919338

research-article2020
GCQXXX10.1177/0016986220919338Gifted Child QuarterlyGarcia et al.

Feature Article

Gifted Child Quarterly

Cyberbullying and Internet Addiction in

2020, Vol. 64(3) 192­–203
© 2020 National Association for
Gifted Children
Gifted and Nongifted Teenagers Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0016986220919338
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220919338
journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq

Inmaculada Sureda Garcia1 , Raül López Penádes1,

Rosabel Rodríguez Rodríguez1, and Jaume Sureda Negre1

Abstract
The present article analyzed whether there are differences between gifted and nongifted teenagers in relation to cyberbullying
(either as aggressor or victim) and to Internet addiction (in both the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions). Furthermore,
the existing relationships between cyberbullying and Internet addiction were explored in a sample of gifted teenagers and
their nongifted classmates. Participants were 122 adolescents between 13 and 17 years of age (M = 14.40), in compulsory
secondary education, half of whom were considered gifted students. The data obtained through a matched case-control
study design revealed no significant differences between gifted students and the rest of the students in terms of the incidence
of cyberbullying and Internet addiction. Nevertheless, results from generalized linear models revealed the important role that
interpersonal conflicts deriving from Internet addiction play in explaining situations of cyberbullying.

Keywords
bullying, generalized linear models, gifted, Internet addiction

Introduction Sternberg et al., 2011) in relation to social reference groups

The social progress of information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) is bringing about new patterns of behavior,
especially among adolescents (Park, 2015; Thompson, 2013).
Undoubtedly, the use of ICT contributes enormously to
improving living conditions (Hampton & Wellman, 2003;
Kang, 2007), but certain uses may have negative implications
on human well-being (Livingstone, 2013; Livingstone et al.,
2017). This is especially the case with mobile phones and the
Internet, which are used to inflict a new modality of bully-
ing—so-called cyberbullying—by facilitating the anonymity
of aggressors and enabling face-to-face attacks to become
widespread. This is also the case in excessive use of the
Internet which can lead, especially among the younger sec-
tors of the population, to a reduction in social interaction with
friends and family. Internet abuse may induce feelings of iso-
lation and rejection among peers, and aggressive behaviors,
as well as the chance of mental illnesses (Dhir et al., 2015; Ko
et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2011; Zhai et al., 2019).
Specifically, the negative aspects of the Internet may
include Internet addiction as well as online risks such as
cyberbullying (Boniel & Sasson, 2018; Eksi, 2012; Falender,
2017; Guan & Subrahmanyam, 2009). Cyberbullying and
Internet addiction are the two inappropriate uses of ICTs that
we address in this article, and the objective of this article is to
elucidate aspects of these phenomena among gifted students.
Giftedness has been conceptualized either as the potential to
achieve at a high level or as exceptionally high performance
in one or more domains (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005;
(Rothenbusch et al., 2016). This gifted group is characterized
by high levels of intelligence in cognitive tasks such as visual-
spatial, logical-mathematical, memory, problem-solving, and
creative tasks (Pfeiffer, 2003; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005;
Winner & Martino, 2000), although problems may arise when
faced with social, emotional, or cognitive tasks that require
integrating affective and communicational elements (Chung
et al., 2011). Thus, in this study, we focus on analyzing situa-
tions of cyberbullying and Internet addiction among gifted
and nonidentified adolescents.
Giftedness and Cyberbullying
According to the literature, bullying consists of intentional,
repeated aggressions based on the disparity of power between
victims and bullies (Nansel et al., 2003). As such, it has
become a true educational and even public health problem
(Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007). The use of ICT—especially
mobile phones and the Internet—has made the appearance of
a new modality of bullying possible: cyberbullying.
1
University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
All the authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding Author:
Inmaculada Sureda Garcia, Department of Applied Pedagogy and
Educational Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, Crta de
Valldemossa, Km 7.5, Palma de Mallorca 07122, Spain.
Email: inmaculada.sureda@uib.es
Garcia et al.
Cyberbullying, based on an analysis of the most common
definitions, has been characterized as “any behavior carried
out through electronic or digital media by an individual or a
group that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive
messages with the intention of inflicting harm or discomfort
on others” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). This modality of bully-
ing increases the effect of traditional bullying as it blurs the
time and geographical boundaries in which attacks are car-
ried out, enables their durability, and greatly amplifies the
potential audience thereof (Sureda et al., 2009).
To find out whether certain personal and group character-
istics are associated with the generation and maintenance of
situations of bullying—whether in classical modalities or
based on ICT—relationships between this phenomenon and
gifted students, among others, have been analyzed. The lit-
erature has not shown whether students identified as gifted
are more prone to participate, either as a bully or as a victim,
in bullying situations. Schuler (2002) suggested that they
seem to be more prone to be the victim of bullying behavior,
while Cross (2001) indicated than they seem to be more
prone to be the aggressor. More concretely, Peterson and Ray
(2006) recognized that situations of bullying exist among
gifted students, and its prevalence rises with age. These
authors used a sample of early childhood, primary, and sec-
ondary students to conclude that being gifted meant a predis-
position to being intimidated by others. Factors such as
negative stereotypes, jealousy of other students, or hatred of
the gifted student's abilities might also contribute to negative
attitudes toward gifted adolescents (Ogurlu & Sariçam,
2018). Thus, inherent difference (Neihart et al., 2002); poten-
tial for social isolation (Rimm, 2002); tendency to internalize
(Robinson & Noble, 1991); overexcitability (Piechowski &
Cunningham, 1985); asynchrony of development (Silverman,
2002); and psychological androgyny (Hébert, 2002), among
others, are characteristics that implicitly entail greater vul-
nerability to intimidation and poorer performance in inte-
grating tasks that include affective information (Chung et al.,
2011).
Some authors acknowledge that the consequences of
cyberbullying are severe and long-lasting in gifted students
(Connolly, 2018). Common emotions resulting from cyber-
bullying behavior are depression, anger, frustration, and a
sense of alienation, with male and female students experi-
encing similar emotions. However, female informants
