Journal of Youth and Adolescence

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0895-5

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Trajectories of Social and Emotional Competencies according to

Cyberbullying Roles: A Longitudinal Multilevel Analysis
1
Vítor Alexandre Coelho ●
Marta Marchante1

Received: 16 April 2018 / Accepted: 28 June 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Current cyberbullying literature lacks longitudinal studies clarifying its predictors and consequences. This 1-year
longitudinal study investigated how social and emotional competencies develop according to Portuguese middle school
students’ involvement in cyberbullying, and whether class size influences this relationship. There were 455 participants
(Mage = 12.58; SD = 0.94; 46% girls), and data collection through self-reports took place in three different moments during
12 months. The results showed that students involved in cyberbullying in any role displayed negative trajectories during 1
year in self-control and social awareness, while victims and bully-victims displayed a more pronounced decrease in self-
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

esteem and relationship skills during the same period. Additionally, girls displayed higher initial social awareness levels,
while larger classes were associated with higher levels of self-control and responsible decision making. These results
supported the importance of conducting longitudinal research and using a multilevel approach to address this topic.
Keywords Cyberbullying Social and emotional competencies Middle school Class-level variables
● ● ●

Introduction
Presently, there is a consensus among researchers that fur-
ther longitudinal studies are needed to fully understand the
relationship between predictors and/or consequences of
cyberbullying (Coelho and Sousa 2017; Nocentini et al.
2013; Savage and Tokunaga 2017). Among relevant vari-
ables, social and emotional competencies are often identi-
fied as either possible predictors of cyberbullying roles or
likely to be impacted by cyberbullying (Coelho and Sousa
2017; Nocentini et al. 2013). Cyberbullying is a growing
problem among school-aged children (Brown et al. 2017),
given that the way children and adolescents communicate
has been subjected to radical changes during the last decade.
The rapid development of modern communication tech-
nologies has made the Internet and mobile phone critical to
their youth social life (Sticca et al. 2013). Palermiti et al.
(2017) have pointed out that in the last decade cyberbul-
lying has received increased attention from researchers and
* Vítor Alexandre Coelho
vitorpcoelho@gmail.com
1
Académico de Torres Vedras, Travessa do Quebra-Costas,
Torres Vedras 9 2564-910, Portugal
teachers. The authors concluded that this is due to, with the
huge progresses and dissemination of digital technology.
For instance, in Portugal, almost all youths (99.6%) own a
mobile phone and 90% of adolescents aged 12–18 have
Internet access at home (INE 2016).
Cyberbullying can be defined as the deliberate and
repeated misuse of electronic media (e.g., e-mail; SMS,
MMS, social networking sites, chat rooms, etc.) to threaten
or harm another person who cannot easily defend them-
selves (Savage and Tokunaga 2017). Therefore a cyberbully
would be someone who inflicts this harm on others, whereas
a cybervictim is the recipient of such behaviors. Someone
who takes on both roles would be named a cyberbully-
victim. Additionally, unlike traditional bullying, cyberbul-
lying reaches a far wider audience at a rapid speed, and is
not bound by time nor by physical space (Kowalski et al.
2014; Smith 2015). Smith (2015) concluded that cyber-
bullying differs from traditional bullying in a number of
aspects: (a) it depends on at least some degree of techno-
logical expertise; (b) it is primarily indirect rather than face-
to face; so there is some ‘invisibility’ of those doing the
bullying; (c) the perpetrator does not usually see the vic-
tim’s reaction, at least in the short term; (d) the breadth of
the potential audience is increased; and (e) it is difficult to
escape from.

