Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Adolescents’ perception of the characterizing dimensions of

cyberbullying: Differentiation between bullies’ and victims’
perceptions
Isabel Cuadrado-Gordillo a,∗, Inmaculada Fernández-Antelo b
a
Department of Psychology and Anthropology, University of Extremadura, Spain
b
Department of Science of Education, University of Extremadura, Spain

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

Article history: Being aware of the adolescents perceptions’ on cyberbullying is one of the main factors that determine
Received 18 December 2014 the real prevalence of this phenomenon and allows the adequacy of intervention programs. The objec-
Received in revised form 1 October 2015
tives pursued in this study were: (a) to determine the perceptions adolescents have about cyberbullying
Accepted 4 October 2015
and cyber abuse; and (b) to analyse the influence of experiences of cybervictimization and cyberaggres-
Available online 12 November 2015
sion on the perception of cyberbullying and its various forms. The sample consisted of 1753 adolescents
Keywords: of 12–16 years in age. The instrument used to acquire the data was a questionnaire. The results reveal
Cyberbullying that, of the 5 identifying criteria of cyberbullying, Spanish adolescents have recourse to just three: intent
Adolescent to hurt, imbalance of power, and advertising. Also, this study shows that verbal and visual aggressions,
Perception far from being interpreted as forms of cyberbullying, are considered to be mechanisms that foster and
Mental health facilitate their communication and interaction. Although the victims and aggressors allude to the same
Victim
set of identifying criteria, the aggressors emphasize the imbalance of power criterion as against the in-
tent to hurt. For the victims, the intentionality being the primary factor, followed by advertising, while
the imbalance of power is relegated to a background role.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction define it as bullying developed through electronic media (Vivolo-