reported a more pronounced impact, with several of them
describing a significant emotional and academic negative
impact, resulting in unusually low grades, absenteeism, and
reluctance to participate in class discussions (Connolly,
2018). Ogurlu and Sariçam (2018) showed that gifted males
had higher levels of peer bullying, but gifted females had
higher levels of peer victimization than gifted males.
However, in other studies, the opposing conclusion is
reached; that is, these students seem to be less vulnerable to
bullying and are even less likely to get involved in situations
of this type (Estell et al., 2009). Cohen et al. (1994) indicated
193
that gifted students, in the last years of primary and first
years of secondary, are generally well accepted by their
peers, postulating that these students could have low ratios in
these situations, with a lower likelihood in the role of victim
or aggressor, in comparison with other students. This latter
perspective emphasizes the fact that people identified as
gifted tend to have higher levels of social functioning, proso-
cial behavior, and exceptional empathy (Estell et al., 2009),
and also a greater capacity for resistance and emotional
strength. These characteristics are related to an adequate
social self-concept (Bain & Bell, 2004; Robinson, 2008) and
to efficient coping strategies (Cross et al., 2015), which
would favor greater success when faced with stressful social–
emotional situations.
There exists yet a third perspective, which indicates that
gifted students tend to experience the same levels of bullying
and victimization as the rest of students. Parker and Bain
(2011) found no differences in the ratios of aggressors or vic-
tims between gifted and nonidentified teenage students.
Mitchell (2011) revealed that gifted students did not neces-
sarily understand the risks involved in using the Internet any
better than less gifted students, and that their participation in
cyberbullying, whether as victims, bullies, or both, was simi-
lar to the rest of students. This last focus suggests there is no
relationship between giftedness and bullying, either in the
role of victim or as the aggressor.
Current research does not support or refute that gifted stu-
dents tend to experience more cyberbullying and a greater
need for social and emotional attention compared with their
peers, with inconclusive findings encouraging the study of
variables that could play a role in the occurrence of cyberbul-
lying. Experts argue personal susceptibility variables such as
loneliness, academic stress due to others’ expectations, and
academic stress due to self-expectations are significantly
positively correlated to Internet addiction (Tan, 2019). Thus,
the study of problems related to abusive Internet usage may
contribute to a deeper understanding of individuals’ traits
that may pose a risk toward social and school maladjustment,
as indexed in this case by cyberbullying.
Giftedness and Internet Addiction
The use of social networks by young people to communicate
with their peers, friends, or strangers has become, for some,
addictive behavior. In the literature, it is possible to find dif-
ferent terms for this phenomenon, such as “Internet addic-
tion” (Young, 1998; Zhang et al., 2018), “pathological
Internet use,” “network behavior dependence” (Zhang et al.,
2018), or “problematic Internet use” (Spada, 2014). In this
article, we will use the term Internet addiction to characterize
excessive, improper use of the Internet, withdrawal symp-
toms, and interpersonal social problems through characteris-
tics such as obsession, aggressiveness, compulsive behaviors,
or an imperious need to go online (Seki et al., 2019; Young,
1998; Zhang et al., 2018).
194
In comparison with other addictive behaviors, such as
substance use, alcohol, and gambling, Internet addiction can
begin at earlier ages (Oztürk et al., 2007). This precocious-
ness is fueled by the widespread use of ICT in all the con-
texts young people are involved in school, family, and
leisure. In these cases, the use of the Internet is neither infor-
mational nor communicative; rather, it can end up entailing
an alteration of one’s identity that is visible in games, chats,
forums, and other “online” modalities (Carbonell et al.,
2012).
Studies on Internet addiction show that excessive use
among young people leads to situations of mood changes,
loneliness (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2010 ), depression, low self-
esteem, conflicts with parents (Karaer & Akdemir, 2019;
Peng et al., 2019; Yen et al., 2009), lower quality social rela-
tionships, and fewer adaptive strategies (Li et al., 2019;
Milani et al., 2009). Fisoun et al. (2012) conducted a study
among secondary school students between 14 and 18 years
of age, which found a correlation between symptoms of
Internet addiction and antisocial behavior. Obsessive, patho-
logical use of the Internet was related to a greater likelihood
of engaging in cyberbullying behaviors (Floros et al., 2013).
In short, the literature reveals that misuse or dysfunctional
use of the Internet influences the psychological well-being
and mental health of young people in both the short and long
term (Burnay et al., 2015; Colás et al., 2013; Flores, 2009;
Xu et al., 2012).
Concerning Internet addiction issues, the results regard-
ing gifted students are nonexistent, although it is possible to
analyze studies (Francis et al., 2016) that address the well-
being or mental health of gifted students in relation to behav-
ior that could favor Internet addiction. Shaywitz et al. (2001)
indicated that the level of emotional and social problems of a
gifted group (IQ = 140-154) was similar to that of a group of
students with learning disabilities. Nevertheless, Francis
et al. (2016), on the basis of a review and meta-analysis of 18
studies from different backgrounds addressing giftedness
and social–emotional issues in children aged between 5 and
19 years, concluded that gifted students may have better
social–emotional adaptation and fewer behavior difficulties
within the class group. These results converge with recent
findings in neuroscience that consider intelligence as a
mechanism that favors social–emotional adjustment (Coplan
et al., 2011). In accordance with these studies, in general
terms, being gifted could be a protective factor against the
manifestation of Internet addiction behaviors, although there
might exist a subgroup of gifted students who have intraper-
sonal and interpersonal conflicts if other study variables such
as context, age, and gender are taken into account (Francis
et al., 2016; Guignard et al., 2012).
Objectives
This review of the literature reveals the importance of delv-
ing further into the study of cyberbullying and Internet
Gifted Child Quarterly 64(3)
addiction behaviors among gifted and nonidentified teenage
students. Hence, the questions for this study were as
follows:
1. Are there significant differences in cyberbullying
situations (aggressor/victim) and in Internet addic-
tion behavior between gifted students and nonidenti-
fied (typically developing) students?
2. Is there an association between cyberbullying situa-
tions (aggressor/victim) and Internet addiction
behavior? Is the pattern of such association differen-
tial for gifted students as compared with the rest of
students?
Method
To answer these questions, we designed a matched case-con-
trol study with a group of school children identified by the