There is a lack of longitudinal studies addressing
cyberbullying (Nocentini et al. 2013; Savage and Tokunaga
2017). Nocentini et al. (2013) called for additional long-
itudinal studies about the relationship between cyberbully-
ing and its predictors, while Savage and Tokunaga (2017)
critiqued the general reliance on cross-sectional data in
cyberbullying research. There are clear benefits for obtain-
ing longitudinal data, because it would allow clarify if it is
the experience of being involved in cyberbullying that
decreases students’ social and emotional competencies, or if
it those students who have lower levels of social and
emotional competencies that are more likely to cyberbully
or be targeted as cybervictims, or even if it is creating a
reciprocal process.
Prevalence and Correlates of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying has grown to become a serious public health
concern among adolescents (Savage and Tokunaga 2017).
On average about 15% of adolescents may be victimized
online (Modecki et al. 2014), and 12% could be perpetrators
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2004). In Portugal, there are very few
published articles about cyberbullying that would allow for
an estimation of its prevalence. Even so, the prevalence of
cyberbullying seems to be lower than in the US. Matos et al.
(2017) reported that 7.6% of students have been victimized,
and 3.9% have bullied others at least once over the last year,
whereas Coelho et al. (2016) reported that 5.2% of students
had been victimized while 2.8% of students admitted to
being cyberbullies.
Involvement in cyberbullying is associated with several
negative health and psychological outcomes. Students who
were cyberbullied showed signs of elevated depression
(Bonanno and Hymel 2013; Ybarra and Mitchell 2004),
anxiety (Fredstrom et al. 2011), loneliness (Olenik-Shemesh
et al. 2012), significantly higher drug and alcohol abuse
(Patchin and Hinduja 2012), and cyberbullying victimiza-
tion has also been linked to suicidal ideation (Bonanno and
Hymel 2013). Cyberbullies also reported higher levels of
drug and alcohol abuse (Patchin and Hinduja 2012),
depression and anxiety (Campbell et al. 2013; Ybarra and
Mitchell 2004) and lack of or reduced empathy (Campbell
et al. 2013; Steffgen et al. 2011).
Individual Characteristics
There is no consensus in the literature regarding gender
differences in cyberbullying and cybervictimization during
middle school. On one hand, several studies (Badaly et al.
2013; Brown et al. 2017) found no gender differences in
cyberbullying or cybervictimization during that period. On
the other hand, Li (2006) found that boys were more fre-
quently cyberbullies, while other authors concluded that
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
middle school girls were more often cybervictims (Bonanno
and Hymel 2013; Olenik-Shemesh et al. 2012) or cyber-
victims and cyberbully-victims than boys (Kowalski et al.
2014; Pettalia et al. 2013). In Portugal, in two studies with
students of similar ages to the current study, girls reported
higher levels of victimization (Coelho and Sousa 2017;
Matos et al. 2017).
For developmental differences we also find discrepant
results reported in the literature. Brown et al. (2017) con-
cluded that there was not a clear understanding of devel-
opmental differences in experiences of cyber victimization.
The author attributed this to the relative recency of cyber-
victimization research. However, Campbell et al. (2013)
found that 9th grade, 14-olds displayed higher levels of
cyberbullying than 6th grade students, aged 11 and 12. Also,
in two studies implemented in Portugal (Coelho and Sousa
2017; Matos et al. 2017) older students in the studies (ages
around 14) reported higher incidences of victimization than
younger students (ages around 12).
Social and Emotional Competencies and
Cyberbullying
Different social and emotional competencies have been
found to protect or promote children’s involvement in
cyberbullying (Busch et al. 2015; Cook et al. 2010). Pre-
sently, in the field of social and emotional competencies, the
social and emotional learning (SEL) framework has gar-
nered a lot of attention, with over 500 articles published
over the last 20 years (Weissberg et al. 2015). The Colla-
borative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(CASEL 2013) organizes social and emotional compe-
tencies into five interrelated key competencies: Self-
awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship
skills, and responsible decision making. There is evidence
that these key competencies may be crucial in under-
standing bullying roles given that some authors (Busch
et al. 2015; Cook et al. 2010) have reported that children
who bully, and those who are bullied, lack social problem-
solving skills and positive self-concepts, while other studies
have reported that bullied students have poorer social and
emotional adjustment (Cook et al. 2010; Jenkins et al.
2016), and more difficulty making friends and poorer
relationships with classmates (Wachs 2012) than non-
cyberbullied students.
A key element in self-awareness is self-esteem. Defined
by Rosenberg (1965) as “a favorable or unfavorable attitude
toward the self” (p. 15). The relationship between cyber-
bullying and self-esteem has not been completely explored
in previous studies (Patchin and Hinduja 2010). Most stu-
dies concluded that victims of cyberbullying have low self-
esteem (Coelho and Sousa 2017; Fredstrom et al. 2011;
Palermiti et al. 2017; Patchin and Hinduja 2010), even after
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
controlling for school-based victimization (Fredstrom et al.
2011). However, for cyberbullies the results are less con-
sensual, Patchin and Hinduja (2010) concluded that cyber-
bullies had lower levels of self-esteem than do non-involved
students. Additionally, regarding the impact of cyberbully-
ing on self-esteem, Sticca et al. (2013) concluded that the
role of self-esteem as a longitudinal risk factor for cyber-
bullying has yet to be explored. For the current study, using
longitudinal data will allow to test whether differences in
self-esteem related to cyberbullying are caused and/or an
effect of such behaviors.
Another key social and emotional competence is self-
management (CASEL, 2013). Self-management is the
ability to monitor and manage one’s own emotions and
behaviors in a way that facilitates motivation and the
achievement of personal goals (CASEL, 2013). Some
authors (Busch et al. 2015; Jenkins et al. 2016; Vazsonyi
et al. 2012) have found that a lack of emotion management
and self-control makes students more prone to being bullied
by their peers (Busch et al. 2015) and Li et al. (2016)
confirmed that a higher probability of students with low
self-control participate in cyberbullying. Additionally,
individuals low in self-control seek immediate pleasure
without much consideration of long-term consequences of
their behaviors or actions and therefore self-control has a
greater effect in cyberbullying spaces compared to tradi-
tional bullying (Vazsonyi et al. 2012).
One of the most relevant social and emotional compe-
tencies in addressing cyberbullying is social awareness
(Coelho and Sousa 2017). Given that social awareness
consists of understanding other people, empathy, compas-
sion and norms, a lack of this competence can lead children
to act more hostile and aggressively in social situations,
such as by bullying others (Nickerson et al. 2008).
Empathic concern has been considered as an important
predictor of cyberbullying perpetration (Ang and Goh 2010;
Schultze-Krumbholz and Scheithauer 2013; Steffgen et al.
2011). Greater awareness of others’ feelings may not only
allow students to treat each other with respect, but also
cause them to intervene and stop bullying situations
(Nickerson et al. 2008). However, cyberbullies can remain
more anonymous and distant than traditional face-to-face
bullies, and therefore, will less likely observe the immediate
consequences of their behavior (Pettalia et al. 2013).
However, research findings regarding the relationship
between cyberbullying roles and empathy are inconsistent:
while Steffgen et al. (2011) found that cyberbullies showed
less empathy for cybervictims than those who have become
both cyberbullies and victims, and those not involved in
cyberbullying, Pettalia et al. (2013) concluded that cyber-
victims and cyberbully-victims had higher levels of cogni-
tive empathy than those not involved in bullying and that
cyberbully-victims had higher levels of affective empathy
than cyberbullies and students not involved in bullying.
Additionally, Pabian and Vandebosch (2016) concluded
that exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander seems to lead
to lower levels of empathic responsiveness towards cyber-
victims over time.
It is understandable why relationship skills are relevant
to the issue of cyberbullying. According to Weissberg et al.
(2015) relationships skills make it possible to initiate and
maintain positive interpersonal relationships, to respect
social norms, and to have good communication skills.
Wachs (2012) concluded that feeling unpopular and being
friendless were risk factors for cyber victimization, while
other authors (Schoffstall and Cohen 2011) found that
cyberbullying perpetration was related to having less mutual
friends and lower rates of social acceptability, and popu-
larity. Other authors (Badaly et al. 2013) concluded that
more popular youths were concurrently more cyber victi-
mized and more often cyberbullying perpetrators than their
peers.
According to the Collaborative for Academic Social and
Emotional Learning (2013), responsible decision making
involves a reflexive consideration of different choices,
specifically taking into account the wellbeing of self and
others. Currently, we are not aware of any studies analyzing
the relationship between responsible decision making and
cyberbullying.
Class Characteristics
The most salient context in which bullying takes place in
childhood and adolescence is schools. Bullying is particu-
larly frequent among classmates (Sentse et al. 2015), given
that the classroom is one of the most important social
contexts for psychosocial development (Söderberg et al.
2017). Classes are social settings of which students are
involuntary members, where they spend most of their time
at school and interact with other students daily (Sentse et al.
2015), it is therefore not surprising that some authors
reported that a considerable amount of the variance in
bullying was due to differences between classes (Coelho
and Sousa 2017; Söderberg et al. 2017). Therefore, in
addition to individual-level variables, several features of the
classroom may influence bullying prevalence (Söderberg
et al. 2017).
Current Study
The current study employs a multilevel longitudinal design
to analyze the evolution of students’ social and emotional
competencies (as conceptualized by Collaborative for
Academic Social and Emotional Learning 2013) during one
school year, according to their role of involvement in
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 1 Social and emotional

Characteristic Total (%) Self- Self Social Relationship Responsible
competencies across gender and
esteem control awareness skills decision making
grades
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Gender
Male 246 37.02 12.43 10.28 (3.17) 8.59 (2.75) 6.23 (2.06)
(54.1%) (4.92) (2.78)
Female 209 37.44 12.93 11.79 (2.90) 8.09 (2.38) 6.29 (1.76)
(45.9%) (4.38) (2.53)
Grade
7th Grade 295 37.61 12.69 10.86 (3.28) 8.29 (2.69) 6.39 (2.05)
(64.8%) (4.45) (2.82)
8th Grade 160 36.47 12.61 11.20 (2.86) 8.48 (2.40) 6.01 (1.66)
(35.2%) (5.01) (2.40)
Note. N = 455