Technological growth and easy access to Internet enables the
creation of new cyber scenarios that foster novel forms of com-
munication and interpersonal relationships, in which, at times,
conflict and violence impose themselves upon balance and har-
mony. The aggressions that occur in these scenarios have generally
been grouped under the term cyberbullying, an emergent concept
that researchers are still debating (Aboujaoude, Savage, Starcevic, &
Salame, 2015; Heirman & Walrave, 2012; Law, Shapka, Domene, &
Gagné, 2012; Pieschl, Porsch, Kahl, & Klockenbusch, 2013).
Some authors consider cyberbullying to be an indirect form
of bullying that needs technological resources to be carried out
(Law, Shapka, Hymel, Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012; Li, 2007; Slonje
& Smith, 2008; Werner, Bumpus, & Rock, 2010). Others researchers
∗
Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Avd. El-
vas s/n, 06071, Badajoz, Spain.
E-mail address: cuadrado@unex.es (I. Cuadrado-Gordillo).
Kantor, Martell, Holland, & Westby, 2014). Brewer and Kerslake
(2015) state that definitions of cyberbullying vary, due to the re-
cency of the phenomenon and the rapid technological advances
which influence the frequency and form of electronic communica-
tion. However one widely accepted definition refers to cyberbully-
ing as ‘‘any behavior performed through electronic or digital media
by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicate hostile or
aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on oth-
ers’’ (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). Thus, the two phenomena, bullying
and cyberbullying, share the same defining criteria: intent to hurt,
imbalance of power, and repetition (Pieschl et al., 2013). Other au-
thors argue, however, that they are two different concepts, each
with its own characteristics that define and differentiate it (Casas,
Del Rey, & Ortega, 2013). In this sense, there seems to be agree-
ment in research on the conceptualization of cyberbullying about
the existence of certain characteristics or criteria that enable one
to differentiate between cyberbullying and other acts of aggression
carried out through technological and cyber means (Aboujaoude
et al., 2015).
One of these criteria is related to the aggressor’s intent to hurt
– to inflict pain, fear, or harm on the victim. In the cyber con-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.005
0747-5632/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
654 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
text, the detection and application of this criterion involves certain
difficulties related to the lack of face-to-face communication, the
ignorance in many cases of the identity of the aggressor, or the
aggressor’s ignorance of the consequences that their actions have
for others (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Menesini & Nocen-
tini, 2009; Naruskov, Luik, Nocentini, & Menesini, 2012). Talwar,
Gómez, and Shariff (2014) stand out the difficulty that children
and adolescents, the ’digital natives’, have in distinguishing be-
tween a joke and a deliberate act aimed at causing harm. The lack
of face to face communication causes biases in interpreting the
meaning of the message, and this in turn leads to frequent con-
fusion about the intentionality of the person with whom they are
interacting or exchanging messages. However, despite these diffi-
culties in identifying the intentionality of cyber behaviour, Crosslin
and Golman (2014) note that adolescents consider the intention
to harm to be a major factor for an episode of aggression to be
cyberbullying.
Another criterion identifying cyberbullying is also taken from
the classical bullying phenomenon – the repetition of the aggres-
sion. Nevertheless, in the case of cyberbullying, repetition does
not necessarily imply a succession of violent acts from the same
attacker. Slonje, Smith, and Frisén (2013) believe that the victim
can experience a single aggression on numerous occasions due
to the permanent and public nature of virtual communication.
Even though private and compromising material owned by the
victim may be sent only once, it may be seen and then broad-
cast by several people, causing the victim more pain, and lasting
a longer time (Embarrassing videos that achieve “virality” are an
extreme example) (Del Rey et al., 2015; Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross,
2009; Kowalski et al., 2008; Menesini et al., 2012; Nixon, 2014).
Moreover, Langos and McomL (2012) relates repetition to intent in
cases of direct cyberbullying, understanding that when abuse oc-
curs again and again it is clearly shown not to be an isolated or
inadvertent act, but an intentional one.
A third criterion attributed to the definition of cyberbullying is
the existence of an imbalance of power between the aggressor and
victim. According to Grigg (2010), in the cyber context the imbal-
ance is materialized in situations where the victim can not easily
defend themself. This asymmetry of power between the aggressor
and victim does not refer to the physical, emotional, or psycho-
logical superiority of the aggressor, but to an asymmetry in the
ICT domain (Slonje et al., 2013; Smith, 2012; Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2008). Knowledge of and competence in using ICT tools
provides access to the victims’ hitherto private virtual spaces, so
as to disseminate the information or materials stored there, steal
their identity, create obstacles against identifying the aggressor,
etc. (Casas et al., 2013). Grigg (2010) also alludes to a social imbal-
ance caused by the difference in status in favour of the aggressor,
which is augmented by the support of the group or social network
in which the aggressor may be very popular. Other authors inter-
pret the imbalance of power in a symbiotic relationship with other
criteria, such as the intent to hurt (Nocentini et al., 2010) or the
anonymous or public nature of the aggressor (Dooley et al., 2009;
Slonje & Smith, 2008).
A fourth criterion which would facilitate the differentiation
between a cyberaggression and an episode of cyberbullying is
the anonymity which protects the aggressor. The possibilities of
concealment offered by technological and cyber media without
the need for any very advanced technical knowledge can signif-
icantly influence the way people resolve their conflicts. Specifi-
cally, Kowalski et al. (2008) argue that anonymity may encourage
some people to act in a way that they would never do in real life.
Anonymity can lead to magnified aggression because the perpetra-
tor may feel out of reach and immune to retribution (Aboujaoude
et al., 2015). The perception of the impunity that identity conceal-
ment allows favours the adoption of ethically reprehensible be-
haviour, including the perpetration of aggression and other types
of cybercrime (Compton, Mergler, & Campbell, 2014). Nevertheless,
while anonymity is considered a specific criterion of cyberbully-
ing (Nocentini et al., 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008),
there are studies that show that most of the victims recognize
their cyberaggressors and identify them as peers belonging to their
school or to their closest social environment (e.g., Mishna, Saini, &
Solomon, 2009; Slonje et al., 2013).
The final defining criterion of cyberbullying corresponds to the
open and uncontrolled dissemination of the aggressive behaviour,
i.e., advertising it. Despite this being one of the most widely oc-
curring criteria in acts of cyberbullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010;
Slonje & Smith, 2008), some researchers caution that it should not
be considered an essential characteristic defining and delimiting an
act of cyberbullying, although they do recognize its relevance in
reflecting the seriousness of the aggression (Nocentini et al., 2010).
1.1. Adolescents’ perception of cyberbullying
The study of the dimensions and characteristics specific to cy-
berbullying allows one to redefine this construct so as to de-
sign tighter and more effective prevention and intervention pro-
grams. The numerous controversies and contradictions that still ex-
ist about the boundary defining this phenomenon show the need
to undertake further research focused on the perception that par-
ents, educators, and adolescents have of cyberbullying. If the per-
ception of those involved in this type of cyberaggression is very
different from how researchers conceptualize it, this will not only
mean that we are faced with the description of quite different real-
ities, but also that the effectiveness of prevention and intervention
programs will be undermined.
Previous studies have shown that the interpretations that re-
searchers and adolescents make of both the bullying phenomenon
and the ways in which it is manifested are very different, and
that sometimes adolescents define as bullying some behaviours
that researchers would classify as occasional aggressions, or, vice
versa, adolescents consider as social interaction behaviours that re-
searchers would classify as bullying (Cuadrado, 2011).
Our review of the scientific literature on the perception that
adolescents have of cyberbullying found only a sparse occurrence
of publications, and the existing studies present results that can
only be considered exploratory. Some researchers warn of the dif-
ficulty that adolescents (Mishna et al., 2009) and adults (Grigg,
2010) have in differentiating a cyberaggression from an episode of
cyberbullying. In a study of 38 pupils of US grades 5–8, Mishna
et al. (2009) conclude that the type of involvement in cases of
cyberbullying significantly influences the defining criteria consid-
ered for this construct. They also note that, as the age of the
pupils increases, the anonymity criterion becomes more relative
and loses importance. Similarly, Dredge, Gleeson, and de la Piedad
(2014), in considering the role of victim, argue that experiences
of victimization shape the perceptions that adolescents have of
cyberbullying.
Other studies have addressed the establishment of first- and
second-order criteria by analysing whether the combination and
interaction of some of them could be key indicators to differ-
entiate cyberbullying from cyberaggression. Thus, Bass, de Jong,
and Drossaert (2013) focus on the intent and repetition criteria,
analysing their use by 287 children aged 11–12. Their results show
that the perception of these criteria in the cyber context is am-
biguous and arbitrary, and it is therefore impossible to determine
whether the relationship between the two is the criterion most
often used to define cyberbullying. Nevertheless, Nocentini et al.
(2010) and Menesini et al. (2012) find that European adolescents
 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
tend to relate the repetition and the intent criteria in the sense
that if a behaviour is repeated then it can not be classified as un-
intentional.
The greater relevance of certain criteria over others is also stud-
ied by Nocentini et al. (2010) and Menesini et al. (2012) with sam-
ples from different European countries. Their results show that
there are two criteria that adolescents attach particular importance
to in differentiating a cyberaggression from an episode of cyber-
bullying: intent and imbalance. Dredge et al. (2014), however, find
that there are very few young Australians who take the intent to
hurt and imbalance of power as essential components in the defi-
nition of cyberbullying. Instead they emphasize the importance of
other possible components such as the impact that the aggression
has on the victim. Nocentini et al. (2010) and Menesini et al. (2012)
indicate that, although adolescents consider anonymity in deter-
mining the impact that a cyberaggression has on the victim, they
do not see it as a defining characteristic of cyberbullying. These
authors also suggest that adolescents do not consider the ’adver-
tising’ of the abuse to be a criterion classifying a cyberaggression
as cyberbullying. Sticca and Perren (2013), however, indicate that
Swiss adolescents attach particular importance to the public di-
mension of cyberaggressions, and consider it to be a defining char-
acteristic of cyberbullying that determines the severity of the harm
caused.
In the same line as the above studies, Naruskov et al. (2012)
analyse the perceptions that 20 Estonian secondary education
pupils aged 9–15 have about cyberbullying. They also investigate
the application of defining criteria to the different forms in which
this phenomenon is manifested. Their results show that adoles-
cents consider five criteria to define cyberbullying: intent to hurt,
imbalance of power, repeated aggressive behaviour, anonymity, and
advertising. These authors warn, however, that adolescents do not
simultaneously apply these criteria to the variations of cyberbully-
ing that researchers have defined. Only visual abuse (characterized
mostly by the dissemination of photos and videoclips) and imper-
sonation are, in the opinion of the pupils, what best represent the
construct of cyberbullying, as against exclusion and written or spo-
ken aggression.
Another interesting contribution to the study of the percep-
tions about cyberbullying is that of Vandebosch and Van Cleem-
put (2008). In addition to analysing the importance that 279 Bel-
gian adolescents aged 10 to 19 attributed to each of the cyber-
bullying identifying criteria, they establish a differentiation of per-
ceptions according to the role played either as a cyberaggressor
or as a cybervictim. Their results indicate that, regardless of their
type of involvement in cases of cyberbullying, adolescents con-
sider the repetition criterion to be a key feature with which to
distinguish this phenomenon from a cyberaggression. In contrast,
they downplay intent to hurt, understanding that sometimes the
behaviour does not intend to cause harm. In these cases intent
is subject to personal interpretations and sensitivities. Consider-
ing the role played, Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) note
that the intent criterion is very clearly present in the aggressors’
descriptions of cyberbullying, whereas for the victims whether or
not they attribute intent to cyberbullying depends on the type of
behaviour they have suffered and their relationship with their ag-
gressor. If they know the aggressor’s identity, and it is a friend,
the behaviour will be interpreted as fun. However, if the identity
is unknown or it is a person whom they find unpleasant or whom
they receive threats from, the intent to hurt is attributed imme-
diately. Another perceptual difference recorded that depended on
the role played referred to the relationship that aggressors and vic-
tims established between imbalance of power and anonymity. The
aggressors believe that they operate anonymously or camouflaged
against people they know in the real world and whom they per-
ceive to be weaker. The victims, however, do not know their ag-
655
gressors, and this increases their sense of helplessness and insecu-
rity (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008).
2. Research questions
Although previous research studies have addressed the percep-
tions adolescents have about cyberbullying, their results are dis-
perse in the aspects dealt with, and difficult to compare due in
part to the lack of coincidence in the data acquisition instruments
used and the small size of some of the samples. This present study
provides an instrument that, first, permits identification of the ado-
lescents who play the roles of cyberaggressor and cybervictim. And
second, it allows one to determine the criteria adolescents use to
differentiate a cyberaggression from a cyberbullying episode, and
to identify what types of cyber abuse they consider to be cyberbul-
lying. In this way, one has access to both the adolescents’ percep-
tions of the phenomenon of cyberbullying and its manifestations.
But the main contribution of this study focuses on the analysis of
the variability of perceptions of cyberbullying based on previous
experiences of cybervictimization and cyberaggression. The objec-
tives pursued in this study were: (a) to determine the perceptions
adolescents have about cyberbullying and cyber abuse; and (b) to
analyse the influence of experiences of cybervictimization and cy-
beraggression on the perception of cyberbullying and its various
forms.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 1753 adolescents (50.9% male and
49.1% female; SD = .5) aged between 12 and 16 (M = 13.9;
SD = 1.2) (Table 1).
The sample selection was approximately proportional, multi-
stage, stratified cluster sampling with random selection of groups
in Spanish state schools providing the levels of compulsory sec-
ondary education (“ESO” is the abbreviation used in Spain). The
strata considered were the provinces and geographical areas of the
Region of Extremadura (Spain). We selected towns in the north,
south, east, and west of the Region, covering various sociocultural
contexts. The clustering used was the group of secondary schools,
in each of which we selected at random one of the four levels of
ESO (1st course – 12–13 years old; 2nd course – 13 to 14; 3rd
course – 14 to 15; and 4th course – 15 to 16).
3.2. Instrument
The instrument used for data acquisition was a revised ver-
sion of the questionnaire used by Cuadrado (2012) for the iden-
tification of adolescents’ criteria identifying bullying. The modi-
fications made were to replace the concept of bullying by that
of cyberbullying, and in incorporating new response options to
consider other possible defining criteria such as publicity/privacy,
anonymity/familiarity, among others. The final version consists of
43 questions. The first three allow us to identify the aggressors,
victims, and witnesses of cyberbullying. These three questions ask
about the variations of cyberbullying the adolescents suffer, com-
mit, or observe. The classification criterion of these variations is
Table 1
Distribition of sample.
1st ESO 2nd ESO 3rd ESO 4th ESO Total
Boys 228 222 230 212 892
Girls 219 217 211 214 861
Total 447 439 441 426 1753
656 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663

