonging cybervictimization in time, due to a lack of social
support from adults in resolving the bullying situation
(MakrieBotsari & Karagianni, 2014; OrtegaeBaro
n et al., 2016; Van
Dijk et al., 2013).
In addition, also in consonance with our descriptive results, we
observe that family conflict and the sex variable (being a boy) are
predictors of the cyberbully profile. With regard to sex, our results
are coherent, as mentioned above, with numerous studies sug-
gesting that boys engage more in cyberaggressions than girls
(Buelga et al., 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014; OrtegaeBaro
n et al.,
2017). However, we have also shown the existence of an interac-
tion between sex and age, so that the probability of being a male
aggressor is lower at younger ages. This result is congruent with the
metaeanalysis by Barlett and Coyne (2014). The authors conclude
that the participation of male cyberbullies increases in mid and late
adolescence and is lower at younger ages.
Regarding family conflict, this family variable undoubtedly
predicts the role of cyberbully. This result agrees with previous
research showing that conflictive family relationships are a family
risk factor for cyberbullying (Buelga et al., 2016; Kowalski et al.,
2014; Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), and other violent and antiso-
cial behaviors (Barrett & McIntosh, 2015; Este
vez et al., 2010; Yang
& McLoyd, 2015).
Finally, and considering the family profile of cyberbul-
lyevictims, which has hardly been studied in the current research,
it is quite interesting that participants identified as cyberbul-
lyevictims share the significant difficulties in the family context of
both cyberbullies and cybervictims. Thus, our results reveal that the
profile with the most dysfunctional family relationships is that of
cyberbullyevictim. This finding, which coincides with previous
studies (Bayraktar et al., 2015; Kokkinos et al., 2016), supports our
second hypothesis that family climate and negative communication
will have greater weight in predicting the role of
cyberbullyevictims.
Furthermore, as expected, both family conflict, a variable that
was shown to be significant in cyberbullies, and the perception of
closed communication with the mother and avoidant communi-
cation with the father, relevant predictors of the cybervictim pro-
file, predict the role of cyberbullyevictim. Therefore, family conflict
(Duggins et al., 2016; Hemphills et al., 2012) and open and avoidant
family communication (Larran ~ aga et al., 2016; OrtegaeBaro
n et al.,
2016) seem to be key variables that should be studied more in
depth in future studies.
In spite of the obvious contributions of our study, which sheds
light on the family context of the profiles involved in cyberbul-
lying, it is important to mention some limitations. First, as the
study has a crossesectional design, a longitudinal study would be
needed to understand how the different cyberbullying roles can
change over time depending on the weight of the family variables.
Moreover, this longitudinal study could include other family
171
variables, such as online parental supervision, that have not been
utilized in the present study, but have been studied as risk factors
in cyberbullying (Navarro et al., 2013; Sasson & Mesch, 2014). In
addition, another limitation of the present study involves the
possible effects of social desirability and bias in the adolescents'
answers on the selfereports. Even so, the evaluation of violent
behaviors through selfereports in adolescents is acceptable
(Buelga & Pons, 2012; Navarro, Yubero, & Larra, 2016;
OrtegaeBaro
n et al., 2016). Moreover, due to the rapid and
massive expansion of the use of smartphones in Spain since the
year 2013 (European Commission, 2015), the cybervictimization
scale that measures bullying through the mobile phone, on the
one hand, and through the Internet, on the other, might repeat
information because Spanish adolescents access the Internet
through the smartphone. In fact, in response to these rapid
technological changes, the authors of the present study are vali-
dating a new cybervictimization instrument that measures
bullying behaviors through ICTs on one unique scale. It is also
important to consider that relationships between family factors
and cyberbullying involvement could also be reversed, so that the
child's participation in cyberbullying behaviors can negatively
affect the family climate and parentechild communication, rather
than family factors fostering the child's violent cybernetic
behavior. Therefore, future research could provide dyadic data
from the parents, given that only the child's perspective was
measured in the present study.