cyberbullying. Therefore, it tries to fill a gap in the present Methods

literature, given that previous research only analyzed the co-
occurrence of cyberbullying and cybervictimization with
social and emotional competencies. And, to our knowledge,
none of them used a multilevel design or the current study’s
theoretical framework.
Therefore, our first set of hypothesis and research ques-
tions focuses on social and emotional competencies as
antecedents of cyberbullying roles previous findings in the
extant literature. Following the extant literature we hypo-
thesized that, when compared to students who are not
involved in cyberbullying; students involved in any cyber-
bullying role will have lower levels of self-esteem (fol-
lowing Patchin and Hinduja 2010) and self-control
(following Li et al. 2016; Vazsonyi et al. 2012); while
cyberbullies will display lower levels of social awareness
(following Steffgen et al. 2011). Given the conflicting
results found in the literature for relationship skills (Badaly
et al. 2013; Wachs 2012), and the lack of studies regarding
responsible decision making, we also posed two research
questions. Do students involved in cyberbullying differ
from non-involved students in relationship skills? and in
responsible decision making?
We also wanted to analyze two issues seldom addres-
sed in the literature. The first of them is how social and
emotional competencies may be influenced by class size,
based on Coelho and Sousa (2017) we hypothesized that
there are differences in social and emotional competencies
between different sized classes. Finally, given that pre-
vious studies (because of their cross-sectional nature) did
not provide insight into whether reduced social and
emotional competencies are a cause or a consequence of
cyberbullying and cybervictimization, we hypothesized
that being involved in cyberbullying (in any role) will
lead to a decrease in every social and emotional compe-
tence analyzed.
Participants
The sample was a convenience sample composed of 455
middle school students (who at T1 were frequenting 7th and
8th grade). These students were from 25 classes in five public
middle schools in the district of Lisbon. Students were aged
between 11 and 15 years (Mage = 12.58, SD = 0.94), how-
ever 88.8% of the students were aged 12 and 13. The sample
consisted of 246 boys (54.1%) and 209 girls (45.9%).
Classes varied in size, ranging from 13 to 25 students
(Mclasssize = 18.73; SD = 3.07). Classes were extremely
homogeneous in terms of ethnicity (99.3% of students were
Portuguese, the remainder Brazilian), gender distribution (in
92% of the classes between 33.3 and 66.7% of the students
were boys) and socioeconomic status (ranging from 38.3 to
42.1% of students receiving free or reduced lunches).
Regarding school location, 210 students attended urban
schools and 245 students attended rural schools. Additional
information about the participants is displayed in Table 1.
Regarding attrition, beyond the six parents that did not
consent to student participation, five students did not parti-
cipate in the second assessment due to having moved to a
school outside the school grouping, while the same occurred
to an additional 16 other students in the third assessment.
Procedure
Data collection took place in three different moments; in
time 1 (T1, October 2012) for the initial levels of social and
emotional competencies and demographical information; in
time 2 (March, 2013) for the mid-school year levels of
social and emotional competencies; and time 3 (T3, October
2013) for the final levels of social and emotional compe-
tencies and cyberbullying roles. Both T1 and T3 occurred
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
less than a month after the start of the respective school year
(2012/13 and 2013/14). Evaluation took place after
obtaining consent from school boards and parents; the study
followed the Portuguese Association of Psychologists
(OPP) ethical standards and was approved by the Psychol-
ogy for Positive Development Research Center. At all
evaluations, the questionnaires were administered by one of
the four project educational psychologists as a part of a
screening process for inclusion in a Social and Emotional
Learning program. Participants completed the ques-
tionnaires in their regular classroom setting, in the presence
of their teachers. The role of the psychologists was to read
questionnaire instructions aloud, explain the study proce-
dure, reassure students of the confidential nature of the
study, and to assist participants who required help. Students
took roughly 30 min to fill out the questionnaires per
classroom. If a student was not present during that period
the psychologist returned the following week (n = 16).
Measures
Social and emotional competencies
The Social and Emotional Competencies Evaluation
Questionnaire (QACSE; Coelho et al. 2015; Coelho and
Sousa 2016) was used. This self-report instrument for
adolescents (11 to 16 years) consists of 39 items. For the
purpose of this study we used four (the ones that directly
measured social and emotional competencies) of the ques-
tionnaire’s six subscales: self-control (7 items such as
“When I want to talk, I wait for my turn”; α = .73); social
awareness (7 items such as “I am kind to other when I see
they are having problems”; α = .87); relationship skills (7
items such as “I like to coordinate group activities”; α
= .71); and responsible decision making (4 items such as “I
ponder several alternatives before making a decision”; α
= .87). The items are presented as statements to be rated on
a four-point scale (A = never; B = sometimes; C = fre-
quently and D = always).
Self-esteem
We used the global self-esteem scale (Portuguese version;
Fontaine 1991) of the Self-Description Questionnaire-II
(Marsh et al. 1983). This scale allows the evaluation of
global self-worth. The scale consists of 10 items (e.g., “In
general I am happy to be the way I am”) rated on a five-
point scale (1 = false; 2 = mostly false; 3 = nor true or
false; 4 = mostly true; 5 = true). Five of these items are
presented as negative statements and are reverse scored. The
scale’s internal consistency has been shown to be adequate
for both the original and Portuguese version, with Cron-
bach’s α of .88 and .82 respectively.
Cyberbullying
The cyberbullying scale of the Bullying and Cyberbullying
Behaviors Questionnaire (QCBC; Coelho et al. 2016) was
used. The QCBC (Coelho et al. 2016) is a 34-item self-
report measure, including 8 open-ended items (e.g., “Where
did the bullying take place?”), intended to assess bullying
and cyberbullying behaviors, In the current study, we only
employed eight items; 6 of them corresponded to the two
scales that assess two different participant role behaviors in
cyberbullying; cyberbullies and cybervictims. Each of these
scales contain three items, the former describing the action
of being a cyberbully (e.g., “I sent inappropriate, rude, or
threatening messages by e-mail or by instant messaging
threatening”; α = .83 in the current sample), and the later
the experience of being a victim of cyberbullying (e.g.,
“They posted unwanted videos or photos of me on the
internet”; α = .73 in the current sample). Both subscales
assess the frequency of experiences by asking participants
to report how often the behaviors described in each item
occurred during the previous school year. The other two
items used provide students with a definition of bullying
(i.e., frequent, power differential, and negative intent), and
then asked them to rate the frequency of bullying and vic-
timization on five-point scale. All items were scored on a
five-point scale (1 = Never happened; 2 = Once or twice
during the school year; 3 = 2 to 3 times a month; 4 = Once
a week; 5 = Several times a week). For the two scales
(cyberbullying and cybervictimization) the average of the
three items is computed for each student. The QCBC has
been previously used in several studies (Coelho et al. 2016;
Coelho and Sousa 2017; Coelho and Romão 2018), and
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis results have
supported its two-factor structure in a sample of 1039
middle school students (Coelho et al. 2016). In the current
sample these two-factors explained 59.6% of the variance.
Data Analysis
We adopted the criteria used in previous studies with the
same instrument (Coelho et al. 2016; Coelho and Sousa
2017; Coelho and Romão 2018) to classify students as
cyberbullies, cybervictims or cyberbully-victims. Students
were classified as cybervictims or cyberbullies if, in the
third assessment, they rated the item describing victimiza-
tion (or bullying) with a value of ≥ 2 and also rated at least
one (of three) cybervictim (or cyberbully) behaviors as
having occurred at least once or twice during the previous
school year. Students identified as cyberbully-victims were
those who filled these criteria for both roles.
The analyses conducted took into account that students
from the same class have a much bigger probability of pro-
viding responses with a high degree of correlation Heck et al.
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