“type of behaviour”. Drawing on the studies by Huang and Chou Other examples of questions included in this category are:
(2010), Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston (2012), Rivers and Noret
(2010) and Willard (2006), we considered a total of eight cate-
gories: insults (including homophobia), threats (including black-
mail), spreading false rumours, exclusion (from contact lists, social - What are cyber rumours for you?
networking, etc.), impersonation, sexual harassment, publication of - What do you understand by impersonation in cyberspace?
denigrating images or videoclips, and recording and disseminating - What does it mean for you to exclude someone from the net-
physical aggressions. In each of these categories, the use of differ- work?
ent technological and cyber media through which the abuse is ma- - How would you define the threats received by mobile phone or
terialized and spread is taken into account. The adolescents answer the Internet?
these questions indicating how often they committed, suffered, or
observed each type of abuse during the past two months. The scale
used is composed of four values: ’never’, ’once or twice, ’once a
week’, and ’several times a week’.
The remaining 40 questions that make up the questionnaire are
oriented towards the analysis of the perceptions that adolescents Category 2
Questions directed at identifying the perception of the causes that explain the
have about cyberbullying and the various forms in which it is man- choice of one or another form of cyberbullying and of certain cyber media. An ex-
ifested. ample from the questionnaire is as follows:
Each of these questions contains different, not exclusive, re-
Why do you think some of your peers 1 2 3 4 5
sponse options in which we introduced references to the repetition threaten others with telephone calls?
of abuse perpetrated, the aggressor’s intent to hurt, the imbalance
of power between the aggressor and victim, the anonymity behind Because they do not dare do it in
which those who abuse others hide, the advertising made of the person for fear of reprisals
Because they can hide their identity
aggression, the revenge the victims resort to in order to compen- and inflict fear on stronger people
sate their pain, the forms of communication and social interaction Because it is the way they relate
adolescents employ in the cyber world, and the ways adolescents Because that way they feel more
have fun with technology or cyber media, among others. The re- powerful
Because it is the only way they can get
sponse requested from the adolescent is to indicate their level of
what they want
agreement with each of the options or situations presented, which Because they feel more accepted by
may range from strongly agree (1), through agree (2), neither agree their friends
nor disagree (3), agree a bit (4), to disagree (5). Because it is a way to get revenge on
The questions included in this section are grouped into 5 cate- others
Because they record them and then
gories: spread them for the victim to
continue to feel fear
Category 1 Because they like to see how other
Definitional questions like ’What is cyberbullying for you?’ In this type of question, people suffer
situations such as the following are included:

What is cyberbullying for you? 1 2 3 4 5

An aggression committed by a peer through the Internet, Within this category are included questions related to the other
mobile phone, or other technology to cause harm to a
modes of aggression referred to in this study.
person
An aggression committed by a popular person using
technological means or the Internet to harm a weaker
person
An aggression committed through the Internet or mobile Category 3
phone and whose author is unknown Questions that identify the technological and cyber media seen as facilitators or
Ridiculing someone via messages, calls, pictures, or mediators of cyberbullying. An example from the questionnaire is as follows:
videoclips so that they are embarrassed What technological or cyber media do 1 2 3 4 5
A negative behaviour that occurs via the Internet or mobile you think adolescents use to insult
phone at a particular point in time but causes lasting other boys or girls?
harm to another person
A negative behaviour that occurs through technological Instant messaging
means that is repeatedly committed against the same SMS
person E-mails
A negative behaviour, caused through technological means, Posts on social networks like Facebook,
which is spread to the greatest number of people to Tuenti, etc.
harm another Online games
A negative behaviour, caused through technological means, Compromising photos
being committed in retaliation for harm suffered Videoclips recorded in unfavourable or
A way to relate with your friends that others do not compromising situations
understand Phone calls with hidden number
A way for adolescents to have fun Phone calls without hidden number
Impersonating another person to harm a peer, friend, or Raid on personal blogs and altering
acquaintance their content
Manipulating images or videoclips to accuse a person of Network posts on thematic blogs or
aggression or ridicule them in front of their friends belonging to a group of virtual
When a person feels attacked by messages, calls, posts, friends
images, or e-mails, even if the other person had no
intention to injure
 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
This type of question is repeated with the other forms of cyber-
bullying analysed.
Category 4
Questions directed at attributing purpose to the use of certain technological and
cyber media. An example from the questionnaire is as follows:
With what intent do you think adolescents misuse 1 2
phone calls?
To annoy others whom they do not like
To make fun of disabilities that a person may have
To highlight the social, personal, or physical
disability of the person they are calling
In revenge for harm caused by the person they are
calling
To spread false rumours about peers
To insult other people or the callee
To threaten others
To sexually harass others
To impersonate another person and attack
acquaintances, friends, or peers
To try to convince others to exclude a peer
This type of question is repeated with technological and cyber
media such as messaging, posting to social networks, e-mails, pub-
lishing videoclips, recording fights, etc.
Category 5
Questions that identify the modalities of cyberbullying which are considered by
adolescents. An example from the questionnaire is as follows:
Is it an act of cyberbullying for you to continuously 1 2
insult another person over the phone or the
internet?
No, it is normal among adolescents
No, it is a usual way we relate
No, if the other person does not feel harm
No, if it occurs sporadically
No, if someone insults me, they are not important
to me or I don’t know them
No, if it is done in private
Yes, if it causes harm to another person
Yes, it is a form of revenge against others who you
do not like or have attacked you
Yes, if it is dome by a popular person
Yes, if it embarrasses others in social networks
Yes, if the insult is accompanied by an
unfavourable image
This type of question is repeated with the other forms of cyber-
bullying analysed.
3.3. Procedure
It being a study that involves minors, it was necessary to have
the parents’ consent and the approval of the regional administra-
tion’s school inspectors and the management teams of the schools
that took part in the study.
To obtain the parents’ consent, we sent a letter in which we de-
scribed the nature of the study, the use to be made of the data, and
the commitment to confidentiality and anonymity. This letter was
accompanied by a waiver that parents could refer to the school if
they did not want their children to participate.
The school inspectors and headmasters were sent a document
detailing the objectives of the research, the procedures to be fol-
lowed, and the commitment to the anonymity of the participants.
In this way, the study adhered fully to the ethical standards that
govern the operation of schools.
The procedure used to collect the data, once the parents and
school authorities had been informed, consisted of the researchers
657
going to each of the selected schools. There they distributed the
questionnaires in each classroom, remaining there until all the
adolescents who wanted to participate voluntarily had handed
them back filled in.
3.4. Data analysis
3 4 5
Once the data had been collected, we entered it into the SPSS
19.0 statistical computer program package. The testing procedure
followed was divided into two phases. In the first phase, a factor
analysis was performed to reduce the number of variables to study,
to determine the main factors explaining the variability, the rele-
vance of each of them, and the relationship between them. In the
second phase, we identified the pupils who define themselves as
aggressor or victim, and performed a new exploratory factor anal-
ysis to determine whether their definitions of cyberbullying var-
ied according to their role in the different cyberbullying situations
they themselves experience.
4. Results
4.1. Adolescents’ perception of cyberbullying
We subjected the complete set of data to an exploratory factor
analysis, obtaining a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sam-
pling adequacy of .84 and a .001 significance level in the Bartlett
3 4 5 sphericity test. After ensuring the adequacy of the factor analysis,
we proceeded to extract factors using principal component analy-
sis. The results showed 4 factors to explain the variability of the
adolescents’ responses (Table 2).
Factor 1. Intent to hurt. This factor includes those responses
in which the adolescents consider the intent of causing a social
or psychological injury to others to be a necessary condition to
classify a cyberaggression as cyberbullying. This factor accounts
for 38.57% of the variance (Table 2), has an internal reliability of
α = .72, and a mean factor loading of .51.
Factor 2. Imbalance of power. This factor includes behaviour
that the pupils classify as cyberbullying and in which they perceive
the existence of an asymmetry between the aggressor and victim,
not just social or psychological, but also regarding the mastery of
technological media. This factor accounts for 19.24% of the variance
(Table 2), has high internal reliability (α = .74), and a mean factor
loading of .53.
Factor 3. Advertising. This factor includes the situations in
which adolescents indicate that there has to be dissemination of
the cyberaggression, through either the Internet or cellular tele-
phony, as a necessary condition for it to be classified as cyberbul-
lying. This factor accounts for 16.73% of the variance (Table 2), has
a moderate internal reliability (α = .67), and a mean factor loading
of .47.
Factor 4. Form of social relationship. This factor includes the
cyberbullying situations that adolescents interpret as a form of fun
and relationship among peers. This factor accounts for 11.61% of
the variance (Table 2), has a moderate internal reliability (α = .81),
and a mean factor loading of .50.
The factor extraction indicates that there are three key criteria
that the adolescents use to define cyberbullying: ’intent to hurt’,
’imbalance of power’, and ’advertising’. Nevertheless, they only at-
tribute all three criteria simultaneously to impersonation (Table 3).
The results also show that adolescents establish a link between
the intent and imbalance criteria to define threats and harassment
as cyberbullying. But in neither of these modes of abuse is ad-
vertising a relevant criterion. Abuse associated with spreading ru-
658 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663

Table 2
Total variance explained by the components.

Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 4.82 38.57 38.57 4.82 38.57 38.57

2 2.65 19.24 57.81 2.65 19.24 57.81
3 2.04 16.73 74.54 2.04 16.73 74.54
4 1.40 11.61 86.15 1.40 11.61 86.15
5 .74 5.92 92.07
6 .58 4.85 96.92
7 .46 3.08 100

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

Table 3 Table 5
Perception of cyberbullying. Rotated Component Matrix. Distribution of cyberaggressors and cybervictims in the different modes of cyber-
bullying.
Components
Cybervictims Cyberaggressors
1 2 3 4
Threats 115 128
Definition of cyberbullying .649 .612 .476
Spreading false rumours 151 102
Threats .388 .519
Insults 110 94
Spreading false rumours .520 .415
Exclusion 73 52
Insults .401 .524
Impersonation 71 83
Exclusion .479
Sexting 26 19
Impersonation .506 .634 .307
Physical attacks 30 16
Sexting .568 .337
Videoclip 139 157
Physical attacks .442 .519
Videoclip .604 .570

Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

Rotation method: Varimax. The rotation converged in 9 iterations.

presents the distribution of cyberaggressors and cybervictims by

mours and insults is perceived simply as behaviour that facilitates
interaction and communication among peers. The content of the
messages, as well as the consequences that they may have for oth-
ers, are relativized and justified as part of adolescents’ social dy-
namics, and seen as not necessarily going to harm others. Exclu-
sion is interpreted as behaviour aimed at inflicting harm on the
victims when they feel rejected from the groups that they were
members of (.479). The intent criterion is also present in the per-
ception adolescents have of recording and disseminating acts of
physical aggression (.442). But unlike exclusion, in physical aggres-
sion there is also a factor loading (.570) for the criterion of adver-
tising. In particular therefore, this type of cyber abuse is described
as a cyberaggression that seeks to cause harm to others, and that
this harm is intensified by the publication and dissemination of
those recordings.
gender and education level (Table 4).
With respect to the variable corresponding to the type of ag-
gressive behaviour, the descriptive results show that cybervictims
are subject to more than one form of cyberbullying, and the ag-
gressors do not use a specific type of cyber abuse to cause harm,
but indicate a wide range of abusive behaviours, thus having a
greater likelihood of causing the harm intended (Table 5).
The cyber abuses with the greatest prevalences of victims and
aggressors are those related to the publication of humiliating im-
ages and videoclips, threats, insults, and spreading false rumours.
The prevalence drops markedly when the cyberaggression involves
sexual harassment (sexting), recording and publishing physical ag-
gression, and exclusion.
4.3. Similarities and differences in the perception of cyberbullying
depending on whether the role is victim or aggressor

The analysis of the perceptions of cyberaggressors (KMO = .76,

4.2. Identifying cyberaggressors and cybervictims Bartlett = .001) and cybervictims (KMO = .83, Bartlett = .001)
showed there to be four common factors regardless of the role
A total of 211 adolescents declared themselves to be victims that the adolescent plays: intent to hurt, imbalance of power, ad-
of cyberbullying, and 245 claimed to be cyberaggressors. Table 4 vertising, and forms of social interaction and relationships. Never-

Table 4
Distribution of cyberaggressors and cybervictims by gender and education level.

Cybervictims Cyberaggressors

1st ESO 2nd ESO 3rd ESO 4th ESO Total 1st ESO 2nd ESO 3rd ESO 4th ESO Total

Boys 18 16 27 22 83 50 44 27 29 150
Girls 23 27 35 43 128 19 38 17 21 95
Total 41 43 62 65 211 69 82 44 50 245
 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663 659

Table 6
Total variance explained by the four principal components: Cyberaggressors.

Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

Total % Of variance Cumulative % Total % Of variance Cumulative %

1 3.27 30.32 30.32 3.27 30.32 30.32

2 2.81 24.16 54.48 2.81 24.16 54.48
3 2.16 20.84 75.32 2.16 20.84 75.32
4 1.34 10.73 86.05 1.34 10.73 86.05
5 .89 7.68 93.73
6 .45 4.21 97.94
7 .22 2.03 100

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

Table 7
Total variance explained by the four principal components: Cybervictims.

Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

Total % Of variance Cumulative % Total % Of variance Cumulative %

1 5.47 41.16 41.16 5.47 41.16 41.16

2 3.04 22.68 63.84 3.04 22.68 63.84
3 1.91 13.80 77.64 1.91 13.80 77.64
4 1.26 9.37 87.01 1.26 9.37 87.01
5 .92 7.03 94.04
6 .74 5.96 100