education administration as gifted students, and typically
developing (not identified gifted) school children as controls.
Participants
The population was made up of 163 compulsory secondary
education gifted students from government-sponsored and
public centers in Mallorca Island (Spain). All these students
had been identified by the education administration as gifted
students following a protocol that addressed questions related
to creativity, social and emotional development, motivation,
academic performance, and intellectual ability, besides con-
firming an IQ greater than or equal to 130.
To determine the sample of gifted students, results were
taken into account from previous studies regarding the prev-
alence of cyberbullying in samples of school children, which
found that around 25% are victims of this type of bullying
(Sureda et al., 2009). In the absence of data concerning
cyberbullying prevalence as a function of giftedness at the
time of the study design, data from studies reporting higher
bullying prevalence among gifted students (e.g., 67% expe-
riencing one kind of bullying; Peterson & Ray, 2006) and
data from studies on bullying prevalence among Spanish
secondary education students (e.g., 18.2% and 14.4% for
8th grade males and females, respectively; Garcia et al.,
2010) were also considered for sample calculation purposes.
Consequently, according to the prevalence data available for
bullying in gifted and nonidentified students, an odds ratio
of 3 was considered as an adequate minimum difference to
be detected. Accepting an alpha risk of .05 and a beta risk
<.2 in a bilateral contrast, we decided to work with 61 pairs
of participants. Thus, 61 gifted students were randomly
selected from the initial population of 163 gifted students.
Afterward, 61 Majorcan students were recruited from the
whole population of 32,622 secondary education nonidenti-
fied students as paired controls with several matching vari-
ables being considered: being from the same center, forming
Garcia et al.
part of the same group/classroom, high academic perfor-
mance, having the same gender, age, place of birth, and a
similar body mass appearance.
In sum, the sample was defined for a total of 61 pairs: N
= 122 participants (63.1% female), compulsory secondary
education students (24.5% from 1st year, 28.3% from 2nd
year, 25.4% from 3rd year, 22.1% from 4th year) aged 13 to
17 years from 14 different education centers, half of whom
were considered gifted students.
Procedure
After obtaining the collaboration of the schools, we held
informational meetings with the school principals, and then
obtained informed consent from the students’ families.
Students were informed that their participation would be
anonymous, confidential, and voluntary. The average time
required to complete the questionnaire was 30 minutes.
Teachers administered the questionnaire to students during
class. For each administration, one to two researchers were
present to ensure consistency.
Instruments
Cyberbullying Questionnaire (CBQ). The school CBQ is an
adaptation of the CBQ by Calvete et al. (2010). The aggres-
sor version has 15 items in which the teenager must mark the
frequency they have sent virtual aggressions, on a 4-point
Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 3 or 4
times, 3 = 5 or more times). An example of these items is,
“Do you post links or humiliating images of people you
know so they can be seen by other people?” The victim ver-
sion has nine items in which the teenager must mark the fre-
quency they have received virtual bullying on a 4-point
Likert-type scale that is identical to the response scale on the
aggressor version, for example, “Have you been sent threat-
ening or insulting messages?” Scores for CBQ scales were
computed by adding up item responses. Cronbach’s alpha in
this study was .86 for the aggressor scale, and .77 for the
victim scale.
Internet-Related Experiences Questionnaire (CERI). The CERI
by Beranuy, Chamarro, et al. (2009) is made up of 10 items
in which the teenager must mark the frequency in relation to
intrapersonal (6 items) and interpersonal (4 items) conflicts
derived from Internet addiction on a 4-point Likert-type
scale (1 = hardly ever, 2 = sometimes, 3 = quite often, 4 =
nearly always). By way of example, the Intrapersonal dimen-
sion has items such as, “Do you get irritated when someone
disturbs you while you are on-line?” The Interpersonal
dimension has items such as, “How often do you make new
friendships with people connected on the Internet?” Scores
for CERI scales were computed by adding up item responses.
Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .72 for the Intrapersonal
scale, and .64 for the Interpersonal scale.
195
Statistical Analysis
First, with the aim of checking the existence of differences
between gifted and nonidentified participants in the scores
concerning cyberbullying and Internet addiction, we per-
formed four Mann–Whitney U tests.
Second, for the purpose of unravelling the influence of the
two dimensions of Internet addiction (intrapersonal and
interpersonal problems) on the occurrence of cyberbullying,
we computed two generalized linear models on cyberaggres-
sor and cybervictim CBQ scores. Giftedness group (gifted
vs. nonidentified) was entered as a fixed factor, while intrap-
ersonal and interpersonal CERI scores were entered as
covariates. Gender and age were also entered in the model,
as a fixed factor and covariate, respectively, to control for
other potential explanatory variables of cyberbullying behav-
ior. All possible interactions involving intellectual ability
were also entered in a second step to explore the different
explanatory power of the independent variables as a function
of intellectual abilities. Neither raw nor residual CBQ data
approximated a normal distribution (there was high positive
skewness with frequent responses scoring 0, at 41.8%, and
38.5% for cyberaggressor and cybervictim scales, respec-
tively). However, the data bore a resemblance to a Poisson
distribution which, along with a log link function, character-
ized the models of choice. Pearson’s Chi square scale param-
eter method and robust standard error estimation (Huber,
1967; White, 1980) were used to minimize nondesired effects
of overdispersion in the data. Analyses were performed using
IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.
Results
Cyberbullying and Internet Addiction According to
Intellectual Ability
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics corresponding to age
and score of the CBQ and CERI factors for the whole sample
and for the Intellectual ability groups separately. Intellectual
ability groups did not differ in age or CBQ and CERI scores.
Table 1.
Associations Between Cyberbullying and Internet
Addiction
Findings from the generalized linear models are shown in
Table 2 and Table 3. For cyberaggressor scores, the omnibus
likelihood ratio test indicated that the addition of all indepen-
dent variables generated a statistically significant model; that
is, the independent variables collectively improved the
model over the intercept-only model. In terms of specific
independent variables, a significant main effect of
Interpersonal CERI was obtained. Increases in self-reported
interpersonal problems related to Internet use were associ-
ated with increases in the amount of aggressive cybernetic
196
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intellectual Ability, Group Comparisons.