(2013). Given the clustered nature of the data, with 445 stu-

Not Involved

29.90 (4.28) 38.71 (6.38)

13.67 (3.50)

11.92 (3.30)

8.90 (2.57)
6.40 (1.74)
dents nested within 25 school classes, we used multilevel

n = 375
M (SD)
models. To test our research hypotheses, three-level models
were used. First, an unconditional model (Model 0) with no
predictors was run to test for between-class variance. The

9.18 (3.13) 8.60 (1.65)

9.45 (3.50) 9.10 (1.52)

9.36 (3.14) 7.00 (1.76)

5.82 (1.60) 5.00 (1.25)
intercept was used as a random effect in the models and no
M (SD)
Victim/
Bullies
n = 20
time-varying covariates were included in the models. An
advantage of multilevel models is that they allow for the
progressive and/or simultaneous adjustment at distinct levels
(Heck et al. 2013). After several analyses, the best fit was
M (SD)
Bullies
n = 22

(4.23)
35.09

achieved with a linear measure of time (thereby creating

model 1) and auto-regressive as the covariance structure for
9.29 (1.16)

9.97 (2.55)

6.92 (1.70)
5.61 (1.44)
level 1.
Not Involved Victims

M (SD)
Time 3

In the current study, grade, gender and cyberbullying role

n = 38

(5.10)
31.50

were included in the model as Level 2 (individual) pre-

dictors (Model 2). For Model 3, class size (level-3 predictor
31.80 (4.08) 38.19 (5.82)

13.32 (3.16)

10.10 (2.13) 11.71 (3.66)

8.41 (3.14)
6.18 (2.02)

at level-3; grand mean centered) was introduced to deter-

n = 375
M (SD)

mine its association with the outcome variables where

intraclass correlations indicated that a significant portion of
the variance occurred between classes. That was not the
9.90 (1.79)

9.82 (3.63) 7.60 (2.22)

5.64 (1.86) 5.50 (1.65)

case for social awareness and relationship skills and

M (SD)
Victim/

responsible decision making, where the Intraclass Correla-

Bullies
n = 20

tion show that there was no need to include a 3rd level

Table 2 Descriptive statistics - social and emotional competencies per cyberbullying role, for each assessment

(class) in the models, since that there is not sufficient var-

iance explained at that level ( < .05), following the sug-
M (SD)
Bullies
n = 22

(5.73)

(4.06)

(4.15)
35.00

10.36

10.73

gestion by Heck et al. (2013). Finally, a Model 3b was

created adding the cross-level interaction between time (a
level 1 predictor) and cyberbullying role (a level 2 pre-
6.89 (2.12)
6.03 (2.06)

dictor). After several analyses, Scaled Identity was chosen

Not Involved Victims

M (SD)
Time 2

n = 38

(5.29)

(3.15)

(2.93)
33.92

10.71

10.68

as the covariance type for Level 2 and 3. All analysis and

models were estimated using IBM SPSS Statistics for
36.20 (4.44) 37.09 (4.68)

10.40 (1.27) 12.62 (2.61)

9.91 (4.28) 11.10 (2.77) 10.86 (3.09)

Windows, Version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Heck

8.34 (2.56)
6.20 (1.86)

et al. (2013) note that when using the SPSS mixed model,
n = 375
M (SD)

the reference group for a variable entered as a factor is the

last category.
8.55 (3.08) 8.40 (2.46)
6.27 (1.68) 5.60 (1.84)
M (SD)
Victim/
Bullies
n = 20

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intraclass Correlations

Participants (N = 455)

M (SD)
Bullies
n = 22

(3.10)

(3.82)
34.27

10.73

As displayed in a Tables 2, 4.8% of students were involved

in cyberbullying as a bully, 8.4% of the students as a victim,
8.45 (2.89)
7.00 (2.49)

and 4.4% as cyberbully-victims. Considering gender, 7.3%

Victims

M (SD)
Time 1

n = 38

(4.45)

(2.85)

(3.03)

of boys were involved as bullies, 4.5% as victims and 2.9%

37.58

12.84

12.53

as bully-victims, while 1.9% of girls were involved as

bullies, 12.9% as victims, and 5.7% as bully-victims. Stu-
Responsible decision

dents’ participation in cyberbullying roles was similar

Relationship skills

across grades, for perpetration (5.2% for 7th grade; 4.2% for
Social awareness

8th grade), victimization (8.8% for 7th grade; 7.2% for 8th
Self-control
Self-esteem

grade), and cyberbully-victims (4.6% for 7th grade; 4.0% for

making

8th grade).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 3 Multilevel model

Parameters Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3b
analysis models for self-esteem
Null Level 1: time Level 2: Level 3: class and cross-
individual level interactions

Estimates of fixed effects

Intercept 37.37 (0.37) 36.98 (0.38) 48.34 (0.61)*** 45.90 (4.82)***
*** ***

Time 0.39 (0.13)** 0.38 (0.18)* 0.79 (0.16)***

Grade −1.27 (0.67) −1.25 (0.68)
Gender (girls = 1) −0.31 (0.44) −0.27 (0.44)
Victims −1.58 (0.79)* 0.01 (0.81)
Bullies −3.21 (1.42)* −2.98 (1.45)*
Bully-victims −2.47 (1.48) −0.83 (1.53)
Victims × Time −3.78 (0.40)***
Bullies × Time −0.48 (0.71)
Bully-victims × Time −3.77 (0.74)***
Class size 0.10 (0.08)
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated measures 14.52 (1.67) 13.26 (0.66) 13.86 (0.72)*** 11.57 (1.56)***
*** ***

Intercept individual 16.46 (1.65) 18.66 (1.72) 17.21 (1.56)*** 16.70 (1.52)***
*** ***

Intercept class 2.05 (0.84)* 1.87 (0.85)* 1.29 (0.64)* 1.08 (0.67)
ICC .062 .055 .040 .037
2
R (within) .052 .080
R2 (between) .310 .422
Deviance (−2loglikelihood) 7660.664 7652.350 7574.320 7473.209
Δ-2LL 8.314** 78.030*** 101.111
Number of estimated 5 6 11 15***
parameters
Note: *p < .05; **
p < .01; ***
p < .001

In the unconditional models, the Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient (ICC), representing the proportion of variance
between classes indicated statistically significant variation
between classrooms for self-esteem (ICC = .055), self-control
(ICC = .081), and responsible decision making (ICC = .064).
There was not sufficient variance to be explained at the class
level in social awareness (ICC = .046), and relationship skills
(ICC = .008), so only Level-1 predictors were introduced for
these variables, following Heck et al. (2013)
Self-Esteem
students not involved with bullying. Class size was not a
significant predictor of self-esteem, however there were
significant cross-level interactions, as victims and bully-
victims displayed a more pronounced decreased in self-
esteem during the analyzed period (as seen in Model 3b,
Table 3). Additionally, after adjusting the model for the
cross-level interaction between time and bullying role, the
initial differences in self-esteem for victims was no longer
significant. Altogether, the individual- and class-level vari-
ables accounted for 8% of between-individual variance and
42.2% of between-class variance in self-esteem.