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

theless, there were significant differences in the importance that Table 8

The aggressors’ perceptions of cyberbullying: Rotated Component Matrix.
the two groups attribute to each of those factors. For the aggres-
sors, the primary factor is the imbalance of power, accounting for Components
30.32% of the variance of their responses. The second is advertis- 1 2 3 4
ing the cyberaggression (variance = 24.16%). The third is the factor
corresponding to forms of social relationship (variance = 20.84%), Definition of cyberbullying .721 .431 .534
Threats .573
and the fourth is the intent to hurt (variance = 10.73%). The
Spreading false rumours 3.89 .482
pupils’ responses yielded 7 factors, 4 of which were significant Insults .508 .456
(Table 6). Exclusion .321
For the victims’ responses, 6 factors explained the variability Impersonation .670 .301 .316 .337
of their perceptions about cyberbullying and its various modes. Of Sexting .492 .340
Physical attacks .405 .498 .357
these factors, 4 were significant. The primary factor is the intent Videoclip .525 .512
to hurt, accounting for 41.16% of the variance. The second is ad-
vertising the aggression (variance = 22.68%), the third is the im- Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Varimax. The rotation converged in 10 iterations.
balance of power (variance = 13.80%), and the fourth is the fac-
tor corresponding to forms of social relationship (variance = 9.37%)
(Table 7).
These results show that, while the intent to hurt is, for the vic-
tims, the primary factor behind most of the cyberaggressions anal-
sors believe that for 5 of the 8 modes of cyberaggression anal-
ysed, it is a factor of less importance for the aggressors. Similarly,
ysed to be manifest there must be an imbalance of power be-
while the imbalance of power is a key component in the percep-
tween aggressor and victim (Table 8). Similarly, verbal abuse (ru-
tions of the aggressors, it is secondary in the case of the victims.
mours and insults), video-recorded abuse (physical aggression and
Other differences that stand out are in how the aggressors and
videoclips), and impersonation are interpreted by the aggressors
victims apply these criteria to both the definition of cyberbullying
as behaviours that promote communication and interaction among
and the determination of its various manifestations.
peers (Table 8). They see these behaviours as mechanisms of so-
In the cyberaggressors’ perception, there are three identifying
cial interaction in which the game-playing component is clearly
criteria they use to differentiate a cyberaggression from an episode
present, and the desire to cause harm is absent.
of cyberbullying: ’advertising’ (.431), ’intent to hurt’ (.534), and
The advertising criterion is also one of the principal axes struc-
’imbalance of power’ (.721), with most importance being given
turing the aggressors’ perceptions of the various modes of cyber-
to this last. Given this conceptualization, the cyberaggressors only
bullying. The coincidence between the manifestations that these
classify impersonation as cyberbullying, this being the only form
adolescents understand as being forms of social interaction and
of aggression that they simultaneously see as meeting the above
those which get high factor loadings on the advertising criterion
three criteria (Table 8).
suggest that there is possibly a relationship of interdependence be-
A detailed analysis of the factor loadings shows that the aggres-
tween the two attributes – in particular, that making certain be-
660 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
Table 9
The victims’ perceptions of cyberbullying: Rotated Component Matrix.
Components
1 2 3 4
Definition of cyberbullying .739 .572 .534
Threats .501 .437
Spreading false rumours .460
Insults
Exclusion .553 .386
Impersonation .608 .337
Sexting .619 .340
Physical attacks .481 .526
Videoclip .425 .473
Note: Extraction method: Principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Varimax. The rotation converged in 8 iterations.
haviours publicly well-known increases the possibilities for social
interaction among peers.
The victims’ perceptions diverge significantly from those of the
aggressor group. Although the criteria they use to define cyber-
bullying are only fully met in the case of impersonation as was
also the case for the aggressors, the factor loadings in the other
modes of aggression reflect clearly different perceptions. The re-
sults for the intentionality factor show that victims perceive all the
forms of cyber abuse considered in the present study except in-
sults to be committed with the objective of causing harm to peers
(Table 9).
The victims are more limited than the aggressors in interpreting
the different modes of cyberbullying as merely mechanisms of so-
cial interaction. Although the victims perceive that spreading hurt-
ful rumours (.310) and the publication of offensive videoclips (.443)
can sometimes be regarded as behaviour that they and their peers
regularly use in their cyber contacts and exchanges, they also note
that the reasons are not always just having fun or part of ’normal-
ized’ interactions, but that in many cases there is the intent to hurt
others (Table 9). On the contrary, they do not attribute insults with
the intent to hurt. Rather, these are interpreted primarily as forms
of greeting or expressions used to address peers, with there being
no intention to cause any offence.
One final difference between victims and aggressors is that the
former find little relevance in the imbalance of power criterion.
While the aggressors score this criterion in 5 of the 8 modes of
cyberbullying analysed, the victims only score it in impersonation
(.584). For them, this imbalance is probably related to the posses-
sion of technical knowledge that allows the aggressor to hack into
security systems and steal other people’s identities, private mes-
sages, and documents.
5. Discussion
Despite the proliferation of research on cyberbullying in the last
decade, important questions remain about the conceptual defini-
tion of this phenomenon. The present results are consistent with
the suggestions made by Slonje et al. (2013) about the need to
consider in greater depth the delimitation of the criteria that de-
fine this construct. If researchers are finding it hard to reach an
consensus definition of cyberbullying, it is even harder for the ado-
lescents themselves. This is a population for whom the patterns of
communication and interaction among peers differ from those of
preceding generations. For them, ICTs form the essence of the in-
struments they use for connection and relationships with not only
their closest sociocultural environment but also another virtually
constructed environment to which they increasingly attach ever
greater importance.
This study has shown that, of the 5 criteria considered to be
identifiers of cyberbullying, Spanish adolescents have recourse to
just three: intent to hurt, imbalance of power, and advertising. The
lack of references to repeated aggressive behaviour may be moti-
.310
.322 vated, as noted by Nocentini et al. (2010), by the relationship be-
tween this criterion and advertising. Adolescents today understand
that, even though the actual act of cyberaggression may occur only
once, its rapid and uncontrolled spread via the Internet or mobile
.443
telephony means that the hurt is repeated.
Neither do Spanish adolescents believe that anonymity should
be considered a determining factor differentiating a cyberaggres-
sion from an episode of cyberbullying. In line with these results,
Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) argue that adolescents rel-
ativize this criterion because many of them know, or have rea-
sonable suspicions about, the identity of the aggressors. In most
cases they are acquaintances who belong to the close environment
of the victim. The high degree of continuity between off-line and
on-line contexts in which adolescents interact fosters the transfer
to cyberspace of interpersonal relationships that started in phys-
ical environments (Subrahmanyam, Šmahel, & Greenfield, 2006).
While Dredge et al. (2014) and Menesini et al. (2012) confirm the
little relevance that adolescents grant to anonymity as an essen-
tial component of cyberbullying, other studies, such as those of
Mishna et al. (2009) and Naruskov et al. (2012), report conflicting
results. The use of different samples and data acquisition instru-
ments might explain such disparate results.
Regarding the intent criterion, the adolescents have no doubts
about including it as a defining criterion of cyberbullying. Its high
factor loading relative to those of the other factors shows that the
adolescents consider it to be a key identifier of cyberbullying, as
indeed has been noted in other studies (Bass et al., 2013; Men-
esini et al., 2012). Nevertheless, there are still many unanswered
questions concerning this criterion. One, for instance, is whether
intent has to be detected in the aggressor or if it is sufficient that
the victim perceives the abuse as directed at causing them deliber-
ate harm. In a cyber context, in which the aggressor’s identity can
be hidden, it is difficult to be sure that there is intent in the ag-
gressive behaviour. Thus, Dredge et al. (2014) suggest that the per-
ception of intent may need to be replaced by the real impact that
the aggression causes the victim. Other researchers argue that the
understanding and relevance of the intent to harm as a determin-
ing factor of cyberbullying can not be understood without relating
this criterion with that of the imbalance of power (Nocentini et al.,
2010).
The imbalance of power was the second most frequent criterion
that the adolescents used to define cyberbullying. The high factor
loading of this criterion is similar to that of the intent factor, and
this could be indicative of the relationship of interdependence that
Menesini et al. (2012) note between the two. Nevertheless, more
specific analyses will be required to determine the actual dynamics
existing between these two dimensions.
Apart from its contribution to understanding the various per-
ceptions of cyberbullying, the present study has provided a certain
access to the interpretation that adolescents make of the different