Whole sample Gifted Nonidentified

M SD Max. Min. Skewness Kurtosis M SD Max. Min. M SD Max. Min. Statistic and p
Age 14.40 1.12 17 13 0.19 −1.18 14.31 1.09 16 13 14.49 1.15 17 13 U = 1702.5, p = .403
CBQ score
Aggressor 1.74 3.23 27 0 4.96 33.11 1.92 4.11 27 0 1.56 2.04 9 0 U = 1775.0, p = .646
Victim 1.86 2.59 17 0 2.78 10.88 2.00 2.95 17 0 1.72 2.18 11 0 U = 1852.5, p = .966
CERI score
Intrapersonal 11.38 3.37 22 6 0.71 0.23 11.52 3.59 21 6 11.23 3.16 22 6 U = 1810.5, p = .797
Interpersonal 6.34 2.08 14 4 1.27 1.73 6.30 2.12 13 4 6.39 2.05 14 4 U = 1776.0, p = .660

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CBQ = Cyberbullying Questionnaire; CERI = Internet-Related Experiences Questionnaire.
Garcia et al. 197

Table 2. Summary of Generalized Linear Models With Cyberaggressor CBQ Scores as Dependent Variables; and Gender, Intellectual
Ability Group (Giftedness), Age, Intrapersonal CERI, and Interpersonal CERI as Independent Variables.

Step Fitted model and parameters Likelihood ratio χ2 p B (SE) 95% Wald CI p
Step 1 Model 85.30 .000
Intercept −3.68 (1.88) [−7.36, 0.02] .050
Gender −1.04 (0.25) [−0.60, 0.39] .678
Giftedness −0.21 (0.26) [−0.71, 0.30] .422
Age 0.11 (0.12) [−0.13, 0.34] .377
Intrapersonal CERI 0.05 (0.05) [−0.04, 0.14] .289
Interpersonal CERI 0.28 (0.08) [0.12, 0.45] .001
Step 2 Model 107.26 .000
Intercept −1.63 (1.89) [−5.34, 2.08] .389
Gender −0.22 (0.31) [−0.8, 0.39] .477
Giftedness −3.25 (3.43) [−9.98, 3.48] .344
Age −0.11 (0.11) [−0.32, 0.10] .319
Intrapersonal CERI 0.07 (0.05) [−0.02, 0.16] .125
Interpersonal CERI 0.40 (0.07) [0.26, 0.54] .000
Giftedness * gender −0.12 (0.46) [−0.03, 0.79] .795
Giftedness * age 0.33 (0.19) [−0.05, 0.72] .088
Giftedness * intrapersonal CERI 0.02 (0.08) [−0.15, 0.19] .814
Giftedness * interpersonal CERI −0.28 (0.12) [−0.51, −0.06] .014

Note. B = standardized beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; CERI = Internet-Related Experiences Questionnaire; CBQ = Cyberbullying
Questionnaire.

Table 3. Summary of Generalized Linear Models With Cybervictim CBQ Scores as Dependent Variables; and Gender, Intellectual
Ability Group (Giftedness), Age, Intrapersonal CERI, and Interpersonal CERI as Independent Variables.

Step Fitted model and parameters Likelihood ratio χ2 p B (SE) 95% Wald CI p
Step 1 Model 30.67 .000
Intercept −1.52 (1.63) [−4.73, 1.68] .351
Gender 0.34 (0.23) [−0.10, 0.79] .133
Giftedness −1.17 (1.63) [−0.61, 0.28] .465
Age 0.03 (0.10) [−0.17, 0.23] .769
Intrapersonal CERI 0.02 (0.05) [−0.07, 0.12] .597
Interpersonal CERI 0.19 (0.08) [0.03, 0.35] .024
Step 2 Model 35.28 .000
Intercept 0.52 (1.96) [−3.32, 4.36] .790
Gender 0.12 (0.39) [−0.64, 0.88] .762
Giftedness −3.91 (3.16) [−10.11, 2.28] .215
Age −0.13 (0.14) [−0.39, 0.13] .329
Intrapersonal CERI 0.01 (0.07) [−0.13, 0.15] .868
Interpersonal CERI 0.29 (0.09) [0.10, 0.47] .003
Giftedness * gender 0.34 (0.49) [−0.63, 1.31] .492
Giftedness * age 0.29 (0.20) [−0.09, 0.69] .137
Giftedness * intrapersonal CERI 0.06 (0.09) [−0.11, 0.24] .454
Giftedness * interpersonal CERI −0.25 (0.13) [−0.50, 0.01] .059

Note. B = standardized beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; CERI = Internet-Related Experiences Questionnaire; CBQ = Cyberbullying
Questionnaire.