The results for self-esteem are displayed in Table 3. The Self-Control

addition of the within-individual predictor (time) was sig-
nificant (as displayed in Model 1, Table 2). When between
individual variables were added in Model 2 (Table 3),
between individual and between-classes variances
decreased by, respectively, 5.2 and 31%. Involvement with
bullying was the only significant predictor of self-esteem in
Model 2, as having been a victim or a bully was associated
with significantly lower levels of self-esteem compared to
As displayed in Table 4, adding the within-individual pre-
dictor (time) was significant (as seen in Model 1, Table 4).
Furthermore, the addition of individual level predictors
(Model 2, Table 4) led to a decrease in between-individual
and between-classes variance of, respectively, 10.1 and
17.2%. Among between-individual variables, gender and
cyberbullying roles were a significant predictor of self-
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 4 Multilevel model

Parameters Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3b
analysis models for self-control
Null Level 1: time Level 2: Level 3: class and cross-
individual level interactions

Estimates of fixed effects

Intercept 12.74 (0.23) 12.58 (0.24)*** 12.91 (0.38)*** 9.33 (1.10)***
***

Time 0.21 (0.08)** 0.27 (0.07)*** 0.52 (0.07)***

Grade 0.26 (0.43) 0.12 (0.37)
Gender (girls = 1) −0.50 (0.24) *
−0.47 (0.25)
Victims −2.25 (0.44)*** 0.01 (0.50)
Bullies −3.00 (0.78)*** −1.65 (0.90)
Bully-victims −3.11 (0.82)** −1.61 (0.94)
Victims × Time −2.30 (0.24)***
Bullies × Time −1.30 (0.43)**
Bully-victims × Time −1.43 (0.46)**
Class size 0.19 (0.06)**
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated measures 4.78 (0.50)*** 4.69 (0.50)*** 4.45 (0.45)*** 3.67 (0.45)***
*** *** ***
Intercept individual 4.82 (0.38) 4.85 (0.41) 4.36 (0.40) 3.76 (0.53)***
* * *
Intercept class 0.87 (0.37) 0.87 (0.36) 0.72 (0.31) 0.42 (0.22)
ICC .083 .084 .076 .054
R2 (within) .101 .106
R2 (between) .172 .506
Deviance (−2loglikelihood) 6294.532 6281.347 6229.472 6127.706
Δ-2LL 13.185*** 51.875*** 101.641***
Number of estimated 5 6 11 15
parameters
Note. *p < .05; **
p < .01; ***
p < .001

control, with boys reporting lower levels of self-control than
girls (p = .042), whereas students involved in any role in
cyberbullying displayed lower levels of self-control. In
model 3b (Table 4), the addition of between-classes vari-
ables and cross-level interactions between time and bullying
role showed that both class size (p = 003) and all the cross-
level interactions were significant predictors of self-control.
In our sample, students from larger classes displayed higher
levels of self-control, whereas students involved in bullying
in any role (victims, bullies and bully-victims) displayed a
significantly more pronounced decrease in self-control,
when compared to students not involved in cyberbullying
during the analyzed time. After adjusting for the cross-level
interactions, cyberbullying roles did no longer significantly
predict self-control initial levels. Altogether, the between-
individual and between-class level variables explained,
respectively, 10.6% of the between-individual variance and
50.6% of the between-class variance in self-control.
Responsible Decision Making
Table 5 displays the results for Responsible Decision
Making. Neither the addition of time (in model 1) nor any of
the individual level variables emerged as significant pre-
dictors of responsible decision making (as seen in Model 2).
However, the addition of the individual level variables (in
Model 2, Table 5) led to a decrease of 13% in between-
classes variances. The addition of class size and cross-level
interaction between time and bullying role, only led to one
significant results (as seen in Model 3b, Table 5), i.e., after
adjusting for the cross-level interaction with time, the results
showed that students who were victims of cyberbullying had
significantly higher levels of responsible decision making,
but they also had a significantly more pronounced decrease
when compared students not involved in cyberbullying.
Altogether, the class- and individual-level variables explain
0.5% of the between-individual variance and 39.1% of the
between-class variance in responsible decision making.
Social Awareness
The results for social awareness and relationship skills are
displayed in Table 6. Time, a within-individual variable,
was a significant predict of social awareness (as seen in
Model 1, Table 6). As model 2b shows, adding the indi-
vidual variables and cross-level interaction between time
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 5 Multilevel model

Parameters Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3b
analysis models for responsible
Null Level 1: Time Level 2: Level 3: Class and Cross-
decision making
Individual Level Interactions

Estimates of fixed effects

Intercept 6.20 (0.12)*** 6.18 (0.13)*** 6.07 (0.22)*** 4.39 (0.67)***
Time 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.04) 0.10 (0.04)**
Grade 0.30 (0.25) 0.22 (0.22)
Gender (girls = 1) −0.08 (0.16) −0.06 (0.16)
Victims −0.12 (0.28) 0.68 (0.31)*
Bullies −0.42 (0.50) −0.06 (0.55)
Bully-victims −0.64 (0.52) −0.19 (0.57)
Victims × Time −0.79 (0.13)***
Bullies × Time −0.32 (0.23)
Bully-victims × Time −0.40 (1.51)
Class size 0.09 (0.03)*
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated measures 1.23 (0.10)*** 1.23 (0.10)*** 1.23 (0.10)*** 1.01 (0.08)***
Intercept individual 2.10 (0.20)*** 2.10 (0.20)*** 2.10 (0.20)*** 2.09 (0.19)***
* * *
Intercept class 0.23 (0.11) 0.23 (0.11) 0.20 (0.10) 0.14 (0.08)
ICC .064 .064 .057 .043
R2 (within) .000 .005
R2 (between) .130 .391
Deviance (−2loglikelihood) 4932.203 4932.050 4928.149 4881.286
Δ-2LL 0.153 3.901 46.863***
Number of estimated 5 6 11 15
parameters
* ** ***
Note. p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

and bullying role led to a decrease of 6.1% in within-class
variance and 5.9% in between-class variance. Gender and
the interaction between time and bullying role significantly
predicted social awareness, with girls reporting higher
levels of this competence (β = −1.51, SE = 0.27; t =
−5.52, p < .001), while bullies (p = 0.40) and bully-victims
(p = 0.17) displayed a significantly more pronounced
decline in social awareness than not involved students
during the analyzed time. However, during the same period,
victims (p < .001), displayed a much more significant
decline in social awareness than students not involved in
cyberbullying.
Relationship Skills
The addition of time (as displayed in Model 1) had a sig-
nificant effect on relationship skills. Furthermore, the
addition to the model of individual level variables and of the
interaction between time and bullying role led to a very
modest decrease (0.4%) in between-individual variance.
Gender significantly predicted relationship skills, with boys
displaying higher initial levels (β = 0.48, SE = 0.24; t =
2.00, p = .046) Involvement with cyberbullying as a victim
(p < .001) or as a bully-victim (p < .001) led to a very sig-
nificant decrease in the level of relationship skills.
Discussion
The current study sought to address several important gaps
in cyberbullying research. The main of these was the lack of
longitudinal studies focusing on the relationship between
cyberbullying roles and social and emotional competencies
(Nocentini et al. 2013; Savage and Tokunaga 2017). This
lack of longitudinal work precluded determining if reduced
social and emotional competencies (self-control, social
awareness, self-esteem, relationship skills and responsible
decision making; CASEL 2013) are antecedents or con-
sequences of cyberbullying roles (Sticca et al. 2013). The
current study compared initial levels of competencies across
cyberbullying roles to test if social and emotional compe-
tencies lead to cyberbullying. However, it also compared
their trajectories across cyberbullying roles which indicated
if reduced competencies are outcomes of cyberbullying
roles. Furthermore, given that previous studies did not
contemplate how class size might influence the relationship
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 6 Multilevel model