modes in which this phenomenon occurs. In particular, the results
show that, taking as referent the definition that the adolescents
attribute to this construct, they only recognize impersonation or
identity theft as being cyberbullying. For none of the other modes
do they transfer simultaneously the three criteria of intent, imbal-
ance, and advertising which, in their opinion, must concur for an
act of cyberaggression to be classified as cyberbullying.
 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
In this scenario, there appears another factor which we have
termed ’forms of social relationship’ showing that, for these ado-
lescents, verbal (insults and spreading false rumours) and visual
(publication of videoclips) aggressions, far from being interpreted
as forms of cyberbullying, are considered to be mechanisms that
foster and facilitate their communication and interaction. In this
sense too, Straude-Müller, Hansen, and Voss (2012) note that cy-
ber verbal abuse is not only less serious but also sometimes goes
unnoticed by adolescents since they have internalized and normal-
ized these offensive behaviours as seemingly innocuous patterns of
social relationship.
A second key contribution of the present study has been the
analysis differentiating and comparing both the criteria the aggres-
sors and victims consider to be identifiers of cyberbullying and the
interpretations they each make of the different modes in which
this phenomenon occurs. With respect to the definition of this
construct, we observed that, although the two groups allude to
the same set of identifying criteria, those who commit the abuse
emphasize the imbalance of power criterion as against the intent
to hurt. For the victims, the contrary is the case, with intention-
ality being the primary factor, followed by advertising, while the
imbalance of power is relegated to a background role. Knowing
the identity of the aggressor and the consequences that their ac-
tions have for the victim appears to play a major part in under-
standing these results. Menesini et al. (2012) understand the im-
balance of power not only as reflecting an asymmetry of status,
but also as a dynamic of micro-processes of action and reaction.
Thus, if the aggressor knows the consequences that their abusive
actions have for the victim then this reinforces their perception
of power. The decline in the score assigned to intent can be ex-
plained by the normalization that these adolescents make of their
abusive behaviour as prosocial patterns of interaction with their
peers (Cuadrado, 2012).
Slonje, Smith, and Frisén (2012) note the influence that knowl-
edge of the aggressor’s identity may have on the victim’s percep-
tion of imbalance of power. If the identity is unknown then feel-
ings of greater helplessness, frustration, and distrust undermine
their possibilities of defence, putting them at a lower power sta-
tus than their aggressor (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Con-
versely, if they know or suspect who is behind the abuse then they
can take some action to stop the aggression or mitigate its effects.
A result is a reduction of the power asymmetry with the aggres-
sor, since the victim has a perception of greater control (Sticca &
Perren, 2013).
With respect to the criterion of intentionality, victims perceive
the abuse to which they are subjected as deliberate acts (Cuadrado,
2012). The importance they assign to this criterion is reinforced
when one considers the factor loading on the advertising compo-
nent, since the public dissemination of the aggressions follows an
uncontrolled path which causes the victim to continually experi-
ence the harm involved and to feel that so much suffering can not
be due to mere fortuitous events (Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011).
In the study of which of the modes of cyberbullying the vic-
tims and aggressors themselves consider to be cyberbullying, it
was only for impersonation that we found a coincidence of their
simultaneous attribution of the intent, imbalance, and advertising
criteria. According to Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008), the
other modes can be classified as cyber-teasing or cyber-arguing, in
which either the intent to hurt or the imbalance of power compo-
nent is lacking. Other researchers qualify them as forms of cyber-
aggression (Pieschl et al., 2013). But, regardless of the name given
to aggressions that do not meet the criteria the adolescents use to
define cyberbullying, the present results show that there are sig-
nificant differences in aggressors’ and victims’ perceptions of the
661
abusive behaviour that researchers categorize as modes of cyber-
bullying.
One difference is in the types of abuse in which the two groups
involved perceive the presence of an imbalance of power. The ag-
gressors believe that 5 of the 8 modes of cyber abuse studied re-
quire the aggressor to be superior to the victim, usually in the
sense of a perception of greater control and security. The victims,
however, only attribute this component to impersonation, thus
demonstrating that, a priori, despite suffering abuse, they do not
perceive themselves as weaker or more helpless than their peers,
but instead that anyone may be susceptible of becoming a victim.
Another significant difference lay in the value given to the in-
tent to hurt criterion. The aggressors only perceive intent to hurt
in sexual harassment or impersonation. They seem to interpret the
rest of the behaviours as inoffensive ways in which they interact
with their peers. These results illustrate the existence of distorted
perceptions of reality, of a lack of social skills, of unassertive mod-
els of coexistence inherited from the family context or their peer
group, and an imbalance in their moral development which makes
it difficult for them to understand the seriousness of their actions
and the harm they cause to others (Pornari & Wood, 2010; Pozzoli,
Gini, & Vieno, 2012). On the contrary, the victims perceive the in-
tent to hurt in all the modes of abuse except insults. This is proba-
bly a reflection of the suffering they have experienced or are expe-
riencing in being subjected to those modes of abuse. Nevertheless,
in two of these modes (rumours and videoclips) the intent to hurt
is sometimes diluted to the extent that the victims interpret these
behaviours as forms of peer relationships. This perceptive duality
may be motivated by the influence of the social context (Lawrence
& Green, 2010). Depending on the environment in which the ado-
lescent finds themself, or the people with whom they interact, cy-
beraggressive behaviours may be perceived either as ’normalized’
behavioural patterns or as deliberate acts intended to cause harm.
Finally, with respect to the advertising criterion, both aggressors
and victims explain and justify most manifestations of cyber abuse
by their dissemination. If they are not advertised they will proba-
bly be replaced by other acts of aggression in physical contexts and
in the presence of witnesses, because, as observed by Saino, Veen-
stra, Huitsing & Salmivalli (2011), the public plays a key role in the
onset and persistence of situations of bullying and cyberbullying.
6. Conclusions
The contribution of the present study to understanding adoles-
cents’ perceptions about cyberbullying may essentially be summa-
rized in three aspects.
The first corresponds to the instrument used for the data ac-
quisition. This was a questionnaire that allowed the role that ado-
lescents play in cyberbullying situations to be identified – whether
aggressor, victim, or witness. The participants’ responses provided
information on the specific type of conduct those involved suf-
fered, committed, or observed, and how often it occurred. It also
provided access to the perceptions the participants had not only
about cyberbullying in general, but also about the different modes
in which it may occur. The wealth of data provided by this instru-
ment makes it possible to carry out macroanalytical studies on the
prevalence or the overall perception of cyberbullying, and micro-
analytical studies on how specific experiences of being the victim
or the perpetrator of aggression affect the perception of this phe-
nomenon and its various modes.
The second contribution corresponds to the presentation of the
results, which were based on a large sample (1753 adolescents)
and showed that aggressors and victims had significantly differ-
662 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
ent perceptions of the construct of cyberbullying. There have been
very few studies providing data on the components that mediate
and determine the definitions and interpretations that adolescents
construct about this phenomenon.
And the third contribution corresponds to the detailed descrip-
tions of the adolescents’ perceptions of the different modes of cy-
berbullying, both generically and separately according to whether
the informant’s role is aggressor or victim. In this regard, there also
stands out that the factor ’forms of social relationship’ had to be
included as an explanatory component of the adolescents’ percep-
tions and actions.
Together, these results show that researchers and adolescents
have quite different perceptions of the reality of the cyberaggres-
sions the latter suffer, commit, and observe, and hence of the phe-
nomenon of cyberbullying itself. We believe that this type of study
can provide insight into how to reorient analyses of the prevalence
of cyberbullying. The results also show that the design of preven-
tion and intervention programs must stress the modification of the
distorted perceptions that lead to the ’normalization’ of anti-social
behaviours as merely mechanisms of social interaction.
Finally, the different perceptions that aggressors and victims
have of cyberbullying lead us to think that the measures of
intervention should be different for each of these roles. It is
very difficult to use, in the same space and time, actions aimed
at, on the one hand, improving self-esteem and fostering bet-
ter adjusted and more assertive behaviours, and, on the other,
developing and enhancing emotional intelligence among other
things.
References
Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M. W., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. O. (2015). Cyberbully-