behaviors. Furthermore, a significant interaction effect of
Intellectual ability by Interpersonal CERI was observed (see
Figure 1, left). Post hoc models performed separately for
gifted and nonidentified showed a significant main effect of
interpersonal CERI for gifted students: Β = 0.40, SE = 0.07,
95% Wald confidence interval [CI: 0.26, 0.54], p < .001; but
not for nonidentified students: Β = 0.12, SE = 0.09, 95%
Wald CI [−0.06, 0.29], p = .195.
The omnibus likelihood ratio test for cybervictim scores
was also significant. In terms of specific independent
198
Figure 1. Graphical representation of the giftedness: Interpersonal CERI interaction for aggressor (Left) and victim (Right) CBQ scores.
Note. CERI = Internet-Related Experiences Questionnaire; CBQ = Cyberbullying Questionnaire.
variables, a significant main effect of interpersonal CERI
was found. Increases in self-reported interpersonal problems
related to Internet use were associated with rises in the
amount of victimization episodes. Furthermore, intellectual
ability group by interpersonal CERI interaction tended
toward significance (see Figure 1, right). Paralleling analytic
strategy followed for cyberaggressor scores, and post hoc
models performed separately for gifted and nonidentified
yielded a significant main effect of interpersonal CERI for
gifted students: Β = 0.29, SE = 0.09, 95% Wald CI [0.09,
0.47], p < .005; but not for nonidentified students: Β = 0.04,
SE = 0.09, 95% Wald CI [−0.14, 0.21], p = .664.
No significant main effect or other interactions involving
intellectual ability were found. Neither intrapersonal CERI,
gender, nor age reached specific significance in explaining
cyberaggressor or cybervictim scores.
Discussion
This study suggests, in accordance with various authors
(Fisoun et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2011), that
dysfunctional exposure to the Internet could contribute to
cyberbullying situations as aggressor or victim. This result
warns of the need to be aware of two problems, cyberbully-
ing and Internet addiction, which may converge to bring
about negative consequences in the short and long term
among gifted and nonidentified adolescents.
Importantly, similar results for gifted and nonidentified
students in both self-perception of cyberbullying and Internet
addiction would confirm that being gifted would not be a risk
or prevention factor in terms of becoming involved in such
situations. This result would reinforce the approach of
Gifted Child Quarterly 64(3)
Mitchell (2011) and Parker and Bain (2011), indicating that
being gifted is not a variable that contributes to increased
bullying via the Internet; unlike other studies which indicate
that being gifted has been related to both a higher (Peterson
& Ray, 2006) and lower (Estell et al., 2009) incidence of
bullying.
Secondarily, our data reveal that despite not finding dif-
ferences between groups with respect to the presence of
cyberbullying and Internet addiction, potential cyberbullying
behaviors could be explained by different factors when refer-
ring to gifted or typically developing teenagers. From a
global point of view, our results suggest that cyberbullying is
associated with other problems related to Internet behavior
such as those derived from Internet addiction. Pathological
use of the Internet has been previously linked to both intrap-
ersonal and interpersonal psychological factors (Chang et al.,
2015, Jung et al., 2014; Milani et al., 2009). Regarding intra-
personal factors, Internet addiction has been associated,
among others, to self-reported psychological distress
(Beranuy, Oberst, et al., 2009). Internet addiction has also
been linked to interpersonal shortcomings such as scarcity of
relationships and social dysfunction (Beranuy, Chamarro,
et al., 2009; De Gracia et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2007). A
more detailed interpretation of our results points to such
social dysfunction as the principal explanatory factor of
cyberbullying. The pattern of associations found in the pres-
ent study (i.e., associations between interpersonal factors
related to Internet addiction and cyberbullying) emphasize
the role of the social dimension in the engagement in cyber-
bullying, especially among gifted students. Furthermore,
although results involving cybervictim could also be consid-
ered, our results suggest that such Internet-related social
Garcia et al.
dysfunction would be more robustly associated to online
aggressive behaviors. Again, this association seemed to be
capitalized by gifted students.
This study brings the need to consider interpersonal fac-
tors in Internet addiction as a vulnerability factor for situa-
tions of cyberbullying to the fore in some gifted students. We
speculate that a shortcoming in interpersonal factors could
contribute to a negative self-perception in their social rela-
tionships, a feeling of rejection or exclusion, and no social
benefit to being intelligent, even if the objective data do not
describe this reality (Lee et al., 2012). It could also be specu-
lated that gifted students’ asynchronous development, and
characteristics such as greater sensitivity toward social situa-
tions, together with more demanding behavior, makes some
gifted adolescents more vulnerable and less competent in
their online relationships and/or more prone to show passive
aggressive behaviors with greater implications and frequency
than nonidentified students (Espelage & King, 2018; Peairs
et al., 2019). A straightforward explanation for the distinct
pattern of associations found for gifted and nonidentified
students regarding the role of interpersonal factors explain-
ing cyberbullying would require new, more specific studies
devoted to exploring differences in social strategic behaviors
used by gifted and nonidentified students. In this vein, cer-
tain research has reported deficient social strategies for some
mathematically gifted adolescents (Yun et al., 2011) or no
superiority of empathy response (as to understanding how
my friends feel) among gifted students, in comparison with
other social skills with a better response (De França-Freitas
et al., 2015).
Our findings regarding more robust associations involv-
ing cyberaggression could be explained by the age of the par-
ticipants. Although gifted students might be well-regarded
by their peers (sometimes being even more popular), this
popularity disappears around the age of 13 years and the
forced choice dilemma between excellence and peer approval
becomes ever greater (Peairs et al., 2011; Rimm, 2002). In
adolescence, the social cost to being accepted may lead to
personal vulnerability and to engagement in pathological,
violent behaviors on the Internet, by leaning toward group
expectations, and developing alternative identities that fit
better with the peer culture (Lee et al., 2012).
This study has potential educational implications as it
equalizes the need for programs and strategies for prevent-
ing Internet addiction and cyberbullying among gifted
(Cross, 2011) and nonidentified students while suggesting
some peculiarities related to giftedness that could help
detection and guide intervention in this population. Overall,
our research suggests that the prevention and treatment of
Internet addiction could contribute to reduce the occurrence
of cyberbullying. In this vein, interventions focusing on
improving parental skills, enhancing the quality of parent–
adolescent relationships, and providing more information
and training on making appropriate use of the Internet could
be considered (Karaer & Akdemir, 2019). Specific
199
associations for gifted students found in this study suggest
that programs targeting them should provide support not
only for strictly curricular educational needs but also for
social–emotional skills (González-Cabrera et al., 2019;
MacFarlane & Mina, 2018). Interventions in social and
emotional competencies make it possible to work on social
skills, reflective thinking, coping strategies when faced with
conflictive situations, awareness, and emotional self-control
from a variety of techniques and programs which would be
beneficial for indirectly preventing cyberbullying in gifted
(Rinn, 2018) and nonidentified students. Furthermore,
teachers and counselors working with gifted children should
also consider more direct actions such as ensuring that they
are adequately integrated and they discuss, in the class
group, forms of bullying, examples of bullies, and steps that
an adolescent can take to reduce perceived threats and effec-
tively deal with bullying behaviors (MacFarlane & Mina,
2018).
This study has some limitations that are worth acknowl-