In summary, although our study presents some limitations, our
results undoubtedly contribute to advancing the current research
on the family factors linked to the different roles involved in the
growing behavior of cyberbullying. Although numerous studies
have examined the prevalence of cyberbullying and cybervictim-
ization, research on the family correlates of cyberbullying in per-
petrators and victims is scant. The present study contributes to the
extant literature by examining family climate and paren-
teadolescent communication, factors hypothesized to be related to
cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbullyevictims.
Specifically, this study contributes to better understanding
cyberbullyevictims, a numerous group with a particularly prob-
lematic family profile, as described above. The implications of these
results reveal the need to include the family in cyberbullying
intervention programs as a key variable in preventing and reducing
the growing problems of cybernetic violence among children and
adolescents. The family's responsibility in the healthy use of the
new space and communication technologies is absolutely neces-
sary in our country, given that almost 100% of Spanish adolescents
have latest generation smartphones at very early ages. Families
must take responsibility for their children's correct use of these
devices because, as this study shows, positive family communica-
tion and a family climate characterized by warm involvement are
key factors in preventing cyberbullying. Therefore, apart from
children and adolescents, it is also important to involve parents in
cyberbullying prevention programs in the school context. Parent
classes can be held to work on protective family factors for the
proper use of information and communication technologies by
their children, who are exposed to a growing number of dangers in
Internet.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human partici-
pants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti-
tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards.
172 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
Funding
This research was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness under the National Program of Research and
Innovation (IþDþI 2012): PSI2012e.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants
included in the study.
References
Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M. W., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. O. (2015). Cyberbullying:
Review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(1), 10e18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.011.
Accordino, D. B., & Accordino, M. P. (2011). An exploratory study of faceetoeface
and cyberbullying in sixth grade students. American Secondary Education, 40,
14e30. https://goo.gl/FxFDpD.
Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. New York: Sage Publications Inc. https://goo.gl/
KNQkZy.
Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C. M. (2015). Cyber and school bullying: Same or
different phenomena? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 363e372. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.013.
Appel, M., Stiglbauer, B., Batinic, B., & Holtz, P. (2014). Internet use and verbal
aggression: The moderating role of parents and peers. Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, 235e241. https://goo.gl/hmfzZj.
Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2015). “Am I at risk of cyberbully-
ing”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of
cyberbullying and cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 36e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.avb.2015.05.014.
Barlett, C., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). A metaeanalysis of sex differences in
cyberebullying behavior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5),
474e488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21555.
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parenteadolescent communication scale. In
H. D. Olson (Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of
families across the family life cycle (pp. 33e48). St. Paul: Family Social Science,
University of Minnesota.
Barrett, M., & McIntosh, M. (2015). The antiesocial family. Brooklyn (NY): Verso
Books. https://goo.gl/yuTnoj.
Bayraktar, F., Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Cerna, A., & Sev  cíkov
a, A. (2015).
Cyberbullying the discriminant factors among cyberbullies, Cybervictims, and
cyberbullyevictims in a Czech adolescent sample. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 30(18), 3192e3216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514555006.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multi-
variate Software.
Buelga, S. (2016). La escuela y las nuevas tecnologías. In E. Este
vez, & G. Musitu

n psicoeducativa en el a
(Eds.), Intervencio
mbito familiar, social y comunitario (pp.
122e151). Madrid: Ediciones Paraninfo.
Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Musitu, G. (2010). Cyberbullying: Victimizacio
n entre
adolescentes a trave
s del tele
fono mo
vil y de internet. Psicothema, 22(4),
784e789. https://goo.gl/J2Q397.
Buelga, S., Iranzo, B., Cava, M. J., & Torralba, E. (2015). Psychological profile of
adolescent cyberbullying aggressors. International Journal of Social Psychology,
30(2), 382e406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2015.1016754.