ing: review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 10–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.011.
Bass, N., de Jong, M. D., & Drossaert, C. H. (2013). Children’s perspectives on cyber-
bullying: insights based on participatory research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 16(4), 248–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0079.
Brewer, G., & Kerslake, J. (2015). Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness.
Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 255–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.
01.073.
Casas, J. A., Del Rey, R., & Ortega, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: convergent
and divergent predictor. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 580–587. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.015.
Compton, L., Campbell, M. A., & Mergler, A. (2014). Teacher, parent and student
perceptions of the motives of cyberbullies. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3),
383–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9254-x.
Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). Maybe you don’t want to face it – college stu-
dents’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.007.
Cuadrado, I. (2011). Divergence in aggressors’ and victims’ perceptions of bullying:
a decisive factor for differential psychosocial intervention. Children and Youth
Services Review, 33(9), 1608–1615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.
002.
Cuadrado, I. (2012). Género y rol: variables que modifican la percepción del maltrato
entre iguales. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 29(2), 136–146. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0886260511431436.
Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Schultza-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H.,
Smith, P., et al. (2015). Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the
European cyberbullying intervention project questionnaire. Computers in Human
Behavior, 50, 141–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065.
Dooley, J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying.
A theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 217, 182–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182.
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & de la Piedad, X. (2014). Cyberbullying in social networking
sites: an adolescent victim’s perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 13–
20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026.
Grigg, D. W. (2010). Cyber-aggression: definition and concept of cyberbullying. Aus-
tralian Journal of Guidance and Couselling, 20(2), 143–156.
Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbul-
lying: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24, 614–620.
Huang, Y.-y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying
among junior high school students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
1581–1590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. E., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in
the digital age. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. E., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the
digital age (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Langos, C., & McomL, L. G. (2012). Cyberbullying: the challenge to define. Cyberpsy-
chology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(6), 285–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1089/cyber.2011.0588.
Lawrence, C., & Green, K. (2010). Perceiving classroom aggression: the influence of
setting, intervention style and group perceptions. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75(4), 587–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X25058.
Law, D., Shapka, J., Domene, J. F., & Gagné, M. H. (2012). Are cyberbullies really
bullies? An investigation of reactive and proactive online aggression. Computers
in Human Behavior, 28(2), 664–672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.013.
Law, D., Shapka, J., Hymel, S., Olson, B., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face
of bullying: an empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying
and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 226–232. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777–1791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.
10.005.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement:
some critical considerations. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217,
230–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.230.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., . . .
Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: a comparison
across six european countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
15(9), 455–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0040.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: children and youth’s
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(12), 1222–
1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x.
Naruskov, K., Luik, O., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2012). Estonian students’ per-
ception and definition of cyberbullying. Trames, 323–343 16(66/61).
Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent
health. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 5, 143–158. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2147/AHMT.S36456.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega, R., &
Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and definition in three
European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 129–
142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Changes in adolescent online social networking
behaviors from 2006 to 2009. Computers and Human Behavior, 26(6), 1818–1821.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.009.
Pieschl, S., Porsch, T., Kahl, T., & Klockenbusch, R. (2013). Relevant dimensions of
cyberbullying – results from two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Devel-
opmental Psychology, 34(5), 241–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.
002.
Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school
students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and out-
come expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ab.20336.
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Vieno, A. (2012). Individual and class moral disengagement
in bullying among elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 378–388.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21442.
Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). Findings from a five-year study of text and email bul-
lying. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 643–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/01411920903071918.
Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Victims and their de-
fenders: a dyadic approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35,
144–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025410378068.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467–9450.2007.00611.x.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2012). Processes of cyberbullying, and feelings of
remorse by bullies: a pilot study. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
9, 244–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.643670.
Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisén, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strate-
gies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 26–32. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024.
Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nick-
erson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school
safety: International research and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 93–103). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Ex-
amining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the per-
ceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739–750.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3.
Straude-Müller, F., Hansen, B., & Voss, M. (2012). How stressful is online victim-
ization? Effects of victim’s personality and properties of the incident. Euro-
pean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 260–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17405629.2011.643170.
Subrahmanyam, K., Šmahel, D., & Greenfield, P. M. (2006). Connecting developmen-
tal processes to the internet: identity presentation and sexual exploration in
online teen chatrooms. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.42.3.395.
 I. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Fernández-Antelo / Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016) 653–663
Talwar, V., Gómez, C., & Shariff, S. (2014). Adolescents’ moral evaluations and rat-
ings of cyberbullying: the effect of veracity and intentionality behind the event.
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 122–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.
03.046.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: a critical review and syn-
thesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(3), 277–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative re-
search into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 499–
503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.
663
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Martell, B. N., Holland, K. M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic
review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strate-
gies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 423–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2014.06.008.
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: dif-
ferential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 415–417.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012.
Werner, N. E., Bumpus, M. F., & Rock, D. (2010). Involvement in internet aggression
during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 607–619. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9419-7.
Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and
Responsible Internet Use.