edging. First, the relatively small sample size suggests a
cautious interpretation of the results reported here as pre-
liminary, thus encouraging large-scale studies to corrobo-
rate the present findings. Second, the cultural and social
contextualization of the sample was limited. Some factors
such as students’ cultural background, romantic relation-
ships, and popularity were not controlled. Moreover, it
would be advisable to include context variables related to
the family dimension, parental supervision, school pro-
grams and methodologies, relationship with teaching staff,
and socioeconomic and cultural status of parents, which
indisputably also represent risk or protective factors in
terms of the issues studied (Heo et al., 2014). Third, the
findings of the study were restricted to data collected from
self-reported questionnaires mainly based on students’ per-
ceptions. Hence, multiple assessments and data inclusion
from other parties, such as teachers, parents, and peers, is
recommended to strengthen future studies. Finally, it would
be relevant for future research to explore patterns of Internet
usage among gifted students by means of questions regard-
ing age at onset of Internet usage, average hours of Internet
usage daily after school, average hours of Internet usage
during holidays, the main purpose for Internet usage, and a
favorite place for Internet usage.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Inmaculada Sureda Garcia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5024-1799
200
References
Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attribu-
tions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who
are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly,
48(3), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800302
Beranuy, M., Chamarro, A., Graner, C., & Carbonell, X. (2009).
Validación de dos escalas breves para evaluar la adicción a
Internet y el abuso de móvil [Validation of two brief scales to
assess Internet addiction and mobile abuse]. Psicothema, 21(3),
480-485. http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=3658
Beranuy, M., Oberst, U., Carbonell, X., & Chamarro, A. (2009).
Problematic Internet and mobile phone use and clinical symp-
toms in college students: The role of emotional intelligence.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1182-1187. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.001
Boniel, M., & Sasson, H. (2018). Bullying victimization and
poor relationships with parents as risk factors of prob-
lematic Internet use in adolescence. Computers in Human
Behavior, 88(November), 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2018.05.041
Burnay, J., Billieux, J., Blairy, S., & Larøi, F. (2015). Which psy-
chological factors influence Internet addiction? Evidence
through an integrative model. Computers in Human Behavior,
43(February), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.039
Calvete, E., Orue, I., Estévez, A., Villardon, L., & Padilla, P. (2010).
Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors' pro-
file. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1128-1135. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.017
Carbonell, X., Chamarro, A., Griffiths, M., Oberst, U., Cladellas,
R., & Talarn, A. (2012). Problematic Internet and cell phone
use in Spanish teenagers and young students. Anales de
Psicología, 28(3), 789-796. https://doi.org/10.6018/ana-
lesps.28.3.156061
Chang, F., Chiu, C., Miao, N., & Chen, P. (2015). The relationship
between parental mediation and Internet addiction among ado-
lescents, and the association with cyberbullying and depres-
sion. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 57(February), 21-28. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.11.013
Chung, D., Yun, K., Kim, J. H., Jang, B., & Jeong, J. (2011).
Different gain/loss sensitivity and social adaptation abil-
ity in gifted adolescents during a public goods game. PLOS
ONE, 6(2), Article e17044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0017044
Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer
relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment
program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33-37. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698629403800105
Colás, P., González, T., & de Pablos, J. (2013). Young people and
social networks: Motivations and preferred uses. Comunicar,
20(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-02-01
Connolly, J. P. (2018). Exploring the factors influencing gifted
adolescents’ resistance to report experiences of cyberbully-
ing behavior: Toward an improved understanding. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 41(2), 136-159. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0162353218763869
Coplan, J. D., Hodulik, S., Mathew, S., Mao, X., Hof, P. R.,
Gorman, J. M., & Shungu, D. (2011). The relationship
between intelligence and anxiety: An association with sub-
cortical white matter metabolism. Frontiers in Evolutionary
Gifted Child Quarterly 64(3)
Neuroscience, 3(February), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnevo.2011.00008
Cross, J. R., O’Reilly, C., Kim, M., Mammadov, S., & Cross, T.
L. (2015). Social coping and self-concept among young gifted
students in Ireland and the United States: A cross-cultural
study. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1
080/13598139.2015.1031881
Cross, T. L. (2001). The many faces of bullies. Gifted Child Today,
24(4), 36-37. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2001-545
Cross, T. L. (2011). On the social and emotional lives of gifted chil-
dren. Prufrock Press.
De França-Freitas, M. L. P., Del Prette, A., & Del Prette, Z. A. P.
(2015). Social skills of gifted and talented children. Estudios
de Psicología, 19(4), 288-295. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-
294x2014000400006
De Gracia, M., Vigo, M., Fernández, M. J., & Marcó, M. (2002).
Problemas conductuales relacionados con el uso de Internet: Un
estudio exploratorio [Behavioral problems related to Internet
use: An exploratory study]. Anales de Psicología, 18(2), 273-
292. https://www.um.es/analesps/v18/v18_2/06-18_2.pdf
Dhir, A., Chen, S., & Nieminen, M. (2015). Predicting adoles-
cent Internet addiction: The roles of demographics, technol-
ogy accessibility, unwillingness to communicate and sought
Internet gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(10),
24-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.056
Eksi, F. (2012). Examination of Nacissistic Personality traits’ pre-
dicting level of Internet addiction and cyber bullying through
path analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3),
1694-1706. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a374/63dae03ce0
b6dd9a53d2f36907faa1733076.pdf
Espelage, D., & King, M. (2018). Bullying and the gifted. In S.
I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.),
APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 650-669). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-
043
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Crowther, A., Akos, P.,
& Boudah, D. J. (2009). Students with exceptionalities and the
peer group context of bullying and victimization in late ele-
mentary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2),
136-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9214-1
Falender, J. (2017). Bernadette H. Schell: Online health and safety:
From cyberbullying to Internet addiction. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence, 46(2), 478-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-
016-0588-x
Fisoun, V., Floros, G., Geroukalis, D., Ioannidi, N., Farkonas,
N., Sergentani, E., Angelopoulos, N., & Siomos, K. (2012).
Internet addiction in the island of Hippocrates: The associa-
tions between Internet abuse and adolescent off-line behav-
iours. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 17(1), 37-44.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00605.x
Flores, J. M. (2009). New models of communication, profiles and
trends in social networks. Comunicar, 17(33), 73-81. https://
doi.org/10.3916/c33-2009-02-007
Floros, G. D., Siomos, K. E., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis,
D. (2013). Adolescent online cyberbullying in Greece: The
impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and
online impulsiveness. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 445-
453. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12049
Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual
­giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A
Garcia et al.
systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279-