Buelga, S., MartínezeFerrer, B., & Musitu, G. (2016). Family relationships and
cyberbullying. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larran ~ aga (Eds.), Cyberbullying
across the globe: Gender, family and mental health (pp. 99e114). Basel, CH:
Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25552-
1.
Buelga, S., & Pons, J. (2012). Agresiones entre adolescentes a trave
s del tele

fono
mo
vil y de Internet. Psychosocial Intervention, 21, 91e101. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5093/in2012v21n1a2.

vez, A., Villardo
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Este
n, L., & Padilla, P. (2010). Cyberbullying in
adolescents: Modalities and aggressors' profile. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(5), 1128e1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017.
Cava, M. J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and social risk factors related
to victimization in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Psychological Reports, 101,
275e290. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pro.101.1.275.290.
Chang, F. C., Lee, C. M., Chiu, C. H., Hsi, W. Y., Huang, T. F., & Pan, Y. C. (2013). Re-
lationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in
Taiwanese adolescents. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454e462. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12050.
Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. (2015).
A socialeecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying
behaviors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 109e117. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.016.
CuadradoeGordillo, I., & Fern
andezeAntelo, I. (2014). Cyberspace as a generator of
changes in the aggressiveevictim role. Computers in Human Behavior, 36,
225e233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.070.
DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Vo € llink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences
and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217e223. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.
Ditrendia Digital Marketing Trends. (2016). Informe mobile en Espan ~ a y en el mundo
2015. https://goo.gl/AGi5JF.
Duggins, S. D., Kuperminc, G. P., Henrich, C. C., SmallseGlover, C., & Perilla, J. L.
(2016). Aggression among adolescent victims of school bullying: Protective
roles of family and school connectedness. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 205e212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039439.
Elgar, F. J., Napoletano, A., Saul, G., Dirks, M. A., Craig, W., Poteat, V. P., et al. (2014).
Cyberbullying victimization and mental health in adolescents and the moder-
ating role of family dinners. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(11), 1015e1022. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1223.

vez, E., Jime
Este
nez, T., & Moreno, D. (2010). Cuando las víctimas de violencia
escolar se convierten en agresores: “¿Quie
n va a defenderme?”. European
Journal of Education and Psychology, 3, 177e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1989/
ejep.v3i2.58.

vez, E., Musitu, G., & Herrero, J. (2005). El rol de la comunicacio
Este
n familiar y del
ajuste escolar en la salud mental del adolescente. Salud Mental, 28(4), 81e89.
https://goo.gl/1PGqXs.
European Commission. (2015). Cyber security (special eurobarometer 423). Brussels,
BE: European Commission. http://dx.doi.org/10.2837/411118.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyber-
bullying: Examining riskand protective factors. European Journal of Develop-
mental Psychology, 9(2), 168e181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17405629.2011.643169.
Fern
andezeBallesteros, R., & Sierra, B. (1989). Escalas de Clima Social FES, WES, CIES y
CES. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Festl, R., Vogelgesang, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2017). Longitudinal patterns of
involvement in cyberbullying: Results from a latent transition analysis. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 66, 7e15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.027.
Ga
mezeGuadix, M., Gini, G., & Calvete, E. (2015). Stability of cyberbullying
victimization among adolescents: Prevalence and association with bullyevictim
status and psychosocial adjustment. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 140e148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.007.
Garaigordobil, M. (2016). Conducta antisocial: Conexio
n con bullying/cyberbullying
y estrategias de resolucio
n de conflictos. Psychosocial Intervention. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.12.002.
Garaigordobil, M., & MartínezeValderrey, V. (2016). Impact of Cyberprogram 2.0 on
different types of school violence and aggressiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,
428. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00428.
Georgiou, S. N., Ioannou, M., & Stavrinides, P. (2016). Parenting styles and bullying at
school: The mediating role of locus of control. International Journal of School &
Educational Psychology, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1225237.
Giumetti, G. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (2016). Cyberbullying matters: Examining the
incremental impact of cyberbullying on outcomes over and above traditional
bullying in North America. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larran ~ aga (Eds.),
Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family and mental health (pp. 117e130).