Parameters Social awareness Relationship skills
analysis models for social
awareness and relationship skills Model 0 Model 1 Model 2b Model 0 Model 1 Model 2b
Null Level 1: Level 2: Null Level 1: Level 2:
time individual and time individual and
cross-level cross-level

Estimates of fixed effects

Intercept 11.25 10.83 11.69 (0.36)*** 8.46 8.29 (0.14) 7.98 (0.26)***
(0.20)*** (0.21)*** (0.013)*** ***

***
Time 0.42 (0.06) 0.55 (0.06) 0.17 (0.05) 0.28 (0.05)***
*** ***

Grade 0.04 (0.40) 0.04 (0.27)

Gender (girls = 1) −1.51 (0.27) ***
0.48 (0.24)*
Victims −0.48 (0.54) 0.02 (0.46)
Bullies −0.33 (0.95) 0.45 (0.82)
Bully-victims −0.42 (1.00) 0.05 (0.86)
Victims × Time −0.97 (0.21) ***
−1.04 (0.15)***
Bullies × Time −0.77 (0.38) *
0.13 (0.28)
Bully-victims × −0.95(0.39)* −0.98 (0.29)**
Time
Estimates of covariance parameters
Repeated 4.29 (0.60) 3.52 (0.40) 3.19 (0.33)*** 2.01 (0.19) 1.92 (0.17) 1.65 (0.12)***
*** *** *** ***
measures
***
Intercept 6.23 (0.82) 6.92 (0.71) 6.50 (0.63) 5.50 (0.48) 5.59 (0.47) 5.57 (0.44)***
*** *** *** ***
individual
Intercept class 0.50 (0.28) 0.51 (0.28) 0.48 (0.26) 0.06 (0.12) 0.06 (0.12) 0.06 (0.12)
ICC .045 .046 .047 .008 .008 .009
R2 (within) .061 .004
R2 (between) .059 .000
Deviance 6326.089 6277.824 6210.741 5740.389 5725.956 5660.536
(−2loglikelihood)
Δ-2LL 48.265*** 67.083*** 14.433*** 65.420***
Number of 5 6 14 5 6 14
estimated
parameters
Note. *p < .05; **
p < .01; ***
p < .001

between cyberbullying roles and social and emotional
competencies, whereas the current study analyzed the
aforementioned relationship both at individual and class-
room level.
The results did not provide support for most of our first
set of hypotheses, which focused on social and emotional
competencies as antecedents of cyberbullying roles. In the
current study, only cyberbullies (neither cybervictims, nor
cyberbully-victims) displayed lower levels of self-esteem.
The results are in line with several other studies (Coelho
and Sousa 2017; Patchin and Hinduja 2010), with similar
age students, where cyberbullies had significantly lower
levels of self-esteem. Most studies had also concluded that
cybervictims displayed lower self-esteem (Coelho and
Sousa 2017; Fredstrom et al. 2011; Palermiti et al. 2017;
Patchin and Hinduja 2010). However, in the current study,
after adjusting the model for the cross-level interaction
between time and cyberbullying role, there were no longer
significant differences in the initial levels of self-esteem.
Therefore, the results support the proposition that cyber-
victimization decreases students’ self-esteem, rather than
the proposition that students with lower self-esteem are
more likely to be targeted as cybervictims.
For self-control, however, the hypothesis we posed was
not supported. After adjusting the models for the evolution
of self-control during the analyzed time, the current study’
initial levels of self-control are not significantly different
between those students involved and not involved in
cyberbullying. This result contradicts previous research
(Busch et al. 2015; Jenkins et al. 2016; Vazsonyi et al.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
2012). In the current study, students’ self-control levels only
decreased after their involvement in cyberbullying, sup-
porting the notion that online anonymity promotes disin-
hibited conduct (as suggested by Suler 2004), and
contributing to lower self-control. Therefore, in cyberbul-
lying, unlike traditional bullying, the importance of self-
control seems to be particularly relevant for all students’
involved, and not only for cyberbully-victims. This is novel
because previous findings concluded that angry and emo-
tionally charged responses which tended to reinforce victi-
mization (Skrzypiec et al. 2011) were a typical
characteristic of bully-victims. Students involved in cyber-
bullying in any role (not only bullies and bully-victims)
displayed more significant decreases in self-control, con-
firming that self-control is greatly affected by cyberbully-
ing, given the features of the internet, as suggested by
Vazsonyi et al. (2012).
Regarding social awareness, our hypothesis was not
supported by the results because cyberbullies did not dis-
play lower levels of social awareness than non-involved
students. This finding contradicts several authors (Pabian
and Vandebosch 2016; Schultze-Krumbholz and Schei-
thauer 2013) who had suggested that a lack of social
awareness could be an important factor in leading children
to act more aggressively in social situations. Cyberbullies
(and cyberbully-victims), however, reported significantly
more pronounced decreases in levels of social awareness
than non-involved students, even though it was cybervic-
tims that reported the most pronounced decreases in social
awareness. The latter is consistent with Pettalia et al. (2013)
who had proposed that those students who try to understand
the perspective and emotions of others may be more
affected by hurtful cyberbehaviors. Furthermore, consistent
with Coelho and Sousa (2017), the current study’ results
show that girls displayed higher social awareness levels
throughout the analyzed time.
We also analyzed two research questions focusing on the
relationship between cyberbullying and two other compe-
tencies (relationship skills and responsible decision mak-
ing). The results showed that in time 1 there were only
differences in cyberbullying roles for responsible decision
making, with victims displaying higher levels of responsible
decision making than bullies, bully-victims or not involved.
Additionally, and in line with Coelho and Sousa (2017)
boys reported higher levels of relationship skills than girls.
However, from time 1 to time 3, there were different tra-
jectories according to cyberbullying roles in both compe-
tencies. In relationship skills, cybervictims and cyberbully-
victims reported a significant decrease, which supports
Wachs (2012), who had concluded that some elements
relevant to relationship skills (e.g., feeling unpopular and
being friendless) were risk factors for cyber victimization.
Also, for responsible decision making, cybervictims
displayed a pronounced decline. Therefore, it appears that
being cyberbullied affects the ability to consider different
choices, specifically taking into account the wellbeing of
self and others.
An important feature of the current study was its multi-
level design. Thus, we also analyzed if class size had any
influence upon social and emotional competencies. The
results partially supported this hypothesis, as larger classes
are associated with higher levels of self-control and
responsible decision making. The association between lar-
ger classes and self-control is in line with Coelho and Sousa
(2017), and it supports the notion that, in larger classes,
students are required to develop higher self-control to
manage their behaviors in a way that allows them to achieve
their goals (as proposed by Coelho and Sousa 2017).
Finally, we analyzed if involvement in cyberbullying led
to reduced levels of social and emotional competencies.
And, indeed, the results supported that hypothesis, as stu-
dents who were involved in cyberbullying displayed a
negative trajectory in every social and emotional compe-
tency analyzed during one school year. When compared to
non-involved students, social awareness and self-control
decreased significantly for students involved in cyberbul-
lying in any role (bully, victim or bully-victim), while
victims and bully-victims also reported significant decreases
in their levels of self-esteem and relationships skills, and
victims also displayed a significant drop in responsible
decision making. As a whole, the results confirmed that
cyberbullying affects social and emotional competencies,
which is line with previous longitudinal cyberbullying stu-
dies (Badaly et al. 2013; Pabian and Vandebosch 2016).
Limitations
Although the current study employs a longitudinal
approach, something that is recommended by several
authors (Coelho and Romão 2018; Pabian and Vandebosch
2016; Schultze-Krumbholz and Scheithauer 2013), there are
several limitations that must be acknowledged. The main
limitation is that results are based solely on student’ self-
reports. Even though for cyberbullying student reports are
valid for understanding the child’s perspective and some
authors (e.g., Hymel and Swearer 2015) have concluded
that self-reports are economical, efficient and give youth a
voice in the assessment process, since they tap into the
perceptions of both bullies and victims, this methodology
presents several weaknesses: they can be vulnerable to self-
presentation strategies or influenced by social desirability
and memory biases (Hymel and Swearer 2015). A relevant
alternative to self-reports is the use of peer-reports; some
authors have found this methodology to be highly reliable
in this context (Badaly et al. 2013; Wegge et al. 2016).
Therefore, future studies should include peer-reports and