302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779
Garcia, X., Pérez, A., & Nebot, M. (2010). Factores relacio-
nados con el acoso escolar (bullying) en los adolescentes
de Barcelona [Factors related to bullying in adolescents in
Barcelona (Spain)]. Gaceta Sanitaria, 24(2), 103-108. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.09.017
González-Cabrera, J., Tourón, J., Machimbarrena, J. M., Gutiérrez-
Ortega, M., Álvarez-Bardón, A., & Garaigordobil, M. (2019).
Cyberbullying in gifted students: Prevalence and psychologi-
cal well-being in a Spanish sample. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(12), Article
2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122173
Guan, S. S. A., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2009). Youth Internet use:
Risks and opportunities. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22(4),
351-356. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832bd7e0
Guignard, J. H., Jacquet, A.-Y., & Lubart, T. (2012). Perfectionism
and anxiety: A paradox in intellectual giftedness? PLOS ONE,
7(7), e41043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041043
Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville:
How the Internet supports community and social capital in a
wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277-311. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x
Hébert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.
M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 137-
144). Prufrock Press.
Heo, J., Oh, J., Subramanian, S., Kim, Y., & Kawachi, I. (2014).
Addictive Internet use among Korean adolescents: A national
survey. PLOS ONE, 9(2), Article e87819. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087819
Huang, Z., Wang, M. O., Qian, M., Zhong, J., & Tao, R. (2007).
Chinese Internet Addiction Inventory: Developing a mea-
sure of problematic Internet use for Chinese college students.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 805-811. https://doi.
org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9950
Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood esti-
mates under nonstandard conditions. In Proceedings of the
Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and
Probability (Vol. 1, pp. 221-233). University of California
Press.
Jung, Y. E., Leventhal, B., Kim, Y. S., Park, T. W., Lee, S. H.,
Lee, M., Park, S. H., Yang, J. C., Chung, Y. C., Chung, S. K.,
& Park, J. I. (2014). Cyberbullying, problematic Internet use,
and psychopathologic symptoms among Korean youth. Yonsei
Medicine Journal, 55(3), 826-830. https://doi.org/10.3349/
ymj.2014.55.3.826
Kang, S. (2007). Disembodiment in online social interaction:
Impact of online chat on social support and psychosocial well-
being. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 475-477. https://
doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9929
Karaer, Y., & Akdemir, D. (2019). Parenting styles, perceived
social support and emotion regulation in adolescents with
Internet addiction. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 92(3), 22-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.03.003
Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Liu, S. C., Huang, C. F., & Yen, C. F. (2009).
The associations between aggressive behaviors and Internet
addiction and online activities in adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 44(6), 598-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2008.11.011
201
Lee, S. Y., Olszewski, P., & Turner, D. (2012). Academically gifted
students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer rela-
tionships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 90-104. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986212442568
Li, X., Luo, X., Zheng, R., Jin, X., Mei, L., Xie, X., Gu, H., Hou, F., Liu,
L., Luo, X., Meng, H., Zhang, J., & Song, R. (2019). The role of
depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and school functioning
in the association between peer victimization and Internet addic-
tion: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Affective Disorders,
256(1), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.05.080
Livingstone, S. (2013). Online risk, harm and vulnerability:
Reflections on the evidence base for child Internet safety pol-
icy. ZER: Journal of Communication Studies, 18(35), 13-28.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62278/
Livingstone, S., Davidson, J., Bryce, J., Batool, S., Haughton, C.,
& Nandi, A. (2017). Children’s online activities, risks and
safety: A literature review by the UKCCIS Evidence Group.
London School of Economics and Political Science. https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/650933/Literature_Review_
Final_October_2017.pdf
Ma, H. K., Li, S. C., & Pow, J. W. C. (2011). The relation of Internet
use to prosocial and antisocial behavior in Chinese adolescents.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(3),
123-130. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0347
MacFarlane, B., & Mina, K. (2018). Cyberbullying and the
gifted: Considerations for social and emotional develop-
ment. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 130-135. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1076217518768362
Milani, L., Osualdella, D., & Di Blasio, P. (2009). Quality of inter-
personal relationships and problematic Internet use in adoles-
cence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 681-684. https://
doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0071
Mitchell, M. S. (2011). Cyberbullying and academic achievement:
Research into the rates of incidence, knowledge of conse-
quences, and behavioral patterns of cyberbullying [Doctoral
dissertation]. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/
AAI3475527
Muñoz-Rivas, M. J., Fernández, L., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2010).
Analysis of the indicators of pathological Internet use in
Spanish university students. Spanish Journal of Psychology,
13(2), 697-707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600002365
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, W. J., &
Scheidt, P. C. (2003). Relationships between bullying and vio-
lence among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 157(4), 348-353. https://doi.org/10.1001/arch-
pedi.157.4.348
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N., & Moon, S. (2002). The
social and emotional development of gifted children: What do
we know? Prufrock Press.
Ogurlu, U., & Sariçam, H. (2018). Bullying, forgiveness and sub-
missive behaviors in gifted students. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 27(9), 2833-2843. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-018-1138-9
Oztürk, O., Odabasıoglu, G., Eraslan, D., Genc, Y., & Kalyoncu,
O. A. (2007). Internet addiction: Clinical aspects and treatment
strategies. Journal of Dependence, 8(1), 36-41.
Park, Y. J. (2015). My whole world’s in my palm! The second-level
divide of teenagers’ mobile use and skill. New Media & Society,
17(6), 977-995. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813520302
202
Parker, M., & Bain, S. K. (2011). Bullying and victimization
rates among gifted and high-achieving students. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 624-643. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016235321103400405
Peairs, K., Eichen, D., Putallz, M., Costanzo, P., & Grimes, C. L.
(2011). Academic giftedness and alcohol use in early ado-
lescent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(2), 95-110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986210392220
Peairs, K., Putallaz, M., & Costanzo, P. R. (2019). From A
(Aggression) to V (Victimization): Peer status and adjust-
ment among academically gifted students in early adoles-
cence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 185-200. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986219838973
Peng, W., Li, D., Li, D., Jia, J., Wang, Y., & Sun, W. (2019). School
disconnectedness and adolescent Internet addiction: Mediation
by self-esteem and moderation by emotional intelligence.
Computers in Human Behavior, 98(September), 111-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.011
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims,
perpetrators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly,
50(2), 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000206
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who
are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2),
161-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700207