Basel, CH: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-25552-1.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbul-
lying identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 217, 205e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205.
Griffin, R., & Gross, A. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and
future directions for research. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 9, 379e400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8.
Hemphill, S. A., & Heerde, J. A. (2014). Adolescent predictors of young adult
cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among Australian youth. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 55(4), 580e587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2014.04.014.
Hemphills, S., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T., Toumbourou, J., et al.
(2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in
Australian Secondary School students. Journal of Adolescence Health, 51, 59e65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Neither an epidemic nor a rarity.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 539e543. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17405629.2012.706448.
Hoetger, L. A., Hazen, K. P., & Brank, E. M. (2015). All in the family: A retrospective
study comparing sibling bullying and peer bullying. Journal of Family Violence,
30(1), 103e111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9651-0.
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer
victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 17(4), 311e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensi-
tivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3,
424e453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.
Juvoven, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?dBullying experi-
ences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496e505. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the
 S. Buelga et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017) 164e173
victims?: A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimiza-
tion in school. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
21(1), 25e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105.21.1.25.
Keelan, C. M., Schenk, A. M., McNally, M. R., & Fremouw, W. J. (2014). The inter-
personal worlds of bullies parents, peers, and partners. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 29(7), 1338e1353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506278.
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., Asdre, A., & Voulgaridou, K. (2016). Parenting and
internet behavior predictors of cyberebullying and cyberevictimization among
preadolescents. Deviant Behavior, 37(4), 439e455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01639625.2015.1060087.
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., Dalara, E., Koufogazou, A., & Papatziki, A. (2013).
Cyberebullying, personality and coping among preeadolescents. International
Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3, 55e69. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4018/ijcbpl.2013100104.
Kokkinos, C. M., Antoniadou, N., & Markos, A. (2014). Cyberebullying: An investi-
gation of the psychological profile of university student participants. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 204e214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.appdev.2014.04.001.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying
in the digital age: A critical review and metaeanalysis of cyberbullying research
among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073e1137. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0035618.
Larran~ aga, E., Yubero, S., Ovejero, A., & Navarro, R. (2016). Loneliness, parentechild
communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 65, 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015.
Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of
becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A metaeanalysis study. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 37(12), 1091e1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001.
MakrieBotsari, E., & Karagianni, G. (2014). Cyberbullying in Greek adolescents: The
role of parents. ProcediaeSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3241e3253. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.742.
MartínezeFerrer, B., Moreno, D., Amador, L., & Orford, J. (2011). School victimization
among adolescents. An analysis from an ecological perspective. Psychosocial
Intervention, 20(2), 149e160. http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/in2011v20n2a3.
MartínezeFerrer, B., Musitu, G., Murgui, S., & Amador, L. V. (2009). Conflicto marital,
comunicacio
n familiar y ajuste escolar en adolescentes. Revista Mexicana de
Psicología, 26, 27e40. https://goo.gl/okVBCK.
MartínezeHerves, M., Kramer, T., & Hickey, N. (2014). EPAe0731eHow parenting
style influences ICT use and cyberbullying in a sample of secondary students in
the UK. European Psychiatry, 29(S1), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-9338(14)
78083-6.
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387e393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
cpb.2009.0068.
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport of the Spanish Government. (2014). Sta-
tistics. https://goo.gl/6ijhB6.
Mishna, F., KhouryeKassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for
involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bullyevictims. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34(1), 63e70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2011.08.032.
Modecki, K. L., Barber, B. L., & Vernon, L. (2013). Mapping developmental precursors
of cybereaggression: Trajectories of risk predict perpetration and victimization.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 651e661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-012-9887-z.
Navarro, R., Yubero, S., & Larran ~ aga, E. (Eds.). (2016). Cyberbullying across the globe:
Gender, family and mental health. Switzerland: Springer International Publish-
ing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25552-1.