teacher reports, even though teachers may be less aware of
cyberbullying than are students themselves.
Another limitation for this study is that it is impossible to
assert that students had no previous cyberbullying experi-
ence before Time 1. Although this is an important discus-
sion point, there are three main reasons to support the
choice for the current study´s cut-point. First, elementary
students have less access to technology; especially within in
schools (the majority of elementary schools did not have
computers for students´ use). Second, self-report measures,
as used in the current study, must be used with children with
sufficient written and comprehension skills. Third, in Por-
tugal, 7th grade is the entry point into upper middle school
and, as such, classes are reformed and there is a total
turnover of teachers (no 6th teacher remains with the stu-
dents), and previous reports concluded that such school
transition often result in an increase of bullying (Coelho and
Sousa 2017).
Also, the number of bullies and bully-victims cast in the
current sample was smaller than desirable, even though
cyberbullying prevalence rates were in line with other
Portuguese studies such as Matos et al. (2017). These
authors reported that 7.6% of their sample had been
cybervictims and 3.9% had been cyberbullies. The current
study’s prevalence rate is higher than the ones for the
QCBC validation study, where Coelho et al. (2016) reported
that 5.2% of students had been cyberbullied and 2.8% of
students admitted having cyberbullied other students.
However, given the somewhat low incidence of cyberbul-
lying among Portuguese students, larger samples are
necessary to more accurately describe the social and emo-
tional competencies of students who assume those roles in
cyberbullying.
Future Studies
The current study also raised several topics that should be
addressed in future research. Future studies should employ
longer intervals of time, which means following students
into Secondary school, to understand if continuous invol-
vement in cyberbullying continues to lead to a drop in their
levels of social and emotional competencies. Or, alter-
natively, how long it takes students to reach a bottom level,
and if students who are no longer involved cyberbullying
their previous levels of social and emotional competencies.
Also important for future studies would be to start mea-
suring social and emotional competencies and cyberbully-
ing roles since elementary school because, according to the
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning
(2013), this is a crucial time for social and emotional
competencies development.
There is also a need to develop studies that further ana-
lyze the influence of class size upon several social and
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
emotional competencies. Therefore, future studies should
clarify the relationship between class size and both self-
control and responsible decision, as different efforts and
strategies may be needed when developing anti-
cyberbullying programs for different sized classes. Addi-
tionally, for self-control, future studies should try to identify
other class-level variables characteristics that need to be
controlled for, given that there was still significant variance
to be explained even after adding class size as a predictor.
Also, longitudinal designs should be employed to analyze
potential gender ratio effects (i.e., concentration of boys
itself), another class-level characteristic, given the social
dynamics of classes with a higher concentration of boys that
may contribute to cyberbullying.
Conclusion
The current study examined the relationship between
cyberbullying roles and social and emotional competencies
longitudinally during one year, while controlling for indi-
vidual and classroom level variables. Results showed that
students involved in cyberbullying displayed more pro-
nounced decreases in self-esteem, self-control, social
awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision
making than non-involved student. This pattern was most
noticeable in social awareness and self-control, where
involvement in any cyberbullying role (bully, victim or
bully-victim) led to more pronounced decreases. The find-
ings suggest that low levels of social and emotional com-
petencies are more of a consequence of cyberbullying
involvement, rather than a cause for getting involved in
cyberbullying. The current study’s results also showed that
students from larger class sizes had higher levels of self-
control and responsible decision making. This finding
highlights the importance of controlling for class size (and
potentially other classroom level variables) in the analysis
of social and emotional competencies. Together, these
findings reveal the importance of strengthening students’
social and emotional competences to prevent further nega-
tive health and psychological consequences of
cyberbullying.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ana Maria
Romão, Patrícia Brás and Vanda Sousa for collecting and organizing
the data. We would also like to thank the students who took part in this
study. The present study was conducted following the national pro-
fessional code of ethics for psychologists (OPP), following national
legislation.
Authors’ Contributions VAC conceived the study and its design,
drafted the manuscript, performed the statistical analysis and partici-
pated in the interpretation of the data; MM drafted the manuscript and
participated in the interpretation of the data. Both authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Data Sharing and Declaration The datasets generated and/or analyzed
during the current study are not publicly available but are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Funding Project Positive Attitude is funded by Municipality of Torres
Vedras.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical approval The current study was approved by the Psychology
for Positive Development Research Center.
Informed Consent All school directors agreed to the implementation
of the programs and schools used passive informed parental consent,
because the questionnaires were applied as a screening for potential
inclusion into a program that is considered part of the school offering.
References
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents:
The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 387–397. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Badaly, D., Kelly, B. M., Schwartz, D., & Dabney-Lieras, K. (2013).
Longitudinal associations of electronic aggression and victimi-
zation with social standing during adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 42, 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-
012-9787-2.
Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing
difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of
bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 685–697. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1.
Brown, C. F., Demaray, M. K., & Secord, S. M. (2017). Cyber vic-
timization in middle school and relations to social emotional
outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 12–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.014.
Busch, V., Laninga-Wijnen, L., vanYperen, T. A., Schrijvers, A. J. P.,
& De Leeuw, J. R. J. (2015). Bidirectional longitudinal associa-
tions of perpetration and victimization of peer bullying with
psychosocial problems in adolescents: A cross-lagged panel
study. School Psychology International, 36, 532–549. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034315604018.
Campbell, M. A., Slee, P. T., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2013).
Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies’ perceptions of the harm
they cause to others and to their own mental health. School
Psychology International, 34, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143034313479698.
Coelho, V. A., & Romão, A. M. (2018). The relation between social
anxiety, social withdrawal and (cyber)bullying roles: A multilevel
analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 218–226. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.048.
Coelho, V. A., & Sousa, V. (2016). Desenvolvimento de um sistema
de avaliação multi-informantes de competências socioemocionais
[Development of a multi-informant evaluation system for social
and emotional competencies]. In A. M. Pinto & R. Raimundo
(Eds.), Avaliação e promoção de competências socioemocionais
em Portugal (pp. 135–153). Lisboa: Coisas de Ler.
Coelho, V. A., & Sousa, V. (2017). Class-level risk factors for bul-
lying and victimization in Portuguese middle schools. School
Psychology International, 39, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143034317749992.
Coelho, V., Sousa, V., & Marchante, M. (2015). Development and
validation of the social and emotional competencies evaluation
questionnaire. Journal of Developmental and Educational Psy-
chology, 5(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v5n1p139.
Coelho, V., Sousa, V., Marchante, M., Brás, P., & Romão, A. M.
(2016). Bullying and cyberbullying in Portugal: Validation of a
questionnaire and analysis of prevalence. School Psychology
International, 37, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0143034315626609.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2013).
2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learning
programs (Preschool and elementary school edition). Chicago,
IL: Weissberg, R. P., Goren, P., Domitrovich, C., & Dusenbury,
L.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S.
(2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 25, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020149.
Fontaine, A. M. (1991). Desenvolvimento do conceito de si próprio e
realização escolar na adolescência [Development of self-concept
and school achievement during adolescence]. Psychologica, 5,
13–31.
Fredstrom, B. K., Adams, R. E., & Gilman, R. (2011). Electronic and
school-based victimization: Unique contexts for adjustment dif-
ficulties during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
40, 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9569-7.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on
school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70,
293–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038928.
INE. (2016). Portugal em Números 2015 [Portugal in numbers 2015].
Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Estatística.
Jenkins, L. N., Demaray, M. K., Fredrick, S. S., & Summers, K. H.
(2016). Associations among middle school students’ bullying
roles and social skills. Journal of School Violence, 15, 259–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.986675.
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, 1073–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender differ-
ences. School Psychology International, 27, 157–170. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034306064547.
Li, C. K., Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2016). Examining
the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control
cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior,
37(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023.
Matos, A. P. M., Vieira, C. C., Amado, J., Pessoa, T., & Martins, M. J.
D. (2017). Cyberbullying in Portuguese schools: Prevalence and
characteristics. Journal of School Violence, 17(1), 123–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1263796.
Marsh, H. W., Relich, J. D., & Smith, I. D. (1983). Self-concept: The
construct validity of interpretations basedupon SDQ. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173–187. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1360.
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., &
Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: a
meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 55, 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ja
dohealth.2014.06.007.
Nickerson, A. B., Mele, D., & Princiotta, D. (2008). Attachment and
empathy as predictors of roles as defenders or outsiders in bul-
lying interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 687–703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.002.

Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Level and
change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel
growth curve analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 495–505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.004.
Olenik-Shemesh, D., Heiman, T., & Eden, S. (2012). Cyberbullying
victimisation in adolescence: Relationships with loneliness and
depressive mood. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17,
361–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704227.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2016). An investigation of short-term
longitudinal associations between social anxiety and victimiza-
tion and perpetration of traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 328–339. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-015-0259-3.
Palermiti, A. L., Servidio, R., Bartolo, M. G., & Costabile, A. (2017).
Cyberbullying and self-esteem: An Italian study. Computers in
Human Behavior, 69, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2016.12.026.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem.
Journal of School Health, 80, 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1746-1561.2010.00548.x.
Patchin, J. W., Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and
synthesis of research. In: In J. W. Patchin, S. Hinduja (Eds.),
Cyberbullying prevention and response. (pp. 13–35). New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis. .
Pettalia, J. L., Levin, E., & Dickinson, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: eli-
citing harm without consequence. Computers in Human Beha-
vior, 29, 2758–2765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.020.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Prin-
ceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007.
Savage, M. W., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2017). Moving toward a theory:
Testing an integrated model of cyberbullying perpetration,
aggression, social skills, and Internet self-efficacy. Computers in
Human Behavior, 71, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2017.02.016.
Schoffstall, C. L., & Cohen, R. (2011). Cyber aggression: The relation
between online offenders and offline social competence. Social
Development, 20, 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.
2011.00609.x.
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2013). Is cyberbullying
related to lack of empathy and social-emotional problems?
International Journal of Developmental Science, 7, 161–166.
https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-130124.
Sentse, M., Veenstra, R., Kiuru, N., & ssivalli, C. (2015). A long-
itudinal multilevel study of individual characteristics and class-
room norms in explaining bullying behaviors. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 943–955. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10802-014-9949-7.
Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P. T., Murray-Harvey, R., & Pereira, B. (2011).
School bullying by one or more ways: Does it matter and how do
students cope? School Psychology International, 32, 288–311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311402308.
Smith, P. K. (2015). The nature of cyberbullying and what we can do
about it. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15
(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12114.
Söderberg, P., Korhonen, J., & Björkqvist, K. (2017). Psychosocial
maladjustment at student and classroom level as indicators of peer
victimization. Violence and Victims, 32, 842–857. https://doi.org/
10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00166.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Sticca, F., Ruggieri, S., Alsaker, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Longitudinal
risk factors for cyberbullying in adolescence. Journal of Com-
munity & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 52–67. https://doi.org/
10.1002/casp.2136.
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are
cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior
and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14, 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and
Behavior Journal, 7, 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/
1094931041291295.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., &
Cerna, A. (2012). Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect
effects by low self-control across 25 European countries. Eur-
opean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 210–227. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919.
Wachs, D. (2012). Moral disengagement and emotional and social
difficulties in bullying and cyberbullying: Differences by parti-
cipant role. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 17, 347–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704318.
Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., Eggermont, S., & Pabian, S. (2016).
Popularity through online harm: The longitudinal associations
between cyberbullying and sociometric status in early adoles-
cence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 86–107. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0272431614556351.
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Gullotta, T. P.
(2015). Social and emotional learning: past, present, and future.
In: In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, T. P.
Gullotta, (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning:
Research and practice. (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Guilford
Press. .
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets,
aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth char-
acteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
1308–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007.
Vítor Alexandre Coelho is a certified Specialist in Educational
Psychology (as recognized by Portuguese Professional Psychology
Association, OPP), and possesses a PhD in Educational Psychology by
the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University
of Coimbra. He is the coordinator of Positive Attitude project and a
member of the Psychology for Positive Development Research Center.
His research interests are social emotional learning, bullying and
cyberbullying, professional issues and middle school transition. He is
currently the president-elect of the International School Psychology
Association.
Marta Marchante is a nationally-certified Psychologist (as
recognized by Portuguese Professional Psychology Association,
OPP), and also has a master degree in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
by the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Lisbon. She
coordinates the project Ser a Brincar, has been part of the Positive
Attitude project team since 2009 and is also a member of the
Psychology for Positive Development Research Center. Her research
interests are social and emotional school adjustment, bullying and
cyberbullying, professional issues.