Piechowski, M. M., & Cunningham, K. (1985). Patterns of over-
excitability in a group of artists. Journal of Creative Behavior,
19(3), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1985.
tb00655.x
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted
students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M.
Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted
children: What do we know? (pp. 13-18). Prufrock Press.
Rinn, A. (2018). Social and emotional considerations for gifted
students. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-
Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp.
453-464). American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0000038-029
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The value of traditional assessments as
approaches to identifying academically gifted students. In J.
L. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted
and talented students (pp. 157-174). Prufrock Press.
Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional devel-
opment and adjustment at gifted children. In M. C. Wang, M.
C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special edu-
cation: Research and practice (pp. 57-76). Pergamon Press.
Rothenbusch, S., Zettler, I., Voss, T., Losch, T., & Trautwein, U.
(2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nomina-
tions of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
108(6), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000085
Schuler, P. A. (2002, September 15). Teasing and gifted children.
The SENG newsletter. https://www.sengifted.org/post/teasing-
and-gifted-children
Seki, T., Hamazaki, K., Natori, T., & Inadera, H. (2019).
Relationship between Internet addiction and depression among
Japanese university students. Journal of Affective Disorders,
256(September), 668-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019
.06.055
Shaywitz, S. E., Holahan, J. M., Freudenheim, D. A., Fletcher, J.
M., Makuch, R. W., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2001). Heterogeneity
within the gifted: Higher IQ boys exhibit behaviors resembling
Gifted Child Quarterly 64(3)
boys with learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1),
16-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500103
Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart,
S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social
and emotional development of gifted children: What do we
know? (pp. 31-37). Prufrock Press.
Spada, M. M. (2014). An overview of problematic Internet use.
Addictive Behaviors, 39(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.­addbeh
.2013.09.007
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness
(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Explorations
in giftedness. Cambridge University Press.
Sureda, J., Rigo, E., Comas, R., Servera, A. M., Morey, M., Mut,
B., & Gili, M. (2009). El ciberassetjament entre els joves:
Característiques i impacte del cyberbullying entre l’alumnat
d’ESO de les Illes Balears [Cyberbullying among young peo-
ple: Characteristics and impact of cyberbullying among ESO
students in the Balearic Islands]. IBIT.
Tan, K. A. (2019). The effects of personal susceptibility and social
support on Internet addiction: An application of Adler’s the-
ory of individual psychology. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 17(4), 806-816. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11469-018-9871-2
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use
patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education,
65(1), 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A criti-
cal review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victim-
ization. Computer in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277-287. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix
estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica,
48(4), 817-830. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
Winner, E., & Martino, G. (2000). Giftedness in non-academic
domains: The case of visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F.
J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 95-110). Pergamon Press.
Xu, J., Shen, L. X., Yan, C. H., Hu, H., Yang, F., Wang, L., Kotha,
S. R., Zhang, L. N., Liao, X. P., Zhang, J., Ouyang, F. X.,
Zhang, J. S., & Shen, X. M. (2012). Personal characteristics
related to the risk of adolescent Internet addiction: A survey in
Shanghai, China. BMC Public Health, 12, Article 1106. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1106
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of
Internet harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent
health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 189-195. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.005
Yen, C.-F., Ko, C.-H., Yen, J. Y., Chang, Y. P., & Cheng, C. P.
(2009). Multi-dimensional discriminative factors for Internet
addiction among adolescents regarding gender and age.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 63(3), 357-364. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.01969.x
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new
clinical disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(3), 237-244.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237
Yun, K., Chung, D., Jang, B., Kim, J. H., & Jeong, J. (2011).
Mathematically gifted adolescents have deficiencies in social
valuation and mentalization. PLOS ONE, 6(4), Article e18224.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018224
Garcia et al.
Zhai, B., Li, D., Jia, J., Liu, Y., Sun, W., & Wang, Y. (2019). Peer
victimization and problematic Internet use in adolescents: The
mediating role of deviant peer affiliation and the moderating
role of family functioning. Addictive Behaviors, 96(September),
43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.016
Zhang, Y., Qin, X., & Ren, P. (2018). Adolescents’ academic engage-
ment mediates the association between Internet addiction and
academic achievement: The moderating effect of classroom
achievement norm. Computers in Human Behavior, 89(December),
299-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.018
Author Biographies
Inmaculada Sureda Garcia holds a PhD in psychopedagogy at the
University of the Balearic Islands. University lecturer in the area of
psychology and education, Department of Applied Education and
Educational Psychology. She has held various academic manage-
ment positions (Secretary of the Psychology Faculty, vice-dean of
Faculty of Education). She is a member of the Research Group I +
DEL: Research, Development, Education, and Language of the
University of the Balearic Islands. The areas of lecturing and
research expertise that have worked in recent years are social and
emotional competencies, peer rejection, and bullying.
Raül López Penádes is an associate professor at the Department of
Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology of the University of
the Balearic Islands. His research interests have generally focused
on human psychophysiological research of fundamental processes
203
of emotion, attention, and motivation and their pathological mani-
festations such as psychopathy, anxiety, and addictive disorders. He
is also interested in studying the role of affective mechanisms in
language development and bilingualism.
Rosabel Rodríguez Rodríguez is PhD in psychopedagogy at the
University of the Balearic Islands. University lecturer in the area of
psychology and education, Department of Applied Education and
Educational Psychology. She has worked in the field of high-intel-
lectual abilities (gifted and talented), the training of university
teachers, coexistence, and school discipline. Her research focuses
on the field of high-intellectual abilities, giftedness, and talent, par-
ticularly about teacher education and training process, and the issue
of school life.
Jaume Sureda Negre holds a PhD in pedagogy at the University of
the Balearic Islands. He has held various academic management
positions (Director of the Institute of Educational Sciences, Vice-
Chancellor, and currently is subdirector of the Department of
Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology). The areas of lec-
turing and research expertise that have worked in recent years are
information literacy, academic integrity, and environmental educa-
tion, topics on which he has published numerous works. Currently,
he is involved in two projects, one on dropout in vocational educa-
tion and the other on preservice teachers training analysis.
Manuscript received: July 08, 2019; Final revision received: March
19, 2020; Accepted: March 25, 2020