Navarro, R., Larran ~ aga, E., & Yubero, S. (2015). Gender identity, genderetyped per-
sonality traits and school bullying: Victims, bullies and bullyevictims. Child
Indicators Research, 1e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9300-z.
Navarro, R., RuizeOliva, R., Larran ~ aga, E., & Yubero, S. (2015). The impact of
cyberbullying and social bullying on optimism, global and schoolerelated
happiness and life satisfaction among 10e12eyeareold schoolchildren. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 10(1), 15e36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-013-
9292-0.
Navarro, R., Serna, C., Martínez, V., & RuizeOliva, R. (2013). The role of Internet use
and parental mediation on cyberbullying victimization among Spanish children
from rural public schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3),
725e745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0137-2.
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues.
In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the
vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3e20). New York: Guilford Press. https://goo.gl/
jjpFPJ.
173
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751e780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516.
OrtegaeBaro
n, J., Buelga, S., & Cava, M. J. (2016). The influence of school and family
environment on adolescent victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar, 46, 57e65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C46-2016-06.
OrtegaeBaro
n, J., Buelga, S., Cava, M. J., & Torralba, E. (2017). School violence and
attitude toward authority of student perpetrators of cyberbullying. Journal of
Psychodidactics, 22(1), 14e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.16398.
Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D. J., Mc Guckin, C., … Vo €llink, T.
(2012). Tackling cyberbullying: Review of empirical evidence regarding suc-
cessful responses by students, parents, and schools. International Journal of
Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 283e292. http://dx.doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.244.
Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace:
Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 28. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1753-2000-4-28.
Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting, personality,
and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25(3), 259e273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9289-5.

geles. (2014). Menores de edad y conectividad en Espan
Prote ~ a: Tablets y Smartphones.
https://goo.gl/K4cvH9.
Romera, E. M., Cano, J. J., GarcíaeFern
andez, C. M., & OrtegaeRuiz, R. (2016).
Cyberbullying: Social competence, motivation and peer relationships. Comu-
nicar, 24(48), 71e79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-07.
Runions, K. C., Bak, M., & Cross, D. (2016). Cyber aggression. In R. J. Levesque (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1e10). Basel, Switzerland: Springer Interna-
tional Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_780-1.
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among
school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30e44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.90004.
S

anchez, R., Leo
n, C., MartínezeFerrer, B., & Moreno, R. (2015). Adolescentes agre-
sores en la escuela. Un ana
lisis desde la perspectiva de ge
nero. Feminismos, 25,
111e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/fem.2015.25.07.
Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online
behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32e38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025.
SchultzeeKrumbholz, A., Go €bel, K., Scheithauer, H., Brighi, A., Guarini, A.,
Tsorbatzoudis, H., … Smith, P. (2015). A comparison of classification approaches
for cyberbullying and traditional bullying using data from six European coun-
tries. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 47e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15388220.2014.961067.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisen, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and stra-
tegies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26e32. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.
Tanrikulu, I., & Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyber-
bullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services
Review, 55, 138e146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.001.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyber bullying victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 277e287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Van Dijk, M. P., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., Hawk, S. T., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W. (2013).
Selfeconcept clarity across adolescence: Longitudinal associations with open
communication with parents and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 43(11), 1861e1876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0055-x.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., & Cerna, A. (2012).
Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect effects by low selfecontrol across
25 European countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2),
210e227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919.
Yang, G. S., & McLoyd, V. C. (2015). Do parenting and family characteristics moderate
the relation between peer victimization and antisocial behavior? A 5eyear
longitudinal study. Social Development, 24(4), 748e765. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/sode.12118.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and
targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308e1316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2004.00328.x.
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihoodebased methods for mean and
covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Meth-
odology, 30(1), 165e200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078.
Zych, I., OrtegaeRuiz, R., & MaríneLo
pez, I. (2016). Cyberbullying: A systematic
review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies.
Psicología Educativa, 22(1), 5e